The Old Rick Yard, Pamber Green, RG26 3AF

Appeal by Mr AD Fowler regarding the proposed erection of extension to the existing light industrial building to form a hobby shed ancillary to Rickyard Cottage; formation of first floor flat. Change of use from non-ferrous metal scrap recycling yard to ancillary residential.

LPA reference 18/01170/FUL

Site and surrounding area

1. Situated to the West of the A340 Aldermaston Road approximately 0.9km south of Tadley within the boundaries of Pamber Green. To the east there is a residential property known as Pond House, to the west is Ravenscot Farm.

2. To the north and south are open fields, although on the Aldermaston Road frontage on the south side of the access road there is a dwelling (Hawthorn Lodge) with planning permission for an additional dwelling in its garden together with the erection of a commercial workshop (application 17/02202/FUL refers)

3. Rickyard Cottage, which is owned by the applicant is within the southern part of the site. There is also a Grade II listed barn within the site. The use of the barn is restricted to B1c light industrial purposes.

4. There are two existing light industrial units on the northern part of the site together with a static caravan that has been occupied for residential purposes for many years.

5. The light industrial units are used by the applicant in connection with his business activities and his hobby of restoring steam and vintage vehicles.

6. In the northeast corner of the yard where the proposed building would be located there is also an area used as a non-ferrous scrap metal and recycling business. A Certificate of Lawfulness for that use was granted in 2015 (application 14/02951/LDEU)

7. Most of the yard is laid to concrete and other hardstanding materials and access to the yard is to the west of Rickyard Cottage through large metal gates. The proposal 8. The proposal 18/01170/FUL is for the “Erection of extension to the existing industrial building to form a hobby shed ancillary to Rickyard Cottage; formation of first floor flat. Change of use from non-ferrous metal scrap recycling yard to ancillary residential”.

9. The proposed structure would measure 12.5 m in width, 10m in depth and 7.8m in height and the building would be constructed to match the existing industrial buildings with profiled metal sheeting on the walls and roof.

10. The ground floor would be used to accommodate vehicles associated with the applicant’s hobby of restoring steam and vintage vehicles. Some vehicles including a traction engine and showman’s wagon are very large vehicles, hence the need for 4mx4m roller shutter doors for access.

1

11. The first floor would be laid out as a 2-bed flat for the applicant’s son who currently resides in the static caravan.

12. The erection of the extension would necessitate the removal of the static caravan and the cessation of the scrap yard business.

The decision 13. The application was refused for six reasons that may be summarised:

1. Contrary to NPPF (2012) and policies SS1 and SS6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 2. Lack of provision of amenity space and lack of high quality living accommodation. 3. Impact on the setting of the Listed Barn 4. The impact on neighbouring properties 5. The site is upstream of a critical drainage area 6. Potential detrimental noise impact.

14. The reasons for refusal are set out in full in the accompanying decision notice Statement of Case Reason 1.

15. The appeal site is in the village of Pamber Green, but is outside any defined settlement.

16. The spatial strategy for new housing is set out in Policy SS1 of the Local Plan and is based on the allocation of large greenfield sites around the main settlements. Basingstoke has a five year supply of housing land but has consistently under-delivered in the last 7 years. However, policy SS6 ‘New Housing in the Countryside’ allows for exceptions to be approved under six categories.

17. The appeal site falls within the definition of ‘previously developed land’ so part a) of policy SS6 is relevant to this appeal. This is confirmed in the officer’s delegated report.

18. SS6a) states:

Development proposals for new housing outside of Settlement Policy Boundaries will only be permitted where they are: a) On ‘previously developed land’, provided that: i) They do not result in an isolated form of development; and ii) The site is not of high environmental value; and iii) The proposed use and scale of development is appropriate to the site’s context;

19. In the officer’s report it is confirmed that the site is not considered isolated, so there is no conflict with criterion i). Indeed, since the adoption of the Local Plan a number of new houses have been approved in Pamber Green, including the neighbouring dwelling at Hawthorn Lodge, as referenced in paragraph 2 above (yet to be built).

20. In the officer’s report it is also confirmed that the appeal site is not considered to be of ’high environmental value’, so the LPA agrees with the appellant that there is no conflict with criterion ii)

2

i) So with regard to SS6, the LPA’s position is set out by the officer as follows: ‘The application would therefore comply with the definition of being ‘previously developed land’ and would accord with criterions i) and ii) of the Policy SS6a) but however would conflict with criterion iii) given the proposals impacts upon the setting of the nearby listed barn’. The LPA’s position therefore is that ‘the proposed use and scale of development is appropriate to the site’s context’.

21. The appellant does not agree with that assessment insofar as it relates to the setting of the listed barn and will address that allegation in response to Refusal reason No 3 below.

22. It follows that if the Inspector agrees that there would be no material harm to the setting of the barn, then there is no conflict with Policy SS6a).

Reason 2

23. The second reason is in two parts and alleges an absence of amenity space and the lack of high quality living accommodation ‘due to the siting of the dwelling in an industrial area’. This reason overlaps with reason 6 (noise impacts), which is addressed below.

24. With regard to garden space, the appellant did not show an amenity area for the flat because it would be occupied by his son who would have access to the family garden. Nevertheless, there is ample space to provide a garden area adjacent to the family garden, if required.

25. A sketch plan of such an area was submitted to the LPA on 21 June 2018, to ask whether it would address the LPA’s concern, but no response was received. The area shown could be fenced and landscaped and it is considered that it would meet the reasonable needs of the occupants and comply with the LPA’s guidance (appendix 16 to the SPD).

26. The sketch plan accompanies this appeal and shows that an adequate amenity area could be provided to the rear of the appellant’s garden and adjacent to the boundary with the garden of Pond House.

27. With regard to the siting ‘within an industrial area’, the flat would be above a ‘hobby shed’ where the activity would typically be very limited. It would be similar to any householder restoring a car in his/her garage – a labour of love over a very long period, often many years. The only difference here being the size of the vehicles to be restored.

28. The floor between the hobby shed and the flat will be suitably insulated in accordance with Building Regs requirements (thermal and noise insulation). This will also ensure that there is no noise transmission between the ground floor and flat, although it should be emphasised that the hobby shed will not generate noise.

29. Windows to the flat would also need to satisfy the Building Regulations in terms of insulation and ventilation and it is considered that views from the windows over agricultural land to the north and towards the listed barn and Rickyard Cottage to the south will make the flat an attractive place to live, not only for the appellant’s son, but also for any future occupier who would be aware of the surroundings before taking up occupation.

3

30. The appellant carries out his ‘day job’ in the adjacent sheds, which are limited to B1c) use with restricted hours. It is a low-key use with very limited activity and/or vehicular movements. Whilst this might change with a future occupier, the premises will remain in B1c) use with restricted hours.

31. By definition a B1c) use is compatible with residential amenity, so it is considered there is no reason why the use of the existing premises will have an adverse impact on the quality of the proposed living accommodation, as alleged.

Reason 3

32. Although third in the list of reasons, the appellant considers this is the main consideration in this appeal, particularly bearing in mind the overlap with reason 1.

33. Whether the proposed extension would adversely affect the setting of the listed barn is a very subjective consideration. The Inspector will note the relationship from the submitted plans and will assess it further at the appeal site visit.

34. Reference is made to scale, mass and materials. With regard to the latter, the appellant takes the view that the use of modern cladding to match the existing buildings is an entirely appropriate choice in this context, emphasising the contrast between traditional and modern construction – a relationship which the appellant suggests may be found on many farms and former farms where listed buildings are often found next to modern agricultural or commercial sheds.

35. When Inspector Ray Hiscox approved the building of Rickyard Cottage in 2007 (application BDB/65032, appeal ref 2032503) he observed that there was “no evidence that the barn was historically a dominant building within its setting” and stated that “any difference in height between the two buildings would not be significant from whatever angle or perspective viewed, and I see no Reason why the new building should be considered as competing with the barn.”

36. The distance between the dwelling and the barn was noted as 9.5m and the Inspector considered that the relationship would not be “unduly cramped or crowded”. The proposed extension would be no closer than 13.2m from the barn and whilst the LPA considers that any additional building on the site would further harm the setting of the listed barn, the appellant cannot agree.

37. The barn was once associated with Pond House to the east, but that relationship was severed many years ago, so the setting of the barn has changed materially. The barn is a B1c) structure that is close to a modern house and on the edge of a small commercial yard with two modern sheds, built in recent years with the benefit of planning permissions granted by the Council, and also used for B1c) purposes.

38. It is considered that the extension of one of the existing sheds, as proposed, would have no material impact on the setting of the listed barn. The extension would be taller than the listed barn by 0.2m, but that is not considered to be a harmful and it is considered that it would have no impact upon the way in which the barn is seen – the only viewpoint being the road that leads to Ravenscot Farm to the west.

4

39. In the 2007 appeal, the Inspector also noted: “The new building (Rickyard Cottage) being essentially to one side of the barn, the main view towards it, across the access from the lane, would remain open, and more diagonal views are in any case blocked by frontage vegetation”.

40. It is considered that the appeal proposal will have no impact on the ‘main view’ of the barn, and the extension would merely be glimpsed in the background in the context of other modern commercial buildings that make up The Old Rickyard.

41. It is alleged that the proposal would harm the heritage asset and conflict with Local Plan policy EM11 and with the relevant sections of the NPPF, but for the reasons given above, the appellant disagrees and invites the Inspector to concur that there would be no harm to the setting of the listed barn and therefore no conflict with Policy SS6a) above (reason 1).

Reason 4

42. Again this is a subjective matter that the Inspector will assess at the appeal site visit. The allegation is harm to the amenities of the occupiers of both the appellant’s dwelling (Rickyard Cottage) and the neighbouring dwelling Pond House.

43. With regard to the impact on Pond House, the officer’s report clarifies that the LPA’s concern relates to the relationship if the tall evergreen boundary hedge is removed. It is proposed to retain that hedge so that the building would be invisible from the rear garden of Pond House, but even if the hedge was to be topped such that the top part of the building would be visible for the bottom of the neighbour’s garden, that is not considered to be materially harmful.

44. It would certainly not be ‘unsightly’ as suggested in the officer’s report and the platform at the top of the stairs could be provided with screening so that there would be no views of the neighbour’s vegetable patch. The Inspector will note the neighbour’s dwelling is a considerable distance from the proposed extension with intervening structures and vegetation, so the appellant agrees with the LPA that there would be no impact on the neighbour’s dwelling.

45. Whilst no overlooking or loss of privacy to Pond House is alleged, that is the allegation with regard to Rickyard Cottage from the proposed first floor windows. Given that the LPA’s guidance suggests a separation distance of 20m, this allegation does not stand up to scrutiny because the distance would be 33m from building to building.

46. Moreover, the garden of Rickyard Cottage is not so close as to be unreasonably overlooked and the relationship would be better than in many urban and suburban situations where a degree of mutual overlooking is the norm. In this case, the son would overlook the family garden and if it was an issue of concern for any occupier of Rickyard Cottage, some strategic planting at the end of the garden would address the issue.

47. As such the appellant argues there would be no material conflict with Policy EM10 of the Local Plan.

5

Revised NPPF

48. The appellant takes the view that the revised NPPF, which post-dates the Decision, does not have a significant bearing upon the determination of the appeal.

49. The proposal is considered to be NPPF sustainable in all three dimensions

Ian Lasseter DGG Planning Limited August 2018 D4696

6