Alrewas Architecture

Design & Access statement

The Barn Weeford, WS14 0PW

This design and access statement has been prepared in support of an application to determine viability for conversion of an existing Dutch barn into a dwelling. This application was first submitted in June 2020 (20/00737/COU) with a refusal issued August 2020. An appeal resulted in dismissal this month. The revisions to this application cover both the refusal at planning and the reasons for dismissal of the appeal. Please refer to accompanying covering letter from Cerda included with this application and read in conjunction with this DAS.

The Application Site

The Dutch barn is located on land at Church Hill, Weeford. It adjoins St Mary’s Church Weeford to the SW of the plot along with dwellings formed in the Grade II listed Barn conversions. The listed elements include cart sheds and stables. St Mary’s Church is also Grade II Listed. The site is accessed from the Highway to the Western boundary of the site. This access point would be retained. The entire boundary is lined with dense hedgerows and trees and visibility both into the site and out of the site is compromised in one respect, but protected, in another for both the eventual inhabitants and neighbours. The land is formed on an acute plane which drops by around 4m to the Southern boundary and by a similar level to the North.

The Application Proposals

1 Alrewas Architecture

Full planning permission is sought for the refurbishment and conversion of the Dutch barn to a dwelling with landscaping to the domestic curtilage. The barn is designed to accommodate a family unit, with no extensions or additions, be they structural or otherwise. The footprint and structure remain as existing. A structural report is appended to this application and concludes that the existing steel frame would be structurally adequate in terms of strength to the support the proposed loadings. The proposal seeks to provide windows to the Southern end of the barn, and at intervals along the elevations. The boundary treatments as existing are to be retained, with post and rail fencing and cultivation of the hedgerows. Specifically, protection of the views between the Grade II Listed barns and the Dutch barn will be maintained and trees along that boundary remain untouched.

Layout

The proposals seek to retain the existing Dutch barn. The Barn would appear to have been in agricultural use, at some point in its history. The most recent function was as a small commercial storage facility for plants and flower displays. This ceased in 2012. The history of the barn and its layout are tabled in further detail in Philip Heath’s Heritage Statement. It is interesting to note Philip’s comment on the barn;

‘ it appears to pre-date 1948 and has been recognised by the local authority and the planning inspectorate as a permanent structure. It does form part of the narrative of the farm and its development, and therefore I believe there is considerable merit in using the existing frame as the basis for a new house….Moreover, the form and material lend themselves to a contemporary, exciting and innovative architectural treatment’.

Background

The barn was subject to a refusal this year, reference 20/00737/COU. The applicant was willing to work with the planning case officer to resolve any issues which were preventative in gaining support for the scheme. This could for example have been further structural detail to demonstrate that the structure was significantly robust enough to sustain a dwelling. We look to present this in the attached.

The application was previously refused for 2 reasons;

• The development has failed to demonstrate that the scheme is a conversion due to the required significant re-building, as such it is considered to constitute a new build.

• The development, due to its siting, design and existing topography, would result in overlooking and a loss of privacy to neighbouring residents,

With reference to the first reason and to item 1.9 of the case officer report (20/00737/COU) the following should be stated regarding this application;

• The existing portal frame, foundations, roof trusses and first floor remain intact and are sufficiently robust enough to negate the need for additional ‘structural’ intervention. This is demonstrated in the attached report.

• The barn will not include extensions to either the gable end or the frontage, thereby negating the need for supplementary structural intervention.

• ‘Should the proposed roof covering be comparable in weight to the existing single skin corrugated asbestos sheeting, it is reasonable to conclude that the existing steel frame would be structurally adequate in terms of strength to support the proposed loadings’.

• ‘Should the proposals include a significant extent of glazing; additional framing is likely to be necessary to adequately reduce structural deflections subject to undertaking detailed structural analysis and design’. This proposal does not include

2 Alrewas Architecture

significant glazing and has been reduced to a moderate level sufficient for habitable accommodation, which the structure can sustain without intervention.

• Item 2.2 of the case officer report refers to construction of brick. It should be noted that in order to provide a level of thermal efficiency (as with any barn conversion) a degree of insulation and lining of the walls is necessary. This does not constitute new build, it is specifically for waterproofing and insulation of the property.

• Class Q of Part 3 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015. …. the right assumes that the agricultural building is capable of functioning as a dwelling. The right permits building operations which are reasonably necessary to convert the building, which may include those which would affect the external appearance of the building and would otherwise require planning permission. This includes the installation or replacement of windows, doors, roofs, exterior walls, water, drainage, electricity, gas or other services to the extent reasonably necessary for the building to function as a dwelling house; and partial demolition to the extent reasonably necessary to carry out these building operations.

With reference to the second reason and to item 4.2 of the case officer report (20/00737/COU) the following should be stated regarding this application;

• This development, in contrast to the refused scheme, does not extend beyond the existing envelope. The distances between the barn and the nearest neighbours is within LDC supplementary guidance for separation distances. Item 4.2 of the case officer report states that the separation distance of 29m is required where principal habitable rooms face each other. This is demonstrated in the attached drawings.

The barn has been subject to previous applications and appeals. None of which have gained approval as they involve the replacement of the barn with new build and conversion of the barn under class Q, which it does not meet having not been in agricultural use immediately prior to the application date.

This application will not be supported under Class Q Permitted development however many of the factors which contribute to Class Q approval are demonstrated in the proposals. These include;

The barn must have existed on 20th March 2013 – and previous use having been for agricultural purposes The barn is no larger than 465m2 Structural viability of conversion. A structural report has been carried out on the barn, and we are satisfied that, in line with guidance for Class Q, ‘it authorises building operations ‘reasonably’ necessary to convert the building to residential use, should strengthening be a requirement.

Access

Primary access is retained as per existing access from the Highway. The inspector at appeal stage for application Appeal APP/K3415/W/15/3070059 noted ‘I agree with the Highways authority that the development would not result in an intensification of the use of the existing access when compared to the previous commercial activity’. (Ref item 20).

There would be merit in cutting back existing vegetation along the frontage, also noted in the appeal report, in order to improve visibility splays, with regard to Highways safety.

Flood Risk

The risk of flooding at the site is shown to be less than very low according to the Governments flood warning information service. The land level is such that this risk would not be increased by further development of the site.

3 Alrewas Architecture

Listed Buildings

Reference both Weeford House Farm and the Church of St Mary we refer to Philip Heath’s Heritage report, appended to this application.

Trees

Refer to Apex Environmental report. Most trees are retained with a small number proposed for removal to facilitate the proposals. The site is tree-dense, and it could be argued that the impact of the development is negligible to those on site, other than those identified as being either dead or affecting the current building detrimentally.

It should be made clear that the proposal can sit comfortably within the current tree arrangement and this proposal is not dependent upon tree removal. We have taken the advice of an arborituclturalist, who’s report is appended. His recommendations are based upon the current status of the trees to the site. Those which are proposed for removal, as is demonstrated, are causing damage, unstable or dead.

4 Alrewas Architecture

Pre App

A pre app was submitted, with a report issued 1st October 2019, Hannah Hayes as the case officer. We refer in this submission to the pre app response. The pre app was largely supportive to the possibility of conversion; obviously the applicant would be under the impression that planning would work with us on any amendments required to secure a positive outcome. However we were issued with a refusal with no dialogue or discussion before the decision was issued.

NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK

1. Paragraph 79 states that:

“Planning policies and decisions should avoid the development of isolated homes in the countryside unless one or more of the following circumstances apply: (one that is applicable) c) the development would re-use redundant or disused buildings and enhance its immediate setting.”

2. Paragraph 145 advises local planning authorities to regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in the Green Belt but lists the following exceptions:

a) Buildings for agriculture and forestry;

b) The provision of appropriate facilities for outdoor sport, recreation etc.; c) The extension or alteration of a building provided it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building;

d) The replacement of a building provided the new building is in the same use and not materially larger than the one it replaces;

e) Limited infilling in villages;

f) Limited affordable housing for local community needs under policies set out in the development plan; and

g) Limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land; whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would

- not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the existing development; or - not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt, where the development would re-use previously developed land and contribute to meeting an identified affordable housing need within the area of the local planning authority.

3. Paragraphs 146 also states that:

“Certain forms of development are also not inappropriate in the Green Belt provided they preserve its openness and do not conflict with the purposes of including it. These are:

a. Mineral extraction;

b. Engineering operations;

c. Local transport infrastructure which can demonstrate a requirement for Green Belt location;

d. The re-use of buildings provided that the buildings are of permanent and substantial construction;

5 Alrewas Architecture

e. Material changes in the use of land; and

f. Development brought forward under a Community Right to Build Order or Neighbourhood Development Order.

4. Paragraph 117 states that:

“Planning policies and decisions should promote an effective use of land in meeting the need for homes and other uses, while safeguarding and improving the environment and ensuring safe and healthy living conditions.”

5. Paragraph 118 and 122 set out that:

“Planning policies and decisions should: D) Promote and support the development of under- utilised land and buildings where land supply is constrained, and available sites could be used more effectively.”

6. Chapter 1_2_Achieving Well-designed Places states that the

“creation of high-quality buildings and places is fundamental to what the planning and development process should achieve. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, creates better places in which to live and work and helps make development acceptable to communities.”

7. Paragraph 127 requires planning policies and decisions to:

• _Function well and add to the overall quality of the area, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development;

• _Are visually attractive as a result of good architecture, layout and appropriate and effective landscaping;

• _Are sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate

THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN

8. The development plan for Lichfield District Council comprises of the Lichfield District Local Plan Strategy 2008-2029. (adopted February 2015) and the Local Plan Allocations (adopted July 2016)

9. The Council is in the process of reviewing their Local Plan. Once adopted it will replace both of the documents above and deal with the period up to 2040. Preferred Options were consulted on between November 2019 and January 2020 and identifies a housing need of 11,800 dwellings between 2018 and 2040 (this includes a contribution of 4,500 dwellings to assist Birmingham City Council with its unmet need)

10. Core Policy 1 - the Spatial Strategy sets out that the Council will contribute to the achievement of sustainable development to deliver a minimum of 10,030 dwellings between 2008-2029. Growth will be directed to the most accessible and sustainable locations in accordance with the Settlement Hierarchy. Lichfield City is at the top of the hierarchy with key rural settlements at the bottom—Weeford is not listed at all.

11. Core Policy 3 - Delivering Sustainable Development requires development to contribute to the creation and maintenance of sustainable communities. It requires (relevant points only) development to:

• _Protect and enhance the character and distinctiveness of the District and its settlements, protect amenity of residents and to improve the quality of life through the provision of appropriate infrastructure, services and facilities; • _Assist in the regeneration and evolution of towns and villages in meeting the changing needs of their population over time and maintain the vitality, viability and vibrancy of local communities; • _Encourage the re-use of previously developed land in the most sustainable locations; and encouraging the reuse of buildings as a sustainable option; • _Ensure that all new development and conversion schemes are located and designed to maximize energy efficiency and utilize sustainable design and construction techniques.

6 Alrewas Architecture

12. Core Policy 6: Housing Delivery sets out that the Council will seek to provide 70% of housing on previously developed land to 2018 and 50% thereafter. 16% of new housing will be directed to the “Other Rural” _locations set out in this policy, which includes Weeford.

13. Policy BE1: High Quality Development sets out expectations that all new development should be high quality and sustainable. It requires that new development be located in areas which have good safe access to public transport to reduce the need to travel by private car.

14. Policy NR2: Development in the Green Belt states that the construction of new buildings is regarded as inappropriate in the Green Belt unless it is for one of the exceptions listed in the National Planning Policy Framework.

15. Policy Rural 1: Rural Areas sets out that approximately 24% of the Districts local housing growth will be focused with Key Rural Settlements at Alrewas, Armitage with Handsacre, Fazeley, Fradley, Shenstone and Whittington. Smaller villages will only deliver around 500 dwellings within village boundaries through the conversion of existing buildings and to meet identified local needs.

16. Policy Rural 2: Rural Other Settlements states that support will be given to rural settlements to provide small scale development to meet local needs.

17. The emerging Local Plan Review Preferred options proposed policy for smaller rural villages repeats adopted rural policy 1 and 2 but states that provision will be made for 566 new dwellings through existing commitments and part of neighbourhood plan allocations.

ADOPTED SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS

18. Paragraph 2.5 of the Rural Development Supplementary Planning Document specifically deals with rural housing. It sets out the criteria for permitting residential development in the remaining rural areas. The third bullet point clearly states: • Changes of use and conversion schemes

19. Appendix B is dedicated to the re-use of rural buildings. It states at paragraph 1.2 that:

“not all rural buildings are suitable for conversion. Some buildings would require major or complete reconstruction, alteration of extension to allow their re-use. Such works would effectively represent the creation of a new building in the countryside which would in most circumstances be contrary to rural area planning policies.”

20. Paragraph 2.1 acknowledges that both national and local planning policies recognise that the conversion and re-use of rural buildings have a role in terms of enabling sustainable economic growth in rural areas and contributing to the supply of rural housing.

21. Paragraph 2.2 sets out key tests that are applicable to any conversion schemes as follows:

• The importance of good design • The importance of minimizing impacts upon ecology • The building should not require extension alteration and/or extension; • That there is appropriate access such that highway safety is not compromised; and • That there would be no adverse impact on residential amenity.

22. Paragraph 2.5 explains that the Council will need to be satisfied that the building is structurally sound and capable of conversion without the need for substantial re-building, extension or alteration. Evidence will be required to demonstrate that the building is structurally sound (requirement for a full structural survey). It clarifies that re-building means the substantial replacement of parts of the original structure and that remodeling involves changes to the original structure.

7 Alrewas Architecture

SUSTAINABILITY

23. Inspectors dealing with similar proposals have taken a flexible approach with regard to the provision of dwellings which make efficient use of previously developed land, advocated by paragraph 117 of the Framework (as well as paragraph 145 specifically in relation to Green Belt land). The following appeal decisions are considered to be relevant:

24. The Clock Tower Stables, Brighton Road, Tadworth, Surrey (APP/L326/A/07/2040544) - conversion of existing buildings to provide 7 two bed and 3 one bed residential dwellings with associated parking and storage

“It is nevertheless likely that a large number of journeys to and from the proposed development would be undertaken by car. Recognising this fact, the appeal proposal makes adequate provision for car parking, and despite the concerns voiced by local residents over highway safety issues, the Highway

Authority raise no objection…” (paragraph 18) “...I acknowledge the appeal site is poorly located in terms of PPG13 and that both national and development plan policies seek to promote sustainable development which is focused on urban areas and which would be close to employment, shops and leisure facilities. However, I have identified that the proposed development would not constitute inappropriate development, and whilst the emphasis for new development is primarily on the existing urban areas, there is no prohibition on the re -use of buildings in other areas where appropriate criteria are met.” (paragraph 21—underlining our emphasis). “There are already residential uses adjacent to the appeal site and on the opposite side of the road. As far as this proposal is concerned, it would re-use an existing building in which there has been little interest for other uses….It would also provide a number of smaller dwellings and despite the Council’s assertion that they had exceeded their housing targets, I can see no harm resulting from such a small development. Against this background, it is my opinion that, on balance, the disadvantages of the site in terms of its location and sustainability would be outweighed by the benefits of re-using the building for residential purposes. (paragraph 22— underlining our emphasis)

25. Dingle Brook Farm, Rushton Spencer, Macclesfield (APP/B3438/A/08/2075164) - proposed conversion of an outbuilding on a dwelling the building could be sympathetically converted to a residential use so as to maintain the historical and architectural interest of the building...The policy presumption in favour of more sustainable locations for new development is therefore outweighed in this case by the desirability of preserving the appealing building

26. Blunder Hall Farm, Dirty Lane, Oldham (APP/W4223/W/16/3151303) - conversion of disused stables to single dwelling.

“Paragraph 55 of the Framework recognises that housing in rural areas can enhance and maintain the vitality of rural communities. It states that local planning authorities should avoid new isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances including the re-use of redundant or disused buildings, which would also lead to an enhancement of the

8 Alrewas Architecture immediate setting. The development would comprise the re-use of a redundant building, and as the area immediately is somewhat unkempt, I consider there would be some enhancement to its setting. In addition, it would contribute to social vitality in this rural community._” _

27. Blithbury Farm, Godwins Lane, Rugeley (APP/K3415/W/17/30192163) change of use of existing outbuilding to a two bedroom dwelling

“Based on the limited evidence before me, I cannot reach a definitive conclusion on whether the proposals would comprise the re-use of redundant or discussed buildings. However, in the context of policy BE1, the Council raise no concern regarding the design proposed and regarding the effect of the proposals on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. In any event, as the proposals comprise a change of use and conversion scheme, it would accord with the exception set at bullet point 3 of the LPD Core Policy 6. In addition, the LPS Core Policy 3 encourages the reuse of buildings as a sustainable option. As such, the principle of the development would be acceptable in terms of LPS policy.” _

The use of previously developed land and reuse of buildings is supported by Core Policies 1 and 3. The effective use of previously developed land is also encouraged by paragraph 17 bullet point 8 of the Framework. Furthermore, the proposals fit the exception for development in the remaining rural areas...these matters would outweigh the harm of the proposals relating to the access of future occupants to services and facilities identified above. On this basis, I conclude that the proposals would comply with the development plan when taken as a whole.”

Western Boundary – View looking towards the adjacent listed barns

9 Alrewas Architecture

Summary

In summary the proposal doesn’t conform with Class Q and therefore PD rights cannot be sought. However many of the elements which comprise Class Q approval are attributable to this proposal. This is not a new build, and under new guidance, the standard to achieve is

‘The changes to government guidance sought to provide greater clarity over which buildings will and will not benefit from the permitted development right; stating that the works required to enable the change of use should constitute a ‘conversion’ rather than being so extensive as to represent a ‘rebuild’. This essentially meant the structural test was out and the practical, more rounded test about the general ‘convertibility’ of the barn is in’ Savills.

Courts have considered that the distinction between a conversion and rebuild is implicit in paragraph 105 of the PPG which states in relation to Class Q that it is not the "… intention of the permitted development right to include the construction of new structural elements for a building". It was argued that one reason for this conclusion is that a development that includes "new structural elements" is one that involves a degree of rebuild and is not a conversion.

This application does not rely upon Class Q for reasons stated earlier however, in line with Class Q policy the term conversion of the barn is reliable since the existing structure (floor slab, footings, columns, roof trusses, internal first floor remain in place and facilitate the conversion into a dwelling.

The barn is not a rebuild, and it is in robust condition however it will likely remain redundant for the long term and the prospect of creating a dwelling would not only complement adjacent dwellings but compliment the Grade II Listed properties by comparison. It also retains the historical, agricultural element which the Dutch barn brings to the fold.

Compiled by

Debbie Glancy Architect BA (Hons) BSc. DipArch RIBA For and on behalf of Alrewas Architecture

29.04.2021

10