Planning Public Access
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Jeff Brown BA DipTP MRTPI Headof DevelopmentControl Service TheCouncil House SouthStreet Atherstone Warwickshire NorthWarwickshire CVg1DE BoroughCouncil Switchboard:(01427\ 7 15341 Faxl (01827\719225 AndrewlVurphy EMailr [email protected] StansgatePlanning LLP Website. www-northwarksgov uk Dater 16November 2010 Th6Town & CountryPlannlng Act3 Th€Town and Country Plannlng (Lbted Bulldings .nd CoNervationArsas) Act 1990 TheTown & CountryPlanning (Gensral Oovolopm€nt) Ord€rs Th€Town and Country Plannlng (Control of AdvertBement!) Reguladon3 1992 {e!.mended} ApplicationGorrespondence FullPlanning Application ApplicationRef: PAPI2010/0492 Site Address Easting419078-7 28 Cuttlel,Iill Fisheries Cuttle Mill Lane, Curdworth, Sutton Coldfield,876 Norlhing295130 9PU Descriptionof Development Changeof usefrom domestic and commercial fishery use of buildings1, 2 and 3 to ClassB1 ofiices (building1), Class 91 lightindustry or class88 storage(building 2) and Class98 storage(burlding3) and demolitionot building4! Applicant lHiggins I notethat you havewithdrawn the aboveapplication You will needlo makea tresh applicationif you wish to proceedwith the proposal lf you needany furtheradvice please contact the CaseOfficer on (0'1827)719481 Yoursfaithfully AuthorisedOfilcer PageI of I ts €a eode- \6lu fzoro Nash,Chrig From: Sont 16November 2010 10r'18 To: Nash,Chris Cq lanHiggins SubloctCuttle Mill Fisheries, Cuttle [4ill Lane, Curdworth DearMr Nash, lwouldlike to WITHDRAWplannint application rcf PAP/20fO104.92. Regards, An&Ew Mutphy BA(Hons)MSc MRIPI Assooialo stans4etePlannlng LLP stansgate Slanq.b PMnag LtP is a hntto.thabitity p rnodtlb r8gtste6din Englnd aN Waleswik /,,gs|ei€d ntnbet OC327U? This e-mail hasbeen scanned for all virusesby Star.The serviceis poweredby Messagelabs.For more information on a proactive a.oti-virusservice working aroundthe clock, aroundthe globe,visit: http:/ ^'ww.star.net.uk t6^t/2010 PageI of3 Nash.Chris From: Nash,Chris Scnt 15November 2010 17.02 To: 'AndrewMulphy' Cc: lanHiggins subjoct:RE: Cuttle Mill Fishedes AfternoonAndrew Apologiesfor the latereply as I wason leavelast week and have had a ratherhectic day of meetings andcatching up today. I havelooked at ECON9atain, and note your comments. However, whilst I havenot beenable to referthis to our HeritaSeofficer, I disagreewith the opinionthat the meritsofthe buildingoutweigh ^ the firstthree qualifying criteria. The fourth criterion states: "lffespedive of theforegoing, a odoptotion ond rc-useis theonly meonsol preventingthe lossor deteriorotionol o listedbuilding, or of o building thdt mokesdn essentiolconvibution to the grcupvolue ol listed buildingsond their setting, or ol o building thot woftonts rctention becouseof its uniquelocol orchiteciurolor historic intercstor cont butionto thelondscope." this criterionha5 three applications - a listedbuildin& a buildinScontributinS to a groupof listedbuildings, or a buildingof uniquelocal architectural or historicalinterest. The fi.st two arenot applicable.The third wouldonly apply here if the buildinS hada locallyunique architecture (i.e. it canonly befound in this area).This i5 not the case,with the vernaculaacommon on historicalfarms across much ofthe country,and I am stillnot convincedthe deteriorationis sogreat here to warrantretention - it iswell maintainedand can be usedfor storagesafely. There is no evidencebefore me eitherthat it hassitnificant historical interest. Stayingwith yourcomments on this policytest,lcannot see where the policl makesallowance for non-compliancewith the economicand residential cascades ofobjectives ifthe fourthqualirying criterionappfies. Part 2 stales"f thebuilding is deemedto be suitoblefor odoptotionond re-use in occordoncewith the lorcgolnE crlterh, the use to which the buildingmoy be put will be detemined hovingregotd to the extentto which it is copobleoJ lullilling thefollowing odet of lond use objectives".lhisis an inclusivestatement - of all 4 qualifyinBcriterion - andnot just the first 3, such that the cascadesdo apply. My commentsin respectof farmdiversitication were not enti.elyworded how I wishedto convey them.What I wastrying to saythat farmdiversification had occurred, in the 60t, to c.eatethe fisheries.That diversification, in effect,still persists. However, in the meantimethe farming enterprisehas ceased to exist.In termsof ECON9,I cannot see how a movementaway from this continuingdiversification (irrespective ofwhether the farmstill exists today)can be justified, since thisdiversification clearly continues to beself sustaining. Notwithstanding this, the fisheries businessalso falls under (vii) ofthe policy(quiet recreational pursuitr), and this sits above the employmentprovision objective. I wouldhave no problem with building 3 to beused as the storage and stockinS tanks for the fisheries,in turn freeingup building1 for offices.However, with referenceto myfirst two paraSraphsabove, the sustainability issues and hi8her objectives of ECON9take prio.ity to this consideration. ts/|/2010 Page2 of3 Pleaseadvise on how youwish to proceedno laterthan middaytomorrow, so I mayprepare a reportand meet the postalcut off if necessary. Regards Ciris Nasfi. MA,BSc (Hons) PlanningControl fusirtant e:[email protected] I t: (01827) 719481 | f: (018271719225 tAPleaseconslde.the envt.onnent befo.e prlntlnt this€hall Adviceis given at officerlevel only and do€s not prejudiceany tormaldecision the Councilmakes In the future. Santi 09 November2010 18:02 To! Nash,Chris Ccr Ian Higqhs Ssbr€ct RE:Cutue lllll Fisheries DearChris, Thankyou for the helpfulresponseand words ofadvice. However, befoae deciding what to do nextlwould eppreciateclarity on a coupleof points: Firstly,ldo not atreethat the buildingf"ilsthe "deterioration'test of PolicyECON9. The building is unique (showme anotherexactly like it) andbehind the inappropriate2otn century rendering etc it warrants retention.The building deterioaates because it is unheatedand underutilised. The buildint does not needto beon the veGeofcollapse to Bainthe "enablindadvanta8e ofthis policy,rimply that it is deteriorating. Furthermore.the opportunityfor adaptationand re-use afforded by this p.rt of ECON9does not requirea cascadeofend uses(localservices, recreation, of{ices, residenti. I etc); simply that a productiveend use securesthe longterm futureofthe building.lf thisanalysis is correct,the rustainabilityobjection falls away. Theopinion ofthe HeritageOfficer would be appreciated.Could you pleasereconsideryour view. In addition,the restorationofthe historicfacades complement the enhancementobiective of part4 of Policy ECON9. Secondly,you relerto "existingfarm diversification,datin8 from the 1960sto providethe fish€ries"and "farmdiversification is clearlypossible...' That being the case,the applicantis ableto relocatethe storage andstocking tanks to building3. As you say,the buildinSis/was unde.-utilised. ooors can be erectedon the front of building3 to providesecu.ity. A.e yousatisfied with this relocation? In5olving this problem,the conversionof buildint1 to officescan be described as "Farm diversification, in accordancewith policyECON8.": 'Ptoposols for fom diveRifiaotionwi be pemitted prcviding thelollowing uite.io ore het: (i) fhe proposol,in tenns ol its scole,noturc.locotion ond loyout would contibute towords sustoiningthe long temoperction ond vidbility of the existingtom holding. (ii) fhe oposolwouldnot couseony odditionol imrydiment to?he sole ond frce movementol ped5tion, vehiculotot othet trcJficon the rurc| rcod netwotk, potticulo y os o rcsult of heovy vehicleusoge. (iii) Thercwould be no odveBeimpoct on the chdroctetofthe suftoundingnotuml dnd histotic envionment ond no demonstrcblehon would be cousedto the living ot wo*ing conditionsoJ neighbouing occupieEot to the vitolity ond viobility ol exitting shops,seNices ot otherlocilities l5/Lv2010 Page3 of3 in the locolseNlce centrcs," I appreciatethat "Projectswill be supportedwhere the proposeduse will enablethe aontinuedoperation of the farm. Applicantswill needto demonstratethls linkwhen submitting applicatlons." There is certainlya closeSeographical link between bulldlnt 1 andthe sufioundlngflshery uses. A financialappraisal can demonstratethat forecastrental income from offlceswlll supportthe longterm operationand viability ofthe fisherylarm. lt reemstome the conversionof building1to ofllcesIn the.ir.umstances descdbed above wouldbe the preferredsolutlon of PollcvECON9. I lookforward to your reply. AndrewMuAhy BA(Hons) MSc MR|PI SlansgatePlanning LLP stansgEte SbnqalE Plfioiag LLP E.Iinit d liabllitt p..ttoEhip ttgislFt d in Endun .N W.Es wl r,gBbt d hunb.. OC327U9 t5/Lt/2010 PageI of I Naeh,Chris From: Nash,Chris Sgnt: 05November2010 08:40 Sublsct: FW:Applrcationforplanning ermisson Ref. No PAP/2010/0492- Cuttle Mill Fisheries, Curdworth Attachments:'100492 Response pdf MornintAndrew Highwaycomments attached. In lightof myprevious email, and me being on leavenext week, could you advise me ASAP on how youwish to proceedwith this application? Regards ChrisNesh MA, BSc(Hons) PlanningControl Assistant e: [email protected] t: (01827) 719481 | t: (07827].779225 rAPleaseconsiderthe environmenr b€lore printlng thls enall Adviceis Civen at officerlevel only and does not prejudiceany formal decision the Councilrnakes in the future Sentr02 November2010 15:40 subjece Applicationfor planningpermission Ref. No. PAP/2010/0492- cuttle l.4illFisheries, curdwoth GoodAfternoon Pleasesee attachedPDF for comments: Regards Tony Burrows HighwayControl Engineer