Schedule of Planning Applications

Committee and Date Item Paper

Area Regulatory Committee

14th July 2009 Public

SCHEDULE OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS

Background Papers:

For each application for planning permission, the background papers consist of the Development Management application file number referred to.

Page 1 of 60 14th July 2009

INDEX Application Number Proposal Address

1. BR/APP/FUL/09/0088 Amended scheme of conversion Home Farm Barns of barn a into a dwelling Home Farm Astley Abbotts

2. BR/APP/FUL/09/0089 Amended scheme of conversion Barns B & C Home of barns b and c into two Farm Barns Astley dwellings Abbotts

3. BR/APP/LBC/09/0090 Amended scheme of internal and Barns A B And C external alterations to convert Home Farm barns into three dwellings

4. BR/APP/FUL/09/0092 Erection of a replacement Broad Acres Farm dwelling Benthall Broseley

5. BR/APP/FUL/09/0146 Change of use to residential care Hoards Park home for the elderley Cantern Bank Bridgnorth

6. BR/APP/LBC/09/0147 Internal alterations Hoards Park Farm Cantern Bank Bridgnorth

7. 09/00034/FUL Installation of Air Conditioning 4 Victoria Road Units Shifnal Shropshire

8. 09/00267/VAR Removal of condition 4 of Ashfield Farm Planning Permission 05/0422 Ashfield Road Conversion of farm buildings into Ditton Priors 3 x holiday homes and garage, to allow permanent residential occupation 9. 09/00714/FUL Erection of a two storey building New Childcare with external staircase to be used Centre Off as a Childcare Centre, together Uplands Drive with detached double garage and Bridgnorth store shed; formation of a new vehicular access road and parking area 10. 09/00765/FUL Erection of an attached flat roofed Meadow Bank double garage and storage area Neen Savage Cleobury Mortimer

Page 2 of 60 Application No. 1

Development Management Report

Application Number: BR/APP/FUL/09/0088 Parish: Astley Abbotts

Grid Ref: 70939597

Proposal: Amended scheme of conversion of barn a into a dwelling

Site Address: Home Farm Barns Home Farm Astley Abbotts WV16 4SW

Applicant: Halley Homes Ltd

Case Officer: Mike Clough email: [email protected]

1.0 THEPROPOSAL 1.1 Planning permission and listed building consent have previously been granted (see section 5.0 below) to convert farm buildings associated with a grade II listed former farmhouse into three dwellings. The development has been undertaken, but with variations from each of the approved schemes (the listed building consent differed from the planning permission). The development has proceeded without the various discrepancies being rectified and the application has been made to regularise the as-built conversion of Barn ‘A’, now completed and occupied as ‘The Fold’. Concurrent applications have been made to regularise the conversion of Barns ’B’ and ‘C’ (09/0089) and for listed building consent for the completed works to these ‘curtilage listed buildings’ (09/0090).

2.0 SITE LOCATION/DESCRIPTION 2.1 The house and buildings of the former Home Farm are located on the east side of the village road and at the southern extremity of the settlement. The former farmhouse, a grade II listed building, is located to the north of the buildings and set back from the road. The buildings closest to the house form a quadrangle with a two storey range along the roadside; a single storey range returning along the north side boundary between the central ‘courtyard’ and the front garden of the house; a second single storey range along the opposite side which contains a link to a previously separate building; and a still separate, free-standing building enclosing the fourth (east) side. The original farmyard access divides these buildings from more buildings along the southern boundary with open farmland beyond and comprising both single and two storey elements combined to form a single dwelling (Barn ‘C’, now known as ‘Two Oaks’) and a shared range of garages. The northern section of the site frontage building together with the single storey range adjacent to the farmhouse garden is Barn ‘A’; Barn ‘B’ (Captains Barn) comprises the southern section of the site frontage building together with the linked single storey buildings; and the separate building on the east side (Paddock Barn) is currently being converted into a further dwelling.

Page 3 of 60 3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1 That permission be granted subject to a condition withholding permission for two additional rooflights on the west elevation and one on the east elevation;

3.2 That authority be given for enforcement action to secure their removal. 4.0 REASON FOR COMMITTEE 4.1 In accordance with the ‘Scheme of Delegation’, the application is referred to Members because the Parish Council has raised an objection.

5.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY 5.1 Planning permission (03/0549) was granted in September 2003 to convert most of the traditional range of brick and tile farm buildings into three dwellings using the existing vehicular access which served the buildings and the house. A revised scheme of conversion was the subject of listed building consent (05/0168) granted in May 2005. The conversion of Paddock Barn into a separate dwelling was the subject of planning permission (08/0250) and listed building consent (08/0251) granted in May 2008. 6.0 CONSULTEE RESPONSES 6.1 Highways Development Control – no objections 6.2 Astley Abbotts Parish Council – objection;  Cars are being parked on the road frontage and not within the site; the area has been gravelled without permission being sought. ` 7.0 AGENTS SUPPORTING STATEMENT  Application to ratify changes made at variance with original planning permission;  Changes are within original design concept to maintain character of converted agricultural buildings in a courtyard formation and sympathetic to listed farmhouse;  Site is within village boundary and within the development boundary identified in the 1994 Local Plan but now superseded;  The agricultural use ceased approximately nine years ago  Access is via the existing driveway entrance off the public road and passes the frontage buildings to the area at the rear; the agricultural access to farmland at the rear has been re-routed outside the residential site by means of a separate previous permission; access and vehicular circulation in and around the development has been designed to reflect the rural setting and typical nature of farmyard and barn conversion ethos; traffic flow would not be significantly increased by change from agricultural to domestic.  Have received nothing but praise from Parish Council and local residents for converting an eyesore at entrance to village into very attractive development; occupiers are happy with their homes.

Page 4 of 60 8.0 PUBLIC REPRESENTATIONS 8.1 Neighbours – 1 support  The buildings are sympathetic to village surroundings and complement the listed farmhouse;  The barns comprise a tasteful blend of original and subtle alternative materials; a vast improvement over the previous dilapidated structures and a lasting representation of farm buildings as they would have been;  There are no changes required to improve authenticity and changes could now detract from the three barn scheme which has cohesion and character.

8.2 Occupier of Barn ‘A’  keeping the barns in their current state will suit all parties concerned and avoid any further disruption.

9.0 PLANNING POLICY 9.1 Central Government Guidance: PPS7 - Sustainable Development in Rural Areas PPG15 - Planning and the Historic Environment West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy Policies: 9.2 RR2 - The Rural Regeneration Zone QE5 - Protection and Enhancement of the Historic Environment 9.3 Bridgnorth District Local Plan: CN1 - Listed Buildings RD2 – Conversion of Rural Buildings D1 – General Development Criteria 10.0 THEMAINPLANNINGISSUES It is considered that the main issues in this case are:  Impact of the amended conversion scheme on the character and appearance of the buildings  The adequacy of car parking provision on the site 11.0 OFFICERAPPRAISAL 11.1 Impact of the amended conversion scheme on the character and appearance of the buildings The roadside elevation as built has fewer new openings in the walls than originally permitted but there are two additional rooflights serving an ensuite bathroom and first floor landing, neither of which is considered to be necessary and both being detrimental to the agricultural character of the building are unlikely to have been approved if prior consent had been sought. The rear wall elevation as built is considered to be more sympathetic as more of the original openings have been retained and re-used. However two additional

Page 5 of 60 rooflights have been installed, one serving an ensuite bathroom and one serving a bedroom. The latter is considered to be reasonably required even though the bedroom already has one rooflight approved; the former (in the ensuite) is not considered necessary for the same reason as stated for the front elevation Internally the scheme as built also differs from the planning permission and listed building consent; the original timber framework has however been reasonably respected, even though ground floor internal walls have been moved or rebuilt in block work, unfortunately resulting in loss of the historic record of the building. Of greater concern is the treatment of the rear external wall which has retained the timber framing on the inside but is now augmented by a new cavity wall with timber horizontal boarding externally. The original permission and consent envisaged repair of the timber frame reclad with boarding. As built, the repaired timber frame is arguably more protected but the relationship of the thickened wall to the eaves has been altered to the detriment of the character of the building. It is however considered that the level of disruption to the occupiers of the house necessary to rectify the rear wall would not be in the common good; however on this point, Members might wish to consider the case for prosecution for unauthorised works resulting in loss of historic fabric. 11.2 The adequacy of car parking provision on the site Although the Parish Council objection is not directly relevant to the proposed amended scheme of conversion, Members will wish to be aware of the situation. Provision has been made within the development for three pairs of garages to serve the dwellings together with an external parking space for barn ‘B’ and at least two spaces each within the separate curtilages of barn ‘C’ and Paddock Barn. Furthermore, in connection with planning permission 08/0250 for Paddock Barn, provision is being made to provide at least two shared visitor parking spaces and a turning area to serve the Home Farm Barns development as a whole. This scale of provision is considered to be adequate to serve the day to day parking requirements. The roadside parking either on the carriageway or on the grassed (now partly gravelled) frontage which is highway verge is outside planning control and a matter for the police or the Council as highway authority. 12.0 CONCLUSION/REASON FOR APPROVAL 12.1 The barn conversion already has planning permission and is therefore acceptable in principle and the amended/as-built scheme of conversion, with the exception of a small number of rooflights for which permission is withheld, would not adversely affect the character and appearance of the buildings sufficiently, in the particular circumstances of the case, to warrant refusal. 13.0 HUMAN RIGHTS Article 8 give the right to respect for private and family life and First Protocol Article 1 allows for the peaceful enjoyment of possessions. These have to be balanced against the rights and freedoms of others and the orderly development of the County in the interests of the Community. First Protocol Article 1 requires that the desires of landowners must be balanced against the impact of development upon nationally important features and the impact on residents.

Page 6 of 60 This legislation has been taken into account in arriving at the above recommendation.

Reason for Approval

Conditions

1. The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the deposited plan numbers 7096/401B, 403A, 414, 415 and 416. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans and details.

2. This permission relates to the conversion of barn A only and shall not be construed as a grant of planning permission for any other development shown on the approved plans. Reason: To define the permission for the avoidance of doubt.

3. Notwithstanding the number of rooflights shown on the approved plans, this permission does not grant approval for those on the west elevation which serve the en-suite to bedroom 1 and the void space over the foot of the stairs and on the east elevation that which serves the ensuite to bedroom 2. Reason: To safeguard the character of the building.

Page 8 of 60 Application No. 2 Development Management Report

Application No: FUL/09/0089 Parish: Astley Abbotts

Grid Ref: 7093 9597

Application for: Planning Permission (Full) Development: Retention of amended scheme of conversion of barns B and C into two dwellings and an attached building into garages Site: Barns B and C, Home Farm Barns, Astley Abbotts Applicant: Halley Homes Limited

1.0 THEPROPOSAL 1.1 Planning permission and listed building consent have previously been granted (see section 5.0 below) to convert farm buildings associated with a grade II listed former farmhouse into three dwellings. The development has been undertaken, but with variations from each of the approved schemes (the listed building consent differed from the planning permission). The development has proceeded without the various discrepancies being rectified and the application has been made to regularise the as-built conversion of Barns B and C, now completed and occupied as ‘Captains Barn’ and ‘Two Oaks’ respectively, and the conversion of an attached building into garages. A concurrent application (09/0088) has been made relating to Barn A (see previous report) as well as an application (09/0090) for listed building consent relating to all three dwellings (see the next report).

2.0 SITE LOCATION/DESCRIPTION 2.1 This is the same location as referred to in the previous report relating to application 09/0088.

3.0 RECOMMENDATION 3.1 It is recommended that: 1. permission be refused for the reasons set out at the end of the report; and 2. authority be given for enforcement action to secure the removal of a number of rooflights from Barns B and C and the garage roofspaces; to reconstruct the ‘link’ block to coincide with listed building consent 05/0168, to secure the removal of the garage doors and to adjust the position and construction of openings in the south elevation of Barn B to reflect the listed building consent.

4.0 REASON FOR COMMITTEE 4.1 In accordance with the ‘Scheme of Delegation’, the application is referred to Members because the Parish Council has raised an objection.

Page 9 of 60 5.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY 5.1 Planning permission (03/0549) was granted in September 2003 to convert most of the traditional range of brick and tile farm buildings into three dwellings using the existing vehicular access which served the buildings and the house. A revised scheme of conversion was the subject of listed building consent (05/0168) granted in May 2005. The conversion of Paddock Barn into a separate dwelling was the subject of planning permission (08/0250) and listed building consent (08/0251) granted in May 2008.

6.0 CONSULTEE RESPONSES 6.1 Highways Development Control :  complaint received from a nearby resident so aware of parking associated with the development causing problems on the highway; one site resident has formed an extra personal parking space on the verge and surfaced it;  garage space is generally not used for parking cars but often for general storage resulting in need to park vehicles elsewhere which on this site would compound parking on the highway issues; carports however are generally used for intended purposes due to open nature and ease of access;  therefore recommend that proposed amendment to garage block to provide up-and-over doors rather than open carports is not approved.

6.2 Astley Abbotts Parish Council – objection;  the original Barn B Annex (Barn D) has been joined with a new link – an extension which is contrary to policy;  Barn C roofline has been changed to accommodate the upstairs; on the original plans there was a garage now living accommodation;  Inadequate parking arrangements on site;  A new access off the farm track does not have planning permission.

7.0 AGENTS SUPPORTING STATEMENT  Application to ratify changes made at variance with original listed building consent (and planning permission);  Changes are within original design concept to maintain character of converted agricultural buildings in a courtyard formation and sympathetic to listed farmhouse;  Site is within village boundary and within the development boundary identified in the 1994 Local Plan but now superseded;  The agricultural use ceased approximately nine years ago;  Access is via the existing driveway entrance off the public road and passes the frontage buildings to the area at the rear; the agricultural access to farmland at the rear has been re-routed outside the residential site by means of a separate previous permission; access and vehicular circulation in and around the development has been designed to reflect the rural setting and typical nature of farmyard and barn conversion ethos; traffic flow would not be significantly increased by change from agricultural to

Page 10 of 60 domestic;  Have received nothing but praise from Parish Council and local residents for converting an eyesore at entrance to village into very attractive development; occupiers are happy with their homes;  With regard to rooflights on the garage block, those associated with Barns ‘A’ and ‘B’ could be repositioned onto north elevation facing the drive, although would be disruptive to do so; however, 2 rooflights serving the bedroom in Barn C could not be repositioned due to large RSJ beams supporting the roof and not able to conform to Building Regulation for fire escape.

8.0 PUBLIC REPRESENTATIONS 8.1 Neighbours – 1 support  Keeping the barns in their current state will suit all parties concerned and avoid any further disruption.

Occupiers of Barn ‘B’ 8.2  The buildings are sympathetic to village surroundings and complement the listed farmhouse;  The barns comprise a tasteful blend of original and subtle alternative materials; a vast improvement over the previous dilapidated structures and a lasting representation of farm buildings as they would have been;  There are no changes required to improve authenticity and changes could now detract from the three barn scheme which has cohesion and character.

9.0 PLANNING POLICY 9.1 Central Government Guidance: PPS7 - Sustainable Development in Rural Areas PPG15 - Planning and the Historic Environment

9.2 West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy Policies: RR2 - The Rural Regeneration Zone QE5 - Protection and Enhancement of the Historic Environment

9.3 Bridgnorth District Local Plan: CN1 - Listed Buildings RD2 – Conversion of Rural Buildings D1 – General Development Criteria

Page 11 of 60 10.0 THEMAINPLANNINGISSUES It is considered that the main issues in this case are:  Impact of the amended conversion scheme on the character and appearance of the buildings  The adequacy of car parking provision on the site

11.0 OFFICERAPPRAISAL 11.1 Impact of the amended conversion scheme on the character and appearance of the buildings The road (west) elevation of Barn B as built is similar to that originally permitted but there are extra roof lights; one to an additional en suite bathroom (bedroom 2) and one to the first floor landing. The as-built plan is considered to be much more respectful of the listed building interior than the permitted plan, but It is considered that a single roof light on the road elevation would be reasonable only in each of Bedroom 1 and the main landing; and that the revised first floor plan only has a need for two roof lights, not the five indicated.

The “as built” east elevation shows an extra roof light to the repositioned bathroom with the three previously permitted roof lights serving the revised plan at first floor; It is not considered that the extra roof light is necessary, especially when the whole of the roofscape is considered to Barns A and B. PPG15 is clear on the need to avoid loss of character and appearance due to incremental small changes that add up to a large change in character; The elevation in terms of fewer openings in the wall is considered to be beneficial to retention of agricultural character even though the position of these openings has changed. Due to the change in construction of this east wall, they are now built into a brand new wall rather than within the timber frame, which has been preserved internally (as explained in comments for Barn A in the previous report).

The “as built” north elevation has gained two roof lights as a result of the insertion of an ensuite and dressing room to bedroom 1. Whilst the change to the first floor plan may be acceptable, the provision of a further two roof lights is not; When seen along with the east elevation the number of roof lights overall is excessive.

Barn B consists of two original barns that have been joined by a link structure. The link structure was given listed building consent in 2005 with the ridge line below that of the adjoining two barn structures to retain the historic character of two separate barns. Because the link ridgeline has been increased in height to match the originally detached single-storey barn, the visual separation of the previously approved scheme has been lost which alters the historic record and the character of the listed building to an unacceptable degree. Furthermore, the link was to have been fully glazed but “as built” is timber boarded and therefore visually closed, at odds with the

Page 12 of 60 character of the previously open access between the two barns and not acceptable in historic terms.

The south elevation shows that the windows and personnel door in the “as built” kitchen have been lowered significantly, which does not reflect the historic position of these openings. When the previous consent was given this space was planned as the family room with all openings retained at their original heights and positions. Furthermore the stone element of this elevation has two openings within it, as previously consented except that they now show brick jambs. These are not an original detail on the buildings and are not considered acceptable.

The original cast iron columns to the originally detached barn, now part of Barn B, have been removed and replaced with brick piers; as have the consented oak posts due to have been placed in the main barn (north elevation). No justification has been received for this significant change to the structure. In order to return to the previously consented scheme however a significant amount of disruption would have to be caused to a central area of the barn and so is not considered to be expedient to pursue this particular aspect even though if the current proposals had been submitted prior to being constructed, the recommendation would have been to reject the scheme on the basis of loss of historic fabric, character and appearance.

The first floor plan of Barn C has been substantially altered in terms of overall size/footprint. It has been extended to incorporate the storage area in the car port block as bedroom 2, enabling bedroom 3 and the main bathroom to be substantially enlarged; with consequences for the external appearance of the barn and the car port block in terms of the number and position of roof lights. The most public view of these barns as a group is from the south and the west on approaching the village. The altered first floor plans result in an increase in roof light provision from a previously agreed 5 to 8 and the car port block did not have any permission for the installation of roof lights in either long elevation which now has a total of five large roof lights considered to be detrimental to the character and appearance of this building as a barn now appearing domestic in character. The permitted use of the roof space in the car port building was secure storage only since the planning permission did not consent to doors being put on the car ports to form garages. It appears that these storage areas are now being utilised as extra/ancillary living accommodation for the three dwellings, for which permission has not been granted. The installation of roof lights into storage areas is not considered necessary, especially as it compromises the agricultural character of the building. If the bedroom accommodation is to be agreed for the extension of Barn C then natural light and a secondary means of escape is required which might be possible to provide on the north pitch of the roof which would be less intrusive on the landscape and on the barn itself.

The buildings are now sold and occupied which needs to be taken into account when considering the way forward. However the fact that works were carried out to the listed buildings that did not have permission and had not even been discussed with the planning officer or the conservation officer, means that in law

Page 13 of 60 these works are unauthorised. This is a criminal offence under the Planning(Listed buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and Members need to consider whether prosecution should be brought against the perpetrator as a separate issue to whether or not the unauthorised works in whole or in part should be rectified by enforcement action.

11.2 The adequacy of car parking provision on the site In this case the Parish Council simply refer to inadequate parking arrangements on the site; an issue addressed in the Officer Appraisal on the last report which concluded that parking provision is adequate to serve the day to day parking requirements; partly however on the basis that garages have been provided. Highways Development Control have recommended that the garage doors should be removed to reinstate open carports. On the basis of this advice, it is considered that enforcement action should be taken to ensure that open carports remain available; particularly in view of the narrow nature of the village road and the fact that floors have been installed within the garage block to provide for additional domestic accommodation including storage.

12.0 CONCLUSION 12.1 It is considered that there are many items in this development that would not have received listed building consent or planning permission if applied for before construction. The Officer Appraisal above considers most of those items and although it is suggested that some could be accepted, refusal of planning permission is considered to be warranted and enforcement action to be expedient.

13.0 HUMAN RIGHTS Article 8 give the right to respect for private and family life and First Protocol Article 1 allows for the peaceful enjoyment of possessions. These have to be balanced against the rights and freedoms of others and the orderly development of the County in the interests of the Community. First Protocol Article 1 requires that the desires of landowners must be balanced against the impact of development upon nationally important features and the impact on residents. This legislation has been taken into account in arriving at the above recommendation.

Reason for refusal

1. The alterations and extensions are considered to be detrimental to the original rural and agricultural appearance and historic character of the listed buildings, by reason in particular of the excessive number of roof lights, the altered position and construction of wall openings in the south elevation of Barn B and the inappropriate dimensions and design of the link block in Barn B containing utility, wc and lobby.

Page 14 of 60 2. The installation of garage doors is likely to give rise to a reduction or loss of use of the previously permitted open carports resulting in the need for vehicles to park outside the site on the public highway adversely affecting the free flow of traffic on the narrow village road to the detriment of highway safety.

Page 15 of 60 Application No. 3 DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

Application No: LBC/09/0090 Parish: Astley Abbotts

Grid Ref: 7093 9597

Application for: Listed Building Consent (LBC) Development: Retention of amended scheme of internal and external alterations to convert barns into three dwellings and garages Site: Barns A,B and C, Home Farm Barns, Astley Abbotts Applicant: Halley Homes Limited

1.0 THEPROPOSAL 1.1 This is a combination of the same development proposals described in the previous two reports which dealt with the concurrent applications for planning permission.

2.0 SITE LOCATION/DESCRIPTION 2.1 This is the same location as referred to in the previous report relating to application 09/0088.

3.0 RECOMMENDATION 3.1 It is recommended that: 3. permission be refused for the reasons set out at the end of the report; and 4. authority be given for enforcement action to secure the removal of a number of rooflights from Barns B and C and the garage roofspaces; to reconstruct the ‘link’ block roof to coincide with listed building consent 05/0168 to secure the removal of the garage doors and to adjust the position and construction of openings in the south elevation of Barn B to reflect the listed building consent.

4.0 REASON FOR COMMITTEE 4.1 In accordance with the ‘Scheme of Delegation’, the application is referred to Members because the Parish Council has raised an objection. 5.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY 5.1 Planning permission (03/0549) was granted in September 2003 to convert most of the traditional range of brick and tile farm buildings into three dwellings using the existing vehicular access which served the buildings and the house. A revised scheme of conversion was the subject of listed building consent (05/0168) granted in May 2005. The conversion of Paddock Barn into a separate dwelling was the subject of planning permission (08/0250) and listed building consent (08/0251) granted in May 2008.

Page 16 of 60 6.0 CONSULTEE RESPONSES 6.1 Astley Abbotts Parish Council – objection;  the original Barn B Annex (Barn D) has been joined with a new link – an extension which is contrary to policy;  Barn C roofline has been changed to accommodate the upstairs; on the original plans there was a garage now living accommodation.

7.0 AGENTS SUPPORTING STATEMENT  Application to ratify changes made at variance with original listed building consent;  Changes are within original design concept to maintain character of converted agricultural buildings in a courtyard formation and sympathetic to listed farmhouse;  Site is within village boundary and within the development boundary identified in the 1994 Local Plan but now superseded;  The agricultural use ceased approximately nine years ago;  Access is via the existing driveway entrance off the public road and passes the frontage buildings to the area at the rear; the agricultural access to farmland at the rear has been re-routed outside the residential site by means of a separate previous permission; access and vehicular circulation in and around the development has been designed to reflect the rural setting and typical nature of farmyard and barn conversion ethos; traffic flow would not be significantly increased by change from agricultural to domestic.  Have received nothing but praise from Parish Council and local residents for converting an eyesore at entrance to village into very attractive development; occupiers are happy with their homes;  With regard to rooflights on the garage block, those associated with Barns ‘A’ and ‘B’ could be repositioned onto north elevation facing the drive, although would be disruptive to do so; however, 2 rooflights serving the bedroom in Barn C could not be repositioned due to large RSJ beams supporting the roof and not able to conform to Building Regulation for fire escape.

8.0 PUBLIC REPRESENTATIONS 8.1 Occupiers of Barns ‘A’ and ‘B’  The buildings are sympathetic to village surroundings and complement the listed farmhouse;  The barns comprise a tasteful blend of original and subtle alternative materials; a vast improvement over the previous dilapidated structures and a lasting representation of farm buildings as they would have been;  There are no changes required to improve authenticity and changes could now detract from the three barn scheme which has cohesion and character.  Keeping the barns in their current state will suit all parties concerned and

Page 17 of 60 avoid any further disruption.

9.0 PLANNING POLICY 9.1 Central Government Guidance: PPS7 - Sustainable Development in Rural Areas PPG15 - Planning and the Historic Environment

9.2 West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy Policies: RR2 - The Rural Regeneration Zone QE5 - Protection and Enhancement of the Historic Environment

9.3 Bridgnorth District Local Plan: CN1 - Listed Buildings RD2 – Conversion of Rural Buildings D1 – General Development Criteria

10.0 THEMAINPLANNINGISSUES It is considered that the main issue in this case is:  Impact of the amended conversion scheme on the character and appearance of the buildings

11.0 OFFICERAPPRAISAL 11.1 Impact of the amended conversion scheme on the character and appearance of the buildings The impact has already been described in paragraphs 11.1 of each of the two previous reports.

12.0 CONCLUSION

Page 18 of 60 recommendation.

Reason for refusal

Page 19 of 60 Application No. 4

Development Management Report

Application Number: BR/APP/FUL/09/0092 Parish: Barrow

Grid Ref: 66580294

Proposal: Erection of a replacement dwelling

Site Address: Broad Acres Farm Benthall Broseley TF12 5RA

Applicant: Mr J Knott

Case Officer: Mike Clough email: [email protected]

1.0 THEPROPOSAL 1.1 The application is to replace a former farm dwelling until recently occupied without agricultural connections with a new house following severe damage by fire in late 2007.

2.0 SITE LOCATION/DESCRIPTION 2.1 Broadacres Farm is located in an area of open countryside served by the narrow Spout Lane which leaves Bridge Road at the northern edge of Broseley Wood and is mainly outside the Local Plan development boundary around Broseley. The lane serves a small number of dwellings before reaching the narrow access track to the farm which comprises an extensive area of open grazing fields partly enclosed by surrounding woodland. A public footpath which is a continuation of Spout Lane skirts the southern and westerly edge of the land. The farmhouse and a range of buildings including a traditional brick and tile barn, a pole barn of corrugated sheeting, a modern hay barn and 11 stables in small buildings of varied construction form a group at the end of the track.

3.0 RECOMMENDATION 3.1 Permit with conditions

4.0 REASON FOR COMMITTEE 4.1 In accordance with the ‘Scheme of Delegation’, the application is referred to Members because the Parish Council has raised an objection.

5.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY 5.1 Two previous applications made during 2008 for a replacement dwelling were withdrawn in the absence of a ground investigation report which was required as a consequence of the site being located within a Mineral Consideration Area identified as an area where shallow historic mining may have occurred without record.

Page 20 of 60 6.0 CONSULTEE RESPONSES 6.1 Highways Development Control – no objection:  The public highway is a single track no through road up to the point where a private lane branches off to the site; vehicle movements generated by the dwelling are not likely to change from those of the existing building.

Barrow Parish Council – objection:  Do not consider proposed building to be a replacement but a completely 6.2 new build;  Design is inappropriate and not sympathetic to the area.

7.0 AGENTS SUPPORTING STATEMENT  Original ‘existing’ property was struck by lightning;  Current footprint is 106 square metres external area; proposed dwelling is fractionally smaller;  Original ridge height was 7.381 metres but highest part collapsed following lightning strike; highest ridge line of proposal is reduced to 7.232 metres;  Have however raised eaves line to give more usable space on first floor; proposed eaves still however lower than eaves on that part struck by lightning;  On reflection feel replacement suitably proportioned to fall within the design envelope of the original building;  Would like to position replacement further back on site because current building position impinges on access into farm and directly links to single storey agricultural building; applicant wishes to separate house from agricultural buildings; understand policy requires siting on existing footprint to avoid two properties existing at the same time but willing to accept condition requiring demolition as pre-development condition.

8.0 PUBLIC REPRESENTATIONS 8.1 No representations have been received from third parties.

9.0 PLANNING POLICY 9.1 Central Government Guidance: PPS7 – Sustainable Development in Rural Areas

9.2 West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy Policies: RR2 – The Rural Regeneration Zone CF2 - Housing Beyond the Major Urban Areas

Page 21 of 60 9.3 Local Plan: H9 – Replacement Dwellings D1 – General Development Criteria D13 – Land Stability

10.0 THEMAINPLANNINGISSUES It is considered that the main issues in this case are:  Compliance with replacement dwellings policy including appropriateness of building design  Location within a Mineral Consideration Area

11.0 OFFICERAPPRAISAL 11.1  Compliance with replacement dwellings policy including appropriateness of building design Local Plan policy H9 only permits the replacement of an existing dwelling in the countryside where the dwelling has recently been destroyed by fire or some other calamity or is structurally unsafe or lacks basic amenities; and the dwelling was permanently occupied in recent years; and the replacement is, unless there are special circumstances, of similar size, scale and character and located in the same position as the existing dwelling. A structural engineers report was submitted with the first of the two withdrawn applications. The report relates to an inspection carried out in March 2008 and describes the fire damaged house in detail, stating that approximately half was of two storeys with the remainder being single storey with a loft space; approximately half of the two storey portion was severely damaged and had been demolished down to ground floor; the remaining (now external) gable being a poor mixture of brickwork and poor quality blockwork; the rear wall is severely out of plumb and rendered over; some parts of the original structure (possibly the conversion of an agricultural shed) have been hidden by later alterations and are likely to have been built with poor materials detrimental to long term stability; there is evidence of dampness in the walls and ceiling; a chimney is distorted and leaning over the remaining roof; all floors appeared to be damp and the integrity of lintels over doors and windows questionable; and the foundations are likely to need underpinning. The report recommends demolition of the remaining two storey area (which has since been undertaken), leaving only 40 to 50% of the existing building; and bearing in mind the above findings, strongly recommends that the entire residential building should be demolished completely and rebuilt off new foundations; to attempt to renovate the remaining structure with a risk of differential movement between old and new being completely impractical and uneconomical; the sensible course being complete demolition and rebuild. It is considered that the evidence contained within the structural report is sufficient to justify replacement of the dwelling. Although no longer an agricultural dwelling, it was let and occupied as a house until the occurrence of the fire which was caused by a lightning strike. Although the human occupants of the house escaped it is understood that two dogs died in

Page 22 of 60 the fire. The replacement house is proposed to be resited at the rear of the existing house to improve access to the range of buildings beyond so as to avoid passing immediately in front of the entrance door and windows of the house as at present. In consideration of the distribution of and the revised siting still maintaining the grouping of the buildings, this is considered to be acceptable in this particular case. With regard to size, scale and character of the replacement dwelling, the agent makes a comparison in the supporting statement. The proposed building is shorter in overall length (approximately 12.0 metres compared to 14.5 metres) but has a greater overall width of approximately 9.0 metres compared to 8.0. The original/existing building had two distinct elements of single and two storeys but the greater width of the single storey element created a roof almost as high as that of the two storey part; the uniform height of the ridge of the proposed building is approximately the same height. The greatest difference in building form is that the eaves have been raised in comparison to the single storey element to enable usable upper floorspace to be created and lit by 5 dormers of a traditional style with gabled roofs; the existing building having only a single flat topped dormer. Furthermore, a gabled projection from the front elevation to accommodate the staircase and onto that an open porch are proposed to add interest to the design of the building. Even though the form and mass of the building does therefore differ from the ‘existing’ structure, the design has been based on and constrained by the overall dimensions and creates upper floorspace to modern standards to replace the current loftspace and flat roofed dormer. In view of the origins, form, construction and materials of the ‘existing’ house, it is therefore considered that permission could, on balance, be granted. 11.2 Location within a Mineral Consideration Area A ground investigation report has been submitted, the conclusions and recommendations of which have been endorsed by the Council’s mining consultants; in particular that any historic mineral workings be stabilised by drilling and grouting on a grid pattern beneath all building foundations. 12.0 CONCLUSION 12.1 The proposal complies with planning policy for the replacement of dwellings in the countryside and provision can be made in the development to overcome any ground instability from historic mine working in the area.

HUMAN RIGHTS Article 8 give the right to respect for private and family life and First Protocol Article 1 allows for the peaceful enjoyment of possessions. These have to be balanced against the rights and freedoms of others and the orderly development of the County in the interests of the Community. First Protocol Article 1 requires that the desires of landowners must be balanced against the impact of development upon nationally important features and the impact on residents.

Page 23 of 60 This legislation has been taken into account in arriving at the above recommendation.

Reason for Approval

Conditions

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with Section 91(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 (As amended).

2. The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the deposited plans and drawings as amended by the revised plan Numbers BA444/001A and received on 004A2nd July 2009 Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans and details.

3. Before their construction, erection or installation within the development approved, details of the following shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority: treatment of eaves and gable verges. The work shall be carried out in accordance with such details as approved in writing. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity

4. Before the dwelling hereby permitted is occupied, the existing dwelling on the site shall be demolished and all demolished materials removed from the site. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area

5. The building shall not be occupied until the remedial measures recommended in the report by Spilman Associates have been fully complied with. Reason: In the interests of public safety.

Page 25 of 60 Application No. 5 Development Management Report

Application No: FUL/09/0146 Parish: Astley Abbotts

Grid Ref: 7618 1253

Application for: Planning Permission (Full) Development: Change of use from single dwelling to residential care home for the elderly Site: Hoards Park, Cantern Bank, Bridgnorth Applicant: Mrs J Tustin

1.0 THEPROPOSAL 1.1 Theapplicationproposestousealargeformerfarmhouseasacarehomeforup to seven elderly residents. The application is accompanied by a layout plan for 19 car parking spaces and floor plans showing interior alterations comprising one new door and the installation of 4 ensuite bathrooms. There is a concurrent application (09/0147) for listed building consent for the internal changes. The proposal involves no external alterations.

2.0 SITE LOCATION/DESCRIPTION 2.1 The house is a grade II listed building of four floors including a cellar and on the top floor, a long gallery. It is a striking building of timber framed construction with exterior brick remodelling. It is part of a complex of buildings that previously formed a historic farmstead situated in an isolated location in open countryside to the east side of the Bridgnorth to Broseley Road (B4373) less than a kilometre from the northern edge of Bridgnorth. The associated barns, converted into dwellings, and two walled gardens are separately listed grade II.

3.0 RECOMMENDATION 3.1 It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to conditions.

4.0 REASON FOR COMMITTEE 4.1 In accordance with the ‘Scheme of Delegation’, the application is referred to Members because the Parish Council has raised an objection.

5.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY 5.1 Planning permission (96/0474) and listed building consent (96/0472) were granted in August 1997 for conversion of the house into two dwellings and the associated farm buildings into six dwellings. There have been subsequent permissions/consents for amendments to the original barn conversion proposals as well as a separate farm road and access being permitted to serve the barns; leaving the house with an independent approach/access track.

Page 26 of 60 6.0 CONSULTEE RESPONSES 6.1 Highways Development Control – no objections; the driveway has a satisfactory access onto the public highway that has the capacity to accommodate the vehicle movements likely to be generated.

Astley Abbotts Parish Council – objection; 6.2  Home will not be viable, leading to applications for extensions to support the business;  No information has been provided about lift access to second and third floors for elderly residents;  There are no fire escapes; nor disabled access;  Alterations do not preserve the integrity of the building;  Detrimental impact on other residents and the environment; a business and associated traffic will spoil the setting and disturb the amenity of a residential area in rural surroundings.

7.0 AGENTS SUPPORTING STATEMENT  Building currently in use as a single private dwelling;  Proposed residential home for the elderly, all having ensuite bedrooms;  Does not require any exterior alterations and only some partitioning to create ensuite facilities;  Property is set in some 15 acres of parkland and pools with extensive parking for up to 20 vehicles;  Will enable the home to deliver a very high quality of care in an outstanding and tranquil environment;  In response to Parish Council representations, viability is not questionable as have wealth of knowledge and experience gained over 20 years of owning and managing a group of residential care homes; question how Parish Council advisors have reached such a conclusion without knowledge of ‘needs’ of client group and staffing ratios required;  Lift access is not applicable; in the event of disability preventing stairs being climbed, downstairs accommodation could be made available; second floor is solely private dwelling quarters for which no lift required;  Fire safety and health advice already sought and no fire escape is necessary as there are two internal staircases;  All alterations are internal and subject to Conservation Officer’s advice already taken;  Size, layout and structure of the property already lends itself to disabled access if necessary;  Will be minimal impact on barn conversions and no greater than if an extended family were residing in the house; do not envisage client groups being noisy or a nuisance in any way to neighbours;  Amazed that Parish Council felt that elderly people living here would be of detriment to the environment. 

Page 27 of 60 8.0 PUBLIC REPRESENTATIONS 8.1 Neighbours – 1 objection  Proposed parking area is directly on boundary of own garden and recently acquired additional land; vehicles travelling up and down driveway and manoeuvring would disturb privacy and enjoyment of house and gardens; nature of residential home such that traffic 24 hours, for example staff changes, emergency services, weekend visitors;  Rear garden of Hoards Park is directly at back of own property, tranquillity of which will be directly affected if used by numerous residents and their visitors;  Share septic tank for which contribute periodically for emptying, currently twice a year.

9.0 PLANNING POLICY 9.1 Central Government Guidance: PPS3 - Housing PPS7 - Sustainable Development in Rural Areas PPG15 - Planning and the Historic Environment

9.2 West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy Policies: RR2 - The Rural Regeneration Zone QE5 - Protection and Enhancement of the Historic Environment

9.3 Bridgnorth District Local Plan: CN1 - Listed Buildings D1 - General development criteria D6 - Access and car parking S - Development in the countryside

10.0 THEMAINPLANNINGISSUES It is considered that the main issues in this case are:  The principle of change of use in relation to planning policy  Impact on the character and setting of the listed building  Impact on the residential amenity of neighbours

11.0 OFFICERAPPRAISAL 11.1 The principle of change of use in relation to planning policy

Page 28 of 60 There is no specific policy directed at the establishment of residential homes. In rural areas the main consideration is usually the impact on the open countryside of extensions to existing already large buildings which generally are required to achieve viability. In this case, the applicant has confirmed that no exterior alterations are proposed to achieve the intention to provide very high quality care to a small number of residents to live in an outstanding environment. The fact that the house is a listed building also imposes constraints on the extent to which the property could be altered either at the outset or in the future. The applicant’s approach is that viability is not an issue where the quality of the accommodation and care to be provided will generate sufficient income for the business to be successful.

11.2 Impact on the character and setting of the Listed Building There is a concurrent application (09/0147) for listed building consent (the next item on the agenda) for the internal alterations and which is recommended for approval. The proposals are considered to be acceptable for the reasons explained in the next report. The setting of the house will however be affected by vehicle parking and the applicant has stated that there is to be extensive parking for up to 20 vehicles and has shown 19 spaces on a plan plus an existing garage. At present the final section of the driveway is located in between the front garden walls of the house and the high walls of the larger ‘walled garden’. It is a single track tarmac surface between gravel ‘verges’ and leads to existing parking and turning space adjacent to the house. The proposals envisage parking lengthways alongside the walled garden and extending around part of the second side furthest from the house. The visual impact of such extensive vehicle parking away from the house is considered to be detrimental to the rural character of the area. It is however questionable whether so much vehicle parking space is necessary and it has been suggested to the applicant that the tarmac driveway be moved to one side of the approach to allow for parking on a ‘herringbone’ pattern enabling the extent of parking to be contained in between the walls and closer to the house. With regard to the overall amount of parking a house of this size occupied by several generations of one family could give rise to a comparable number of vehicles parked at, and traffic to and from, the property. A condition is recommended to require an alternative parking layout to be agreed.

11.3 Impact on residential amenity of neighbours The site is separated from neighbours in the barn conversions by high brick walls. The intended residents would be elderly and limited in number by the number of rooms. As noted above, the degree of activity might therefore be comparable or possibly less than might be generated by the house being occupied by a large extended family. Traffic on a different approach would not pass the barns and vehicle parking would be on the opposite side of the high wall of the larger ‘walled garden’; not a garden as such but apparently a paddock not currently in use. It is considered therefore that the impact on residential amenity would not be unacceptable.

Page 29 of 60 12.0 CONCLUSION/REASON FOR APPROVAL 12.1 There is no policy reason to oppose the principle of the proposed use which is akin to occupation by a large family; the internal alterations to the listed building are considered to be acceptable and neither the impact of vehicle parking (if controlled by condition) on the setting of the listed building nor the limited adverse impact on the residential amenity of adjacent dwellings would warrant refusal. 13.0 HUMAN RIGHTS Article 8 give the right to respect for private and family life and First Protocol Article 1 allows for the peaceful enjoyment of possessions. These have to be balanced against the rights and freedoms of others and the orderly development of the County in the interests of the Community. First Protocol Article 1 requires that the desires of landowners must be balanced against the impact of development upon nationally important features and the impact on residents. This legislation has been taken into account in arriving at the above recommendation. 14.0 RECOMMENDED PLANNING CONDITIONS 1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with Section 91(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 (As amended).

2. The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the deposited plans and drawings as amended by the revised plan Number 3B received on 18th June 2009 Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans and details.

3. Notwithstanding the details of car parking provision shown on Plan 5 and the Proposed Parking Plan, before development commences, an alternative parking layout including the surface treatment of the driveway access and parking spaces shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The use of the house as a residential care home shall not commence until the parking layout has been constructed and surfaced in accordance with the approved details and the parking spaces shall thereafter be maintained and kept unobstructed for the parking of motor vehicles associated with the home. Reason: To safeguard the setting of the listed building.

Page 30 of 60 Reason for Approval

Conditions

Page 31 of 60 Application No. 6 Development Management Report

Application No: FUL/09/0147 Parish: Astley Abbotts

Grid Ref: 7618 1253

Application for: Listed Building Consent Development: Internal alterations to facilitate change of use to a residential care home for the elderly Site: Hoards Park, Cantern Bank, Bridgnorth Applicant: Mrs J Tustin

1.0 THEPROPOSAL 1.1 Concurrent application (09/0146) for planning permission proposes to use a large former farmhouse as a care home for the elderly. Floor plans show internal alterations comprising one new door and the installation of an additional kitchen sink and 4 en-suite bathrooms. No external alterations are proposed.

3.0 RECOMMENDATION 3.1 It is recommended that listed building consent be granted.

4.0 REASON FOR COMMITTEE 4.1 In accordance with the ‘Scheme of Delegation’, the application is referred to Members because the Parish Council has raised an objection.

Page 32 of 60 6.0 CONSULTEE RESPONSES 6.2 Astley Abbotts Parish Council – objection;  The alterations do not preserve the integrity of the building.

8.0 PUBLIC REPRESENTATIONS 8.1 Neighbours – no replies received.

9.0 PLANNING POLICY 9.1 Central Government Guidance: PPG15 - Planning and the Historic Environment

9.2 West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy Policies: QE5 - Protection and Enhancement of the Historic Environment

9.3 Bridgnorth District Local Plan: CN1 - Listed Buildings

10.0 THEMAINPLANNINGISSUES It is considered that the main issues in this case are:  Impact on the character of the listed building.

11.0 OFFICERAPPRAISAL 11.1 Impact on the character of the listed building Very few alterations are required to facilitate the change of use which is the subject of concurrent planning application 09/0146. The internal changes are designed to provide an en-suite bathroom to each bedroom as described below; and, on the ground floor, the only alteration proposed is the addition of a wash hand basin in the kitchen for Environmental Health compliance which will have no adverse effect and is therefore acceptable.

Page 33 of 60 11.2 On the first floor, lightweight partitions across the ends of two rooms which are without coving or decorative features and of a size remaining which still provides sufficient bedroom space are considered also to be acceptable. On the same floor, an existing large cupboard, already accessed via a panelled room, is of sufficient size to accommodate an en-suite; although details will be necessary to ensure the existing structure and fabric is not compromised. Also on the same floor, the insertion of a new doorway into an existing bathroom enables its use as an en-suite. The existing wall is a lightweight partition not thought to be of historic significance. For the avoidance of doubt however, a condition is recommended to ensure that if during works, the wall is found to be historic timber framing, further conservation advice is sought before proceeding. 11.3 On the second floor, an amended plan shows only one en-suite created by a lightweight partition across the end of the west wing bedroom which is again of sufficient size to allow some space to be taken up by the en-suite facility without compromising the character and appearance of the room. 11.4 No indication is given on the plans of soil vent stacks on the internal or external details of the building; although the applicant has confirmed that no external work would be required. A condition is however recommended requiring that details of venting arrangements and construction of partitioning be submitted for approval. 12.0 CONCLUSION/REASON FOR APPROVAL 12.1 The alterations will not adversely affect the historic character and appearance of the listed building.

13.0 HUMAN RIGHTS 13.1 Article 8 give the right to respect for private and family life and First Protocol Article 1 allows for the peaceful enjoyment of possessions. These have to be balanced against the rights and freedoms of others and the orderly development of the County in the interests of the Community. First Protocol Article 1 requires that the desires of landowners must be balanced against the impact of development upon nationally important features and the impact on residents. This legislation has been taken into account in arriving at the above recommendation

Reason for Approval

Conditions

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with Section 18 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (As amended)

Page 34 of 60 2. The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the deposited plans and drawings as amended by the revised plan Numbers 3B . received on 8th June 2009

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans and details.

3. Before any development commences, details of the following shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority: construction/installation of en-suite facilities including partitions, drainage; joinery design and finish of the new door and architrave; any disturbance of historic fabric required to install the new door. The work shall be carried out in accordance with such details as may be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To safeguard the character of the listed building.

Page 35 of 60 Application No. 7 Development Management Report

Application Number: 09/00034/FUL Parish: Shifnal

Grid Ref: 374843 - 307703

Proposal: Installation of Air Conditioning Units

Site Address: 4 Victoria Road Shifnal Shropshire TF11 8AF

Applicant: Mr John Rossiter

Case Officer: Mr Mike Clough email: [email protected]

1.0 THEPROPOSAL 1.1 Outline planning permission (05/0857) was granted in December 2005 for residential /office development on the site of a former petrol filling station. Application (06/1011) for Approval of Reserved Matters was determined in March 2007 and allowed the construction of 14 two-bedroom apartments above 4 office units in a single building. This retrospective application is to install 6 air conditioning units at ground floor level on the side of the building to serve the ground floor commercial premises. The typical air conditioning fan units of (cream) stone coloured metal box construction are located together in a block with overall length of 3.784 metres, height 1.370 metres and projection from the face of the building 0.470 metres.

2.0 SITE LOCATION/DESCRIPTION 2.1 The site is located at the east end of Victoria Road within the town centre commercial area defined in the Local Plan. It is bounded on the west side by the deep course of the Wesley Brook and to the east side there are commercial premises with flats above in Noram House on the corner of Victoria Road and Cheapside within the Conservation Area. The rear boundary of the site is enclosed by a high brick wall with a car park at the rear of the row of Cheapside commercial premises. The site is occupied by the recently completed four storey building. The air conditioning units are located towards the rear of the east side elevation adjacent to the paved pathway to the rear of the end unit and opposite the enclosed bin stores. 3.0 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to conditions. 3.1 4.0 REASON FOR COMMITTEE 4.1 In accordance with the ‘Scheme of Delegation’, the application is referred to Members because the Town Council has raised an objection.

Page 36 of 60 5.0 PLANNING HISTORY 5.1 The history of the building is referred to in paragraph 1.1 above. A previous application (09/0034) for the air conditioning units was refused in March 2009 on grounds that insufficient information had been provided to confirm predicted levels of noise which would be heard within residential accommodation both within the development and in the adjacent commercial/residential property (Noram House) and in Cheapside to determine whether any adverse effect on living conditions would be unacceptable.

6.0 CONSULTEE RESPONSES 6.1 Environmental Health:  Have been provided with information on sound levels at 1 metre from the units;  If use can be time restricted as indicated by the applicants, then no objection;  Principal concern is disturbance late at night and sleep disturbance; therefore suggest that hours of use be restricted to 6am to 8pm Monday to Friday and 8am to 2pm on Saturdays.

Shifnal Town Council – objection  Potential noise nuisance and visual intrusion detrimental to amenity of nearby residential and commercial occupiers; units should be located at the rear of the building.

7.0 AGENTS SUPPORTING STATEMENT  Application required as details were not included in the original application for development of the site;  Proposed externally sited heat exchange units required for operation of the building;  Units located in least visible position at rear adjacent to refuse store;  Units will be operated during opening hours of the offices (8am to 6pm Monday to Friday);  Units will run intermittently as required by users but only run simultaneously during extreme weather conditions: unlikely that all units would operate together but operation of two units does not equate to twice the sound of output and so on; additional units in operation contribute only small increase in sound level;  Windows above the units are to kitchens which are fixed and obscure glazed in line with previous requirements and are less noise sensitive;  As far as aware, there are no other noise sensitive properties nearby;  Local ambient noise level is relatively high because of adjacent roads; Effect on local residents will be minimal; as not operational outside stated hours, will be no sleep disturbance. 8.0 PUBLIC REPRESENTATIONS 8.1 No replies have been received from local residents.

9.0 PLANNING POLICY 9.1 Central Government Guidance: PPS1 (Delivering Sustainable Development) 9.2 West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy Policies: RR2 (The Rural Regeneration Zone)

Page 37 of 60 9.3 QE3 (Creating a high quality built environment) Local Plan: D1 (Design and Amenity)

10.0 THE MAIN PLANNING ISSUES It is considered that the main issues in this case are:  Impact of noise on residential amenity;  Visual intrusion

11.0 OFFICER APPRAISAL 11.1 Impact of noise on residential amenity The applicant has provided technical information on sound levels which has been assessed by the Environmental Health Officer who has no objection subject to a time limit condition which could be imposed to restrict operation to the office opening hours stated by the applicants agent.

11.2 Visual Intrusion It is considered that the units have been sited in the least visually intrusive area of the building. Window openings prevent location on the rear elevation and the opposite end of the building faces onto the car park and is more open to public view. From outside the site the position of the units is only visible to passers by along the narrow passageway between the building and the boundary walls of Noram House. Although it may be possible to view the units from the windows of flats in Noram House and possibly from living accommodation above commercial premises in Cheapside, the former previously viewed a petrol filling station and the latter has main outlook onto the public car park. It is considered therefore that the degree of visual intrusion would not warrant refusal.

12.0 CONCLUSION/REASON FOR APPROVAL The noise emissions from and degree of visual intrusion of the air conditioning units do not have sufficient adverse effect on residential or visual amenity to warrant refusal.

First Protocol Article 1 requires that the desires of landowners must be balanced 13.2 against the impact of development upon nationally important features and the impact on residents.

This legislation has been taken into account in arriving at the above 13.3 recommendation.

Page 38 of 60 Reason for Approval

The noise emissions from and degree of visual intrusion of the air conditioning units do not have sufficient adverse effect on residential or visual amenity to warrant refusal.

Conditions

1. The air conditioning units shall be operated only during the hours of 8am to 6pm Monday to Friday, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written approval to any variation.

Reason: In the interests of residential amenity.

Page 39 of 60 Application No. 8

Development Management Report

Application Number: 09/00267/VAR Parish: Ditton Priors

Grid Ref: 358773 - 289387

Proposal: Removal of condition 4 of Planning Permission 05/0422 Conversion of farm buildings into 3 x holiday homes and garage, to allow permanent residential occupation

Site Address: Ashfield Farm Ashfield Road Ditton Priors Bridgnorth Shropshire

Applicant: Mr Adam Jones

Case Officer: Mr Richard Fortune email: [email protected]

1.0 THEPROPOSAL 1.1 In 2005 a planning application was made to convert farm buildings into three holiday homes and a private garage at Ashfield Farm, Ashfield Road, Ditton Priors. Planning permission was given and the decision notice issued on 5th July 2005 contains condition 4 which states: “The holiday homes shall be used for holiday use only and not for permanent residential purposes” The reason given for this condition is: “Permission has only been granted for holiday use as permanent residential use would be contrary to the planning policies for the area”.

1.2 This planning permission has been implemented with the conversion of the lower part of the range into one holiday let. The taller element of the building range remains unconverted, with the roof structure removed and no internal features. There is scaffolding around this section of building.

2.0 SITE LOCATION/DESCRIPTION 2.1 AshfieldFarmissituatedinopencountrysideapproximately1.5milestothewest of Ditton Priors. The site is within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The traditional farmbuilding group is set back some 70 metres from the lane, with the farmhouse on the south eastern side along with the current working farm buildings. In April 2001 planning permission was given to convert part of the building range into four dwellings and this has been carried out (ref 01/0165). These residential conversions are situated to the south and south west of the current application site. On the north western side of the site, between the buildings and the lane is an area of woodland.

3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1 That planning permission be refused

Page 40 of 60 4.0 REASON FOR COMMITTEE 4.1 The officer view is contrary to that of the Parish Council.

5.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY 5.1 Planning application 01/0167, withdrawn prior to determination due to objections by the Highway Authority, was for the change of use of the agricultural buildings to Class B1 (Business) and Class B8 (Storage or distribution) uses at Ashfield Farm, Ditton Priors.

5.2 Planning application 03/0904, refused on 14th January 2004, was for the conversion of redundant farm buildings to three dwellings and erection of two detached garages at units 4, 5 and 6 Ashfield Road, Ditton Priors. The four refusal reasons were that 1) the proposals involved major reconstruction and extension works, contrary to Joint Structure Plan and Local Plan policy; 2) insufficient information to demonstrate that the existing walls could be retained without major reconstruction and rebuilding; 3) the proposed garages and store would be contrary to conversions policy, detract from the setting of the conversions and from the character and appearance of the AONB and 4) that the existing buildings by reason of their barrel vaulted roofs and plain brickwork are of insufficient architectural or historic merit to justify conversion to permanent residential use.

5.3 Planning application 04/0555, refused on 10th August 2004, was for the conversion of Unit 4 to residential use and Units 5 and 6 to commercial/light industraial use and private garage at Ashfield Farm, Ditton Priors. The four refusal reasons were that 1) the proposals involved major construction and extension works contrary to Joint Structure Plan and Local Plan policy; 2) the conversion of Unit 4 to residential use would be contrary to Development Plan policy due to the existing building, by reason of its barrel vaulted roof and plain brickwork, being of insufficient architectural or historic interest to justify conversion to permanent residential use; 3) the inclusion of four dormer windows and 10 rooflights in the extension works to units 5 and 6 would give them a domestic appearance detracting from the agricultural character of the buildings, and 4) the approach roads leading to the site, by reason of their restricted widths and alignments would be unsuitable to safely accommodate the type and volume of traffic likely to be generated by the proposed commercial/light industrial units.

Planning application 05/0422, permitted on 5th July 2005, was for the conversion 5.4 of farm buildings into three holiday homes and garage at Ashfield Farm, Ditton Priors.

6.0 CONSULTEE RESPONSES 6.1 Ditton Priors Parish Council – no objection

7.0 AGENT/APPLICANTS SUPPORTING STATEMENT  Clients have assessed the market and the cost to finalise and complete the scheme under the current economic climate and it has proved that the venture is not viable  Approved holiday let scheme replaces the barrel vaulted roofs which were

Page 41 of 60 in a poor state by pitched roofs with welsh slate to match the existing buildings which have already been converted on site  Existing holiday let permission appears at odds with the quiet enjoyment of the occupants of the existing residential units; not fitting for the site as a whole  Removal of condition will make completion of project viable and allow for freehold sale or letting  Would provide 3 compact well designed affordable dwellings in a desirable rural location  Finishing off development will enhance appearance of site in AONB and for already converted residential units and can only be done if condition lifted  Assessed against current policies have shown holiday lets not to be viable and other commercial uses not suitable due to conversion costs, lack of demand and poor access; only residential use viable  Consider that holiday use and associated maintenance traffic would have detrimental impact on local road network and adjacent residential units, owner of building does not live on site  Believe buildings of historic merit dating from early 19th century and in AONB  Conversions would be in a group with existing dwellings, and therefore would not be isolated or sporadic housing development  Feasibility study report submitted includes cash flow projections, for holiday let conversion over five years, showing negative net cash flows.

8.0 PUBLIC REPRESENTATIONS 8.1 Three neighbour representations have been received:- 1 letter of support: use of barns as holiday accommodation would have negative impact on whole site and existing residents; demand for holiday lets very limited and would not be cost effective; holiday use could lead to loss of privacy and security concerns 2 letters of support to transfer permission from holiday lets to permanent residential accommodation, but object to unconverted barn being converted to two residential properties:  Should be maximum of 6 properties not 7.  Concerns about impact of extra traffic on access roads and parking; no sufficient garaging  Small units have adverse effect on value of other conversions  Site needs tidying up and made safe  Roadway needs surfacing  Site being operated as a commercial builders yard  Two 12 feet high sewerage collectors on site should be installed as soon as possible

9.0 PLANNING POLICY 9.1 Central Government Guidance: PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development PPS7 Sustainable Development in Rural Areas

9.2 West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy Policies: RR2 The Rural Regeneration Zone

Page 42 of 60 CF2 Housing beyond the Major Urban Areas PA14 Economic Development and the Rural Economy

9.3 Shropshire and Telford and Wrekin Joint Structure Plan Policies P5 Development outside Settlements P18 Conversion of Buildings

9.4 Bridgnorth District Local Plan Policies S5 Development in Countryside outside of Green Belt D1 Design and Amenity RD2 Conversion of Rural Buildings H5 Housing in the Countryside H11 Affordable Housing TM1 New Tourism Developments

9.5 Supplementary Planning Guidance Planning Guidance Note 4: Conversion of buildings in the countryside

10.0 THEMAINPLANNINGISSUES It is considered that the main planning issues are the principle of the proposal, in terms of impact of the removal of the holiday use only condition on Development Plan Conversion and Housing policies, and upon residential amenity.

11.0 OFFICERAPPRAISAL 11.1 Principle of Proposal 11.1.1 Under the Bridgnorth District Local Plan adopted in July 2006 and policies to be saved from it beyond 17th July 2009 the application site is in open countryside where new housing is strictly controlled. New dwellings will normally only be permitted under Local Plan Policy H5 where shown to be needed by essential agricultural workers or through the conversion of existing buildings which meet all the requirements of Structure Plan Policy P18 and Local Plan Policy RD2 relating to the conversion of buildings in the countryside. The agent has stated in the supporting information that the proposal would provide “three compact well designed suitably sized and not overly sized affordable dwellings” but has not set out how they would meet an affordable housing need and would remain affordable in perpetuity. The proposal therefore is not to lift the condition in order to provide affordable housing in the context of Local Plan Policy H11.

Page 43 of 60 11.1.2 The planning history set out above shows that previous attempts to gain residential planning permission for these buildings in 2004 were refused, due to the scale of reconstruction and rebuilding involved and the buildings being judged to be of insufficient architectural or historic merit to justify conversion to permanent residential use. Structure Plan policy P18 current at that time remains part of the Development Plan and Local Plan policy RD2 reinforces the criteria that residential conversion schemes should not involve major reconstruction and buildings be of architectural or historic merit. While the holiday let conversion scheme granted consent in 2005 involved significant alterations and new build works, particularly in relation to the replacement of barrel vaulted roofs with pitched roofs, the reason for this more relaxed approach was explained in the Committee report extract set out below:-

“The proposed pitched roofs would improve the appearance of the building group in this area of outstanding natural beauty landscape setting. They would be a significant alteration to these buildings and would not meet the policy criteria for residential conversion schemes. However the conversions policy and conversions guidance note allow a slight relaxation of the criteria where employment, tourism and recreation uses are proposed. Holiday homes are considered a tourism development and the general Local Plan policy TM1 encourages new tourism development that are of a scale and type which respect and complement the character of the district towns, villages and countryside. On balance it is considered that the tourism and visual amenity benefits of the proposal would justify the extent of roof alterations to the buildings in this case”.

The combination of tourism and visual amenity benefits led to a grant of planning permission for the holiday home conversions, but the report extract demonstrates that this was a finely balanced decision.

11.1.3 The present situation is that one holiday let unit is complete but the taller element of the building range, which would provide a two bedroomed and a three bedroomed holiday home, is a roofless shell. Compared to the condition of this element at the time the 2005 application was under consideration, when the barrel vaulted roof had already been removed, collapsed areas of wall around the large opening in the northwest elevation have been reinstated and brick dentil courses added at eaves level. It is accepted that completion of the works in accordance with the holiday home scheme 05/0422 would improve the visual amenities of the immediate locality, but equally a tidying of the site and removal of what currently remains of this section of building would tidy the area.

11.1.4 The effect of the current application proposed would be to remove the tourism/rural economy justification for the significant reconstruction and new build works associated with the creation of three residential units in this area. No material facts have been put forward to change the previous assessment that the buildings are not of sufficient architectural or historic merit to justify conversion to dwellings due to their form. The buildings are not prominent in the AONB landscape, being largely screened from distant views by other buildings and trees.

Page 44 of 60 11.1.5 It is accepted that in the current economic climate it may not be viable to proceed at the present time with a holiday home conversion scheme, which in this case has already been implemented through the creation of one unit. Members need to consider whether the prospects of securing an improvement to the visual amenities of the immediate locality, through allowing permanent residential use, is a sufficient justification for overriding key elements of Development Plan policies P18 and RD2 and the presumption against residential conversion inherent in those policies. The officer view is that the circumstances of this case are not a sufficient justification for removal of the holiday use only condition: An undesirable precedent would also be set for the scale of new build works in residential conversion schemes and for the change of holiday let conversions to permanent residential use elsewhere.

11.2 Residential Amenity 11.2.1 The neighbour comments about the compatibility of holiday accommodation close to residential dwellings was considered when the holiday home conversion scheme was under consideration in 2005. It was concluded that the holiday homes would not have a significant adverse effect on the living conditions of adjacent dwellings: They are separated from the residential dwelling conversions by a combination of brick boundary walls and the access road and parking court layout. There is considered to be no inherent reason why holiday accommodation would prejudice the privacy and security of adjacent properties. Adequate on site parking facilities would be available without encroaching onto the access road.

11.2.2 The outdoor amenity space which would be available to the two bedroomed unit which would be in the taller building section would be limited to areas on its north east and north west side bordered by the access road. This layout of amenity space was judged acceptable for holiday accommodation, but is not ideal for a dwelling conversion in permanent residential use due to the lack of privacy. On balance however it is not considered that his amenity space arrangement would constitute a further reason for not removing the holiday use only condition.

12.0 CONCLUSION 12.1 Circular 11/95 relates to the use of conditions in planning permissions and sets out six tests for conditions at paragraph 14. It is considered that condition 4 of planning permission 05/0427 meets all these tests being (i) necessary, as planning permission would have been refused if the condition had not been imposed; (ii) is relevant to planning to ensure compliance with adopted Development Plan polices; (iii) is relevant to the development permitted which was specifically for holiday accommodation; (iv) it is enforceable; (v) it is precise in stating the limitation on occupation and (vi) is reasonable in all other respects, not being unduly restrictive in the context of the holiday home conversion scheme.

12.2 The living conditions of the permanent residential units in the vicinity would not be unduly harmed by use of the units as holiday accommodation. Consequently impact on residential amenity would not be justification for the removal of condition 4.

Page 45 of 60 12.3 It is not considered that the present economic climate or the current condition of the site are sufficient reasons to justify the removal of condition 4. To do so would result in three permanent residential dwellings being created in the countryside through the major reconstruction of buildings which in their form at the commencement of works and now are of no architectural or historic merit. An undesirable precedent would be set for the scale of new build works in residential conversion schemes and for the change of holiday let conversions to permanent use elsewhere, undermining Development Plan policies.

13 HUMAN RIGHTS

Article 8 give the right to respect for private and family life and First Protocol Article 1 allows for the peaceful enjoyment of possessions. These have to be balanced against the rights and freedoms of others and the orderly development of the County in the interests of the Community.

First Protocol Article 1 requires that the desires of landowners must be balanced against the impact of development upon nationally important features and the impact on residents.

This legislation has been taken into account in arriving at the above recommendation.

Reason for refusal

1. The removal of condition 4 would result in the creation of three permanent residential dwellings in the countryside through work which has, in the case of one unit, and will in the case of two units, involve major reconstruction and new build works to buildings which are also no sufficient architectural or historic merit. The proposal is therefore contrary to Development Plan policies P5, P18, H5 and RD2. There are no other material considerations of sufficient weight to justify a departure from Development Plan policies in this case.

Page 47 of 60 Application No. 9 Development Management Report

Application Number: 09/00714/FUL Parish: Bridgnorth

Grid Ref: 370551 - 292734

Proposal: Erection of a two storey building with external staircase to be used as a Childcare Centre, together with detached double garage and store shed; formation of a new vehicular access road and parking area

Site Address: New Childcare Centre Off Uplands Drive Bridgnorth Shropshire

Applicant: Mr C. Matthews

Case Officer: Ms Sara Jones email: [email protected]

1.0 THEPROPOSAL 1.1 This is a full application which involves the erection of a two storey building with external staircase to be used as a Childcare Centre, together with detached double garage and store shed and formation of a new vehicular access road and parking area. It should be noted that a similar application for outline permission was approved under plan No. 08/0727. The main difference is that this application proposes a two storey building whereas the original application was described as a dormer bungalow the estimated ridge height of which was estimated not to exceed 8 metres (subject of a condition).

The proposal involves a childcare facility which would cater for 8 children under the age of 8 with associated carers. Childcare would be available between 8 am -6 pm Monday to Friday and also overnight and at weekends. Alongside the child minding facility, it is proposed that schools and scouts would be able to use the woodland area for outdoor experiences. The scheme proposes living accommodation above the childcare facility which would include bedrooms for overnight stays. The scheme also includes a double garage and secure storage building.

2.0 SITE LOCATION/DESCRIPTION 2.1 The site is a roughly triangular parcel of land situated within a larger parcel of vacant land (which has recently been cleared) that lies between the A458 and Ludlow Heights/Uplands Drive. The site is screened from the by-pass by a band of mature trees. Around the perimeter of the land is a public footpath with access either from Stretton Close or Uplands drive. The site slopes away from the north west down to Uplands Drive. A new vehicular access to the application site would coincide with the route of the public right of way off Uplands Drive.

3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1 That permission is Granted subject to conditions.

Page 48 of 60 4.0 REASON FOR COMMITTEE 4.1 In accordance with the adopted ‘Scheme of Delegation’ the application is referred to Members because, the Town Councils view is contrary to that of the officers and this cannot be overcome by the imposition of conditions.

5.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY 5.1 08/0727 – Erection of a dormer bungalow to provide childcare centre – Outline granted with conditions. 6.0 CONSULTEE RESPONSES 6.1 Bridgnorth Town Council – Recommend refusal: concerns over access, parking and congestion during peak times in Upland Drive. 6.2 Highway Section – Awaited 6.3 Environmental Health Section – Awaited 6.4 Chief Fire Officer - Awaited 6.5 Severn Trent Water – No objection – subject to conditions.

7.0 PUBLIC REPRESENTATIONS 7.1 Five letters received objecting on the following grounds:  Would be outside the town development boundary and in the open countryside so contrary to Bridgnorth District Local Plan policies;  Such a facility should be located within the town centre where there is access to public transport;  Will set a precedent for further residential development;  Will set a precedent for allowing this type of commercial business in a residential area;  Object to the proposal for both weekend usage and residential care element on the grounds that the location is residential and use of the site for commercial purposes evenings and weekends is inappropriate;  Concern that the scale and size of the building is out of keeping with surrounding residential properties;  That the proposed design with the inclusion of four gable ends in a row would appear visually dominant;  Building now appears more commercial and does not resemble a domestic building;  The increase in height of the proposed building would have a adverse impact on the light received by existing adjoining gardens, lead to overlooking/reduction on privacy and loss of residential amenity;  Safety of children using an external staircase;  Concerned about loss of habitat and damage to wildlife by recent ground clearance and request a ban from the removal of further hedging and trees particularly the Sycamore and Holly Trees in close proximity to the proposed building and garage;  Concern that local schools may be allowed to use adjoining woodland and that this would lead to noise, loss of residential amenity and anti-social behaviour;  Question need for a double garage for a commercial building;  Concern regarding proposed access and parking arrangements leading to congestion of highway safety issues in Uplands Drive;  Concern that insufficient on –site parking is proposed which would lead to

Page 49 of 60 displacement parking in the surrounding residential streets and that the lack of a public footpath in Uplands Drive would put children in danger when disembarking;  Consider that access should be sought via Ludlow Heights.

8.0 PLANNING POLICY 8.1 Central Government Guidance: PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development PPS7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas PPG13: Transport PPG24: Planning and Noise

8.3 West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy Policies: RR2: The Rural Regeneration Zone RR3: Market Towns PA14: Economic Development and the Rural Economy QE3: Creating a High Quality Built Environment

8.4 Local Plan: S1: Development Boundaries S5: Countryside S6: Access to Services D1: General Development Criteria D2: Residential Amenity D6: Access and Car Parking D9: Landscaping H5: Housing in the Countryside B2: Nature Conservation E1: Industrial and Commercial Development

9.0 THEMAINPLANNINGISSUES Outline planning permission was granted under plan no. 08/0727 for the erection of a dormer bungalow to provide a childcare centre at this site. As such the principle of the development has been approved. Indeed whilst this application was submitted in outline form indicative plans showing the form and siting of the building were included in the submission. This current application differs from the original scheme in that the proposed building is now of a different design being two storey in appearance. The main issues raised by this application are considered to be as follows:

The impact of the design on the visual and residential amenity of the area.

Page 50 of 60 10.0 OFFICERAPPRAISAL 10.1 Principle of Development 10.1.1 As noted previously the site is located outside the Bridgnorth Town Development Boundary where residential development would normally be contrary to Local Plan Policy. Given the nature of the proposal which combines childcare with ancillary living accommodation Members considered that it would equate to a occupational dwelling in the countryside and as such Members were satisfied that sufficient justification had been submitted to demonstrate that the site was suitable for the proposal in terms of location and size and it was accepted that there would be a functional need for the residential accommodation where childcare facilities are to be offered overnight and the business appeared to be financially viable. As such it was considered that the proposal met the tests applied to occupational dwellings in the countryside.

10.2 Design, Scale and Character 10.2.1 As noted above the outline planning permission included an indicative building design and siting. The information submitted described a dormer bungalow with an estimated ridge height shown as 7.75 metres with an approximate length of 17 metres and a width of 10 metres. Conditions attached to that permission included a condition limiting the ridge height to a maximum of 8 metres above ground level.

10.2.2 This current application proposes a more conventional two storey building on a similar siting to that originally shown. The building would be in a roughly northeast southwest orientation, with an overall ridge height of 8 metres. The scheme also includes an external staircase which would be installed on the side elevation of the proposed building facing the band of trees facing the by-pass.

Details of the ground levels across the site have been submitted which indicate 10.2.3 that the proposed building would be dug into the existing slope of the ground by approximately 0.75 metres. As indicated on the outline proposal the scheme also includes a traditionally designed double garage and smaller single storey brick built store building to be positioned to the north of the main building.

It is noted that concerns have been raised by local residents that the proposed 10.2.4 building would appear incongruous within the context of the surrounding residential development. With respect to this it is noted that the area has a mixed character with dormer style bungalows in Uplands Drive and conventional two storey dwellings in Uplands Drive/Conduit Lane, as such given its position on land to the rear and west of these it is considered that the building design whilst differing from that originally indicated would not harm the visual amenity of the area.

10.3 Impact on neighbours/residential amenity 10.3.1 As noted above local residents have raised a number of issues which include noise disturbance, overlooking and the overall loss of residential amenity.

10.3.2 The issue of noise was considered at the time of the outline planning permission. Planning Policy Guidance Note 24 (PPG 24) relates to Planning and Noise and sets out acceptable thresholds for noise in relation to residential development.

Page 51 of 60 Previously the applicants submitted a report to demonstrate that the sound levels at the building can be achieved to meet the criteria specified in PPG 24.

Likewise in terms of the traffic noise generated Members accepted that whilst the 10.3.3 existing informal use of the site does not generate any significant noise disturbance the traffic noise generated by the adjacent by –pass can be perceived across the site. As such they considered that the erection of a building could assist in mitigating this noise disturbance. In terms of the proposed use of the drive it was noted that whilst the drive would pass within 15 metres of the side elevation of the nearest existing dwelling the amount of traffic likely to be generated is unlikely to cause significant harm to existing residential amenities. Further with respect to noise generated by the children playing outside it was accepted that the imposition of an appropriately worded condition to control the number of children being accommodated at the site would serve to minimise the level of noise emanating from the site. It was also considered that tree planting around the site should be undertaken to create an additional sound barrier and to minimise the incidence of vehicle lights shining into neighbouring residential properties. Again this could be the subject of an appropriately worded condition. Likewise Members considered that the impact of existing external traffic noise levels on the occupants of the new development could be covered by condition.

Turning to the overlooking and privacy issues raised. It is noted that previously so as to ensure that no loss of privacy occurred Members attached a condition to 10.3.4 control the ridge height of the building, so that it would not exceed 8 metres. The building currently proposed would also not exceed the 8 metres and given the separation distances involved it is considered that the proposed building would not lead to any undue loss of privacy.

10.4 Other Issues Raised. 10.4.1 Concern has also been raised as previously to the access and parking arrangement. As with the outline application the access arrangement proposes a new private driveway that follows the line of the existing pedestrian footpath into the land off Uplands Drive. Whilst the access would cross the public footpath it would not close that route as such it was considered that planning conditions could be imposed to design and control boundary treatments to ensure that there is adequate visibility between pedestrians and vehicles crossing the pathway.

As previously the Highway Section raise no objection to the proposal. It is considered that the scale of the use is such that the level of traffic generation could be accommodated with an appropriately designed access without causing any undue harm to highway safety. With respect to this they recommend that a passing place is located midway along the access drive, due to its length, to avoid the likelihood of a vehicle needing to reveres back onto the highway and that the following standard condition is attached to any permission granted as insufficient details of the access have been submitted. 11.0 CONCLUSION 11.1 The principle of the development has previously been approved under plan No. 08/0727. The current proposal would not unduly harm the visual amenity of the area or the residential amenity of the area.

Page 52 of 60 HUMAN RIGHTS

First Protocol Article 1 requires that the desires of landowners must be balanced against the impact of development upon nationally important features and the impact on residents.

This legislation has been taken into account in arriving at the above recommendation.

Reason for Approval

Conditions

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with Section 91(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 (As amended).

2. The occupation of the ancillary residential accommodation within the building shall be limited to a person solely or mainly working or last working in the childcare centre incorporated into the same building, or widow or widower of such a person, and to any resident dependants.

Reason: Permission has only been granted for residential accommodation because of the essential functional need for such accommodation in association with the childcare centre.

3. The ridge height of the childcare centre building shall not exceed 8 metres above ground level.

Reason: In the interest of the visual amenity of the area and to safeguard the amenities of nearby residential properties.

4. The maximum number of children in daytime care at the premises shall not exceed 6 and the maximum number of children in night time care shall be limited to the number of bed spaces available.

5. The day time childcare activity at the premises shall not operate at the premises outside the hours of 8.00 am to 6.00 pm on any day.

Page 53 of 60 Reason: To safeguard the amenities of nearby residential properties.

6. Before any development commences, details of the following shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority: noise control and ventilation. The work shall be carried out in accordance with such details as may be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the childcare centre in first brought into use.

Reason: To protect the occupants of the proposed development.

7. No development shall commence until full details of proposed foul and surface water drainage to serve the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure proper drainage of the site, to avoid conditions which would create a public health hazard and to avoid pollution to any watercourse or underground strata.

8. Before any development commences, details of the following shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority: boundary treatments of public footpath and around the site. The work shall be carried out in accordance with such details as may be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. the approved boundary treatments shall be installed before the use of the building commences and shall thereafter be maintained in place, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.

Reason: In the interest of the visual amenity of the area and to safeguard the amenities of nearby residential properties.

9. A car parking and turning area within the site shall be provided, surfaced and drained in accordance with details which have first been approved by the Local Planning Authority before the childcare centre is first brought into use. The parking and turning area shall thereafter be kept available for these purposes, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

10. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order), no extensions, external alterations, outbuildings (including garages, sheds, greenhouses, carports), fences, walls, gates, satellite dishes, flues for heating and cooking appliances, oil and lpg tanks, shall be carried out, erected or installed without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and to safeguard the amenities of nearby residential properties.

11. Before any development commences, details of the following shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority: proposed finished ground floor

Page 54 of 60 level relative to existing ground level. The work shall be carried out in accordance with such details as may be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and to safeguard the amenities of nearby residential properties.

12. Before development commences a construction traffic management plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The agreed construction traffic management plan shall thereafter by fully implemented for the duration of the construction period.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

13. Before any development commences, details of the colour, form and texture of the facing bricks and roof tiles for the main building and the materials to be used externally for the garage and secure store, shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval, and no work requiring the use of those materials shall be started until approval has been received in writing. The work shall be started until approval has been received in writing. The work shall be carried out in accordance with such details as may be approved by the Local Planning Authority.

14. The development hereby approved shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the deposited plans unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

15. Details of the means of access, including the layout, construction and sight lines, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before development commences. The agreed details shall be fully implemented before the use hereby permitted is commenced or the building(s) occupied.

Reason: To ensure the formation and construction of a satisfactory access in the interests of highway safety.

Page 56 of 60 Application No. 10 Development Management Report

Application Number: 09/00765/FUL Parish: Neensavage

Grid Ref: 367116 - 277524

Proposal: Erection of an attached flat roofed double garage and storage area

Site Address: Meadow Bank Neen Savage Cleobury Mortimer Kidderminster Shropshire

Applicant: Mr And Mrs D Jones

Case Officer: Mr Peter Collin email: [email protected]

1.0 THEPROPOSAL 1.1 The proposed attached, flat roofed double garage and storage area would be positioned on the northern side of the dwelling. It would replace and be partly on the footprint of an existing detached garage, store and potting shed. The proposed storage area would measure approximately 1.8 metres by 4.2 metres, with the double garage area some 5.7 metres by 5.8 metres. The extension would have a height of about 2.5 metres, with a fascia board to the flat roof which would sit below the eaves level of the hipped roof bungalow. The walls to the extension would be rendered to match those of the existing property.

2.0 SITE LOCATION/DESCRIPTION 2.1 “MeadowBank”is a detached 1920’s style bungalowlyingin an isolated location in the open countryside. It is in an elevated position and the property has been substantially extended, to the rear, in 1988. These proposals increased the size of the property by 73% and this did not take into account a side conservatory.

3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1 That Planning Permission be refused.

4.0 REASON FOR COMMITTEE 4.1 Officer view contrary to that of the Parish Council

5.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY 5.1 Planning application 03/0307, refused on 12th June 2003 was for a single storey flat roofed side extension to provide a store and garage area the same position as the current proposal. The refusal reason stated:

“The proposed extension, by reason of its flat roof design, wide frontage, and together with previous extensions, the cumulative excessive increase in size of the original building would be out of scale and character with the dwelling and its surroundings, contrary to planning policy”.

Page 57 of 60 5.2 Planning application 03/0494, refused on 31st July 2003 was for a single storey side extension to provide a garage and store which had a pitched, hipped roof. The refusal reason stated:

“The proposed extension when added to previous extensions is excessive materially altering the scale and character of the original dwelling to the detriment of the visual amenities of this rural area contrary to planning policy”.

6.0 CONSULTEE RESPONSES 6.1 Neen Savage Parish Council – no objections

7.0 PUBLIC REPRESENTATIONS 7.1 No comments received

8.0 PLANNING POLICY Central Government Guidance: PPS1: Delivering sustainable development

West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy Policies: QE3: Creating a high quality built environment for all

Joint Structure Plan: P5: Development outside settlements

Local Plan: D1: General Design Criteria D3: Alterations and Extensions within Countryside B5: New Development in the countryside

BDC Supplementary Planning Guidance: Planning Guidance Note No. 6: Alterations and extensions to dwellings

9.0 THEMAINPLANNINGISSUES

 Impact on the character and appearance on the visual amenities of the rural area

10.0 OFFICERAPPRAISAL 10.1 Local Plan policy D3 requires alterations and extensions to buildings in the countryside to be in keeping with the scale and character of the original building and its surroundings. The cumulative effect of any previous alterations and extensions, together with those now proposed, have to be taken into account as the original building in the policy relates to the building as built or as it stood on 1st July 1948 (which is the date after which most development has required planning permission). The adopted supplementary planning guidance on alterations and extensions to dwellings gives further guidance on the interpretation of policy D3. This explains that as a general ‘rule of thumb’ the floor area of extensions should not normally exceed three-quarters of the area of the original dwelling, but adds that much depends on the circumstances of each case and how the extensions are designed.

Page 58 of 60 10.2 The extension would introduce an expanse of flat roofing which would be out of scale and character with the hipped roof bungalow, with a similar adverse impact to the flat roofed extension proposal refused in June 2003. The bungalow floor area has already been increased by some 73% with the single storey rear extension to provide an enlarged kitchen utility, bathroom and bedroom permitted in October 1988 (ref B88/816). The current proposal would result in a floor area increase of some 96%, well in excess of the policy guideline. It is considered therefore that the design and size of the proposed extension would be out of keeping with the scale and character of the original building and its surroundings.

11.0 CONCLUSION 11.1 Planning permission was refused twice in 2003 for very similar schemes and it is considered that there have been no material changes in policy to warrant approval. The proposal is considered to be contrary to Policy D1, D3 and B5 of the Bridgnorth District Local Plan and supplementary planning guidance.

LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS:

12.0 HUMAN RIGHTS

12.1 Article 8 give the right to respect for private and family life and First Protocol Article 1 allows for the peaceful enjoyment of possessions. These have to be balanced against the rights and freedoms of others and the orderly development of the County in the interests of the Community.

12.2 First Protocol Article 1 requires that the desires of landowners must be balanced against the impact of development upon nationally important features and the impact on residents.

12.3 This legislation has been taken into account in arriving at the above recommendation.

Reason for refusal

1. The proposed extension, by reason of its flat roof design, wide frontage, and, together with previous extensions, the cumulative excessive increase in size of the original building would be out of scale and character with the dwelling and its surrounding to the detriment of the visual amenities of this rural area contrary to Bridgnorth District Council policies D1; D3 and B5.

Page 60 of 60