AGENDA ITEM: 7
PLANNING COMMITTEE: 23rd JUNE 2005
Report of: Executive Manager (Planning & Development Services) Contact for further information: Mr J R Harrison (ext. 5132)
SUBJECT: PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT ITEMS
Background Papers In accordance with Section 100D of the Local Government Act 1972 the background papers used in the compilation of reports relating to planning applications and other reports are listed within the text of each report and are available for inspection in the Planning Division, except for such documents as contain exempt or confidential information defined in Schedule 12A of the Act. WARD SHEET WRIGHTINGTON 1, 2, 7 UP HOLLAND 3 TARLETON -- TANHOUSE -- SKELMERSDALE SOUTH 8 SKELMERSDALE NORTH -- SCOTT -- SCARISBRICK 13 RUFFORD 6 PARBOLD -- NORTH MEOLS 9 NEWBURGH -- MOORSIDE -- KNOWSLEY -- HESKETH with BECCONSALL 10 HALSALL -- DIGMOOR -- DERBY -- BURSCOUGH WEST -- BURSCOUGH EAST -- BIRCH GREEN -- BICKERSTAFFE -- AUGHTON PARK 4, 11 AUGHTON and DOWNHOLLAND 5, 12 ASHURST --
AGENDA ITEM: 7
PLANNING COMMITTEE: 23RD JUNE 2005
______
Report of: Executive Manager Planning And Development Services
Contact for further information: J.R. Harrison (Extn. 5132 )
SUBJECT: PLANNING APPLICATIONS
No. 1 APPLICATION No. 8/2004/0711 LOCATION KNOWLES FARM, STONEY BROW, ROBY MILL, UP HOLLAND PROPOSAL CONVERSION OF FARM BUILDING INTO FIVE RESIDENTIAL UNITS (AMENDMENT TO PLANNING PERMISSION 8/02/0337) APPLICANT ANGLO INTERNATIONAL UP HOLLAND LIMITED WARD WRIGHTINGTON PARISH UP HOLLAND 8 WEEKS EXPIRE 1.7.2004
No. 2 APPLICATION No. 8/2004/0712 LOCATION KNOWLES FARM, STONEY BROW, ROBY MILL, UP HOLLAND PROPOSAL LISTED BUILDING CONSENT. CONVERSION OF FARM BUILDING INTO FIVE RESIDENTIAL UNITS (AMENDMENT TO LISTED BUILDING CONSENT 8/02/0338) APPLICANT ANGLO INTERNATIONAL UP HOLLAND LIMITED WARD WRIGHTINGTON PARISH UP HOLLAND 8 WEEKS EXPIRE 12.7.2004
1.0 DEFERRAL
1.1 This application was deferred for an organised site visit to assess the impact of development on the character of the Listed Buildings.
2.0 PREVIOUS RELEVANT DECISIONS
2.1 8/2002/0338 APPROVED. 1.5.03. LBC – Conversion and extension to farm buildings to form 8 dwelling units and provision of parking areas. 8/2002/0337 APPROVED. 1.5.03. Conversion and extension to farm buildings to form 8 dwelling units and provision of parking areas.
3.0 OBSERVATION OF CONSULTEES
3.1 ENV. AGENCY (22.6.04) – No objections.
3.2 E.M.C.S. (17.6.04) – No objections.
3.3 L.C.C. (ARCHAEOLOGICAL UNIT) (12.7.04) – No objections.
4.0 OTHER REPRESENTATIONS
4.1 I have received 43 copies of a standard letter signed by local residents which objects to the proposal on the grounds that the raising of the ridge height of the building is inappropriate development to a listed building and that such works have a detrimental effect on the landscape and have resulted in the creation of an imposing building in front of properties on Stoney Brow and Roby Mill.
4.2 Letter received from local residents Group ARM (Action for Roby Mill) raising the following issues:
• consider the recommendation that the decision be delegated is unacceptable – decision should be made by the Planning Committee. • developers have been allowed to continue works despite the fact that the development was not in accordance with the approved plans. • the height of the building has been increased by 1 metre. • the new scheme includes doors, exits and garden areas to the north of the barn which were not allowed on the approved scheme. • window openings have been increased in size on the north facing gable of the barn from the approved scheme. • chimneys have been added to the barn roof contrary to Council policy.
In relation to the revisions to the approved scheme incorporated into the current proposal, they suggest that these are unacceptable and should be refused.
They also raise issues regarding alleged breaches of planning control, which are currently under investigation and which will if appropriate, form the basis of a report to your Committee at a future date. 5.0 VIEWS OF PARISH COUNCIL
5.1 None received.
6.0 OBSERVATIONS OF EXECUTIVE MANAGER PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
6.1 Knowles Farm is located on the western side of Stoney Brow close to its junction with Farley Lane. The site comprises a two-storey farmhouse and L- shaped stone barn. Both buildings are Grade II listed dating from the early 19th Century (the farmhouse is dated 1808). The buildings form a semi- enclosed courtyard and have an important value as a group.
6.2 Members will note from the list of previous relevant decisions that planning permission and listed building consent was granted in May 2003 for the conversion and extension of the farm buildings at Knowles Farm into a total of 8 dwellings. This comprised 6 dwellings within the L-shaped agricultural stone barn and 2 dwellings in the former farmhouse.
6.3 This current application relates solely to the conversion of the stone agricultural building and proposes the conversion of the building into 5 rather than 6 dwellings incorporating minor revisions to the internal layout, fenestration and an increase in the ridge height of the building.
6.4 Associated with the conversion of the building into 5 dwellings is the provision of garden areas, both private and communal, on land to the west of the building which currently contains a number of trees and is screened by existing hedgerows, and the provision of car parking within the courtyard and adjacent to the garden areas. The proposal also involves improvements to the vehicle access onto Stoney Brow comprising improved access radii and visibility splays both of which are in line with the requirements of the County Surveyor. All of these associated elements are as per the approved scheme (ref. 8/2002/0337).
6.5 The applications need to be assessed against Policies GB.7, LB.2, LB.3 and LB.6 of the Adopted West Lancashire Local Plan and Policies DS2, GB.1 and EN5 of the Re-deposit Draft Replacement Local Plan.
6.6 The principle of development has already been accepted by virtue of the current planning permission which has in parts already commenced on site. In granting planning permission previously, the Council was satisfied that the proposals met the criteria of the relevant Local Plan Policies in that the development did not have a materially greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt, the building is of traditional design and in keeping with the area, the building is unsuitable for commercial use, the proposed alterations are architecturally consistent with the existing building and do not detract from its architectural and historic interest, and, the proposals preserve existing architectural and historic features. I am satisfied that this revised scheme similarly satisfies these requirements.
6.7 The outstanding criterion which both the previous scheme and the current scheme fails to fully satisfy is Criterion (iii) of Policy GB.7. This criterion relates to the degree of reconstruction works required to implement the proposed conversion. Prior to commencement of existing works on site, the barn was in a state of considerable disrepair. On the recommendation of a Structural Engineer the applicant has demolished and rebuilt approximately 40% of the external walls of the barn and re-roofed the building. Policy LB.6 of the Adopted Local Plan (and Policy EN5 of the deposit draft replacement local plan allows partial demolition and rebuild of listed buildings where the need for such works is essentially required in order to safeguard the future of the building. This level of rebuilding works, however, far exceeds the maximum 25% normally applied by the Council to proposals for the re-use of buildings within Green Belt.
6.8 The Council granted the previous application on the grounds that very special circumstances applied, namely :
• The barn was in extremely poor condition and failure to achieve a new use in the near future would undoubtedly prejudice its long term retention;
• the barn and farmhouse form an important group and the loss of the barn would detract from the value of the farmhouse;
• the applicant has an interest in St. Joseph' College and any profit achieved from the proposed development of Knowles Farm (as well as College Farm) would be used towards the restoration, conversion and re-use of St. Joseph's College building.
6.9 These special circumstances are still relevant to the current planning application. A further relevant consideration is, of course, the fact that there is a current planning permission and listed building consent for the conversion of the barn to residential use which is similar in character to the current proposal.
6.10 Concern has been expressed by local residents that the ridge height of part of the building has been raised in height by approximately 1 metre. Photographic evidence supplied by the builder along with measurements undertaken by my officers would suggest that the increase in ridge height is in the order of approximately 0.3 metres. These works are being undertaken to provide sufficient structural support to the new roof whilst allowing the original timber trusses to remain in situ. I have no objection in principle to these works as I consider the retention of the original trusses within the design of the building is appropriate and I do not agree with the objectors that raising the roof detracts from the character of the building or the amenity of any neighbouring property or the area in general.
6.11 Given the above, my recommendation is that planning permission be GRANTED subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 Agreement as outlined below.
7.0 RECOMMENDATION
7.1 That the decision to GRANT planning permission be DELEGATED to the Executive Manager Planning and Development Services in consultation with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Planning Committee subject to completion of an agreement under Section 106 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990, which requires that all profits from the sale of the converted buildings at College Farm to be used for the restoration, conversion and re-use of St. Joseph's College building.
7.2 That planning permission reference 8/02/0711 be subject to the following conditions :-
1. SCP01 Amended plans 2. SCB02 External stone to match 3. SCB08 Restrict P.D. (extensions/outbuildings, etc.) 4. SCB07 Restrict P.D. (windows) 5. SCB24 In accordance with structural survey 6. SCD03 Submit drainage details 7. The proposed access improvements shall be completed in accordance with the details shown on the approved plan prior to the use of the buildings commencing. 8. SCH04 Access (2.4m x 90m. Stoney Brow) 9. SCL01 Landscape as submitted 10. The existing boundary hedge along Stoney Brow located within the visibility splay shall be repositioned in accordance with a detailed specification to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. New planting shall be undertaken within a period of 12 months of the initial repositioning of the hedge in the event that the established hedge does not survive. 11. Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority all windows and door shall be painted timber and rainwater goods shall be east iron or aluminium ogee.
Reasons
1. RCM04 Avoidance of doubt. Policy GB.7 2. RCB07 External appearance. Policy GB.7 3. RCB03 Character of property. Policy GB.7 4. RCB03 Character of property. Policy GB.7 5. To ensure that the details of the proposal satisfactorily comply with the requirements of Policy GB.7 of the West Lancashire Local Plan. 6. RCD03 Ensure site drained 7. RCH01 Road safety 8. RCH05 Visibility 9. RCL01 Assimilate development 10. RCL01 Assimilate development 11. To ensure that the details of the proposal satisfactorily comply with the requirements of Policy GB.7 of the West Lancashire Local Plan.
NOTES
1. GEN03 Barn conversions 2. GEN08 Building Regulations 3. GEN11 Access to buildings for the Fire Brigade 4. GEN12 Planning permission only 5. GEN17 Amended plans 6. GEN27 Vehicle crossing (outside urban core area) 7. GEN35 Demolition
7.3 That Listed Building Consent ref. 8/04/0712 be subject to the following conditions:
1. LBC04 Damage to listed buildings 2. SCP01 Amended plans
Reasons
1. LBR2 Listed Buildings 2. RCM04 Avoidance of doubt. Policy GB.7
NOTES
1. GEN17 Amended plans 2. GEN29 Listed Buildings Specifications
Reason for Approval
SRA01 Standard Approval Reason Policies GB7 Use of Rural Buildings in the Green Belt LB2 Protection of Listed Agricultural Buildings LB3 Repair, Improvement or Alteration of Listed Buildings
JRH/PH/SK ------
No. 3 APPLICATION No. 8/04/1494 LOCATION LAND AT PIMBO LANE, UP HOLLAND PROPOSAL ERECTION OF 5 UNITS (CLASS B1/B8) AND GATE HOUSE, PROVISION OF NEW ACCESS AND PARKING AREAS AND ASSOCIATED LANDSCAPING APPLICANT KRM (UK) LIMITED WARD UP HOLLAND PARISH UP HOLLAND 8 WEEKS EXPIRE 09.05.05.
1.0 DEFERRAL
1.1 This application was deferred for an organised site visit to assess the impact of development on Green Belt and neighbouring residential properties.
2.0. PREVIOUS RELEVANT DECISIONS
2.1 8/00/0213 REFUSED 27.04.00. Haulage Depot, including goods storage, fabrication and maintenance workshop and offices.
3.0 OBSERVATIONS OF CONSULTEES
3.1 H.A. (01.12.04) – No objection.
3.2 TRANSCO (01.12.04 and 03.12.04) – there is high pressure apparatus in the vicinity, running along Pimbo Lane and a medium pressure main running along Prescott Road.
3.3 H.S.E. (23.11.04) – does not advise against the granting of planning permission on safety grounds.
3.4 C.S. HIGHWAYS (01.12.04) – considers the development to be of a size to require a Transport Assessment and Travel Plan. These have now been submitted and further comments made
3.5 C.S. HIGHWAYS (27.04.05) - junction to Prescott Road to be changed in accordance with Lancashire County Council requirements, connection to Pimbo Lane for cycleway/footway to be provided, request public transport contribution and cycleway contribution, business travel plan should be more robust.
3.6 E.M.E.S. (01.12.04 and 10.12.04) – raises concerns due to proximity of site to houses on Pimbo Lane and Hotel on Prescott Road. Most of the site is unsuitable for Use Class B2 and B8 where a 24 hour use is required. The high density layout would result in unacceptable noise intrusion from machinery, plant impact noises and vehicle movements.
Comments on revised scheme awaited although number of units decreased, acoustic fence proposed and orientation changed to address noise concerns.
3.7 E.M.E.S. (16.5.05) – Amended layout has been improved by changing the loading area for Building A, however, Building B still has a service yard facing properties along Pimbo Lane. Additionally, the office building is located in close proximity to a heavy engineering company and occupants of the office may suffer noise from this activity. Still raise concerns about amenity of nearby residents if the site were to operate 24 hours per day. Recommend conditions restricting use of premises 0700 to 2100 any day, restricting time of delivery vehicles imposing noise levels and other noise minimising controls as well as controls during construction.
3.8 U.U. (07.12.04) – No objection, however a public sewer crosses the site.
4.0. VIEWS OF PARISH COUNCIL
4.1 UP HOLLAND PC (12.01.05) – Objected to the initial scheme on grounds of insufficient information regarding potential uses and landscaping scheme. Could cause noise nuisance to neighbouring residential properties. It is also considered appropriate for the applicant to provide a commuted sum to improve transport for the industrial area.
5.0 OTHER REPRESENTATIONS
5.1 68 letters of objection were received from neighbouring residential properties to the original scheme. Of these, 62 were standardised letters from 33 different addresses and 6 were individual letters.
77 letters of objection have been received from neighbouring residential properties to the amended proposal. Of these, 68 are standardised letters from 34 different addresses and 9 are individual letters. Issues raised:
· Already suffer from noise from existing factories on Pimbo Industrial Estate, seven days a week, twenty four hours a day. There would be increased noise. · Increased light pollution. · Previous planning applications on the site have been refused, why can the area not be left as a boundary space between the industrial estate and others? · Methane gas on the site. · Close proximity to Green Belt. · Buildings too high causing loss of light. · Lack of screening. · Eyesore · Already enough vacant units on the Pimbo Industrial Estate · Violation of Human Rights
5.2 Seven letters of objection received to the latest amended plans reiterating the points made previously.
6.0 OBSERVATIONS OF EXECUTIVE MANAGER PLANNING/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
6.1 Members may recall that this application has twice been withdrawn by officers from the Planning Committee in January and February. This was due to late additional information being received from the applicant such as to warrant further negotiations. The proposal has now been substantially revised, mainly due to the reduction in the number of units and the provision of more landscaping.
6.2 The site comprises an area of approximately 1.75 hectares (4.36 acres) and is currently a grassed field. It slopes down from north to south towards Up Holland Railway Station. It is bound to the east by Pimbo Lane with Green Belt beyond, to the west by Prescott Road and Pimbo Industrial Estate beyond. To the north is the Quality Hotel and to the south, the remainder of the grass field and the railway station.
6.3 The applicant originally proposed the erection of seven buildings with a floor area of 7,500 sq.m. The revised proposal has been reduced in scale to five buildings with a floor area of 6,675 sq. m. comprising B1 offices in one building and B1 light industrial and B8 warehouse and distribution in the remaining four. The five buildings would contain a total of 8 industrial units. Access is proposed off Prescott Road and a single storey gatehouse is proposed at the entrance. The buildings are proposed to be constructed of buff coloured fair face blocks to the walls and feature piers with green powder coated framed windows, doors and canopies and grey profiled metal deck roofs. The light industrial/warehousing buildings are a maximum of 12.5m high to the ridge. The office building is two storey.
6.4 The layout of the site has been revised radically, such that it now provides for a 10m landscaped buffer to the eastern site boundary, beyond which is an existing 5m highway verge of existing trees and hedgerow along Pimbo Lane. An 8m wide landscaped buffer is also provided to the north eastern boundary alongside the public footpath between the site and the Quality Hotel. A 10m wide landscaped buffer is also provided to the south of the site and a minimum 5m strip of groundcover shrubs indicated along the site frontage to Prescott Road. The detailed landscape plan submitted with the revised application also includes areas of landscaping within the site.
6.5 The revised layout also clearly indicates the internal road layout, parking provision and servicing areas. There are a total of 100 parking spaces, including 13 disabled spaces. There are also 6 motorcycle/cycle spaces. It is also proposed to erect an acoustic-type fence along part of the eastern boundary fronting houses along Pimbo Lane.
6.6 The site is allocated for employment purposes in both the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan and the Re-Deposit Draft Replacement Local Plan and Policies I.1 and DE.5 respectively are relevant. There have been objections to the Re-Deposit Plan to the site’s allocation, with a request that the land be considered as open land to act as a buffer between the industrial estate and residential properties and the Green Belt. However, as the Re-Deposit Plan has not yet been through public inquiry, I give more weight to the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan and consider industrial development of the site to be acceptable in principle. Proposals for such development must also comply with Policy I.8 of the Local Plan and Policy GD.1 of the Re-Deposit Draft Replacement Local Plan. These policies set out detailed criteria for industrial/business development (Design of Development).
6.7 Both the above Policies require 10m – 20m of peripheral landscaping on sites on the edge of industrial estates in order to create a buffer zone to screen development from open countryside and limit the impact upon adjoining residential or sensitive uses. The site adjoins Green Belt and residential properties to the east and a hotel to the north. The revised layout and landscape plan identifies 10m structural landscape planting to all sensitive boundaries. Along the eastern boundary to the Green Belt there is a 15m landscaped area where existing landscaping is incorporated. I consider that the proposal now complies with this part of the Policy.
6.8 Many of the objections to the original proposal referred to noise intrusion. However, the applicant has clearly stated that only B1 and B8 uses have been applied for and notwithstanding that there are no proposals for any B2 (general industrial) uses, the applicant is nevertheless prepared to erect an acoustic screen along the south eastern corner which, together with the landscape buffer and buildings themselves would considerably reduce noise emissions. The orientation of the building closest to residential properties along Pimbo Lane has been altered to remove the loading area from this area of the site. This reduces the impact of movement, noise and lighting from directly in front of residential properties.
6.9 The parking provision and general internal layout is considered to be acceptable as is the design of the buildings. The new access is off an existing main road which services many other industrial sites on the estate and has sufficient capacity to accommodate the traffic generated by the development. The implementation of the submitted Travel Plan would also enhance accessibility of the site. To further assist in accessibility, I am recommending that the decision to grant planning permission be subject to a Section 106 Agreement requiring the applicant to pay a commuted sum, to be agreed with the County Surveyor as a contribution towards the enhancement of local public transport and cycleway provision.
6.10 I am now satisfied that the revised proposal meets the criteria laid out in all relevant Local Plan policies and that whilst the development will be visible it will be assimilated into the surrounding area through high quality design and significant landscaping.
7.0 RECOMMENDATION
7.1 That the decision to grant planning permission be Delegated to the Executive Manager Planning and Development Services in consultation with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Planning Committee subject to the Developer entering into a S106 Agreement to provide an appropriate commuted sum as a contribution towards the enhancement of local public transport and cycleway provision and detailed implementation of the Business Travel Plan.
7.2 That the planning permission be subject of the following conditions:-
1. SCT02 Standard Time 2. SCP01 Amended Plans Site layout C/1098/20 Rev. D (received 9th May 2005); landscape proposals P1033/01 Rev. B (received 10th May 2005); Gate House 20:04:600:23; Building A 20:04:600:22a; (received 9th May 2005), Buildings B, C and E 20:04:600:21; Building D 20:04:600:23 and Cross Section C/1098/22 Rev A all received on 15th March 2005. 3. SCB14 Details of Materials 4. SCD03 Drainage 5. SCL01 Landscaping as submitted within 9 months. Change “first brought into use” to “commenced”. 6. SCB26 Submit levels. 7. SCC01 No outside storage. 8 SCH10 Vehicle areas first 9. SCH14 Mark out car park 10. SCH15 Wheel cleaning provision 11. Prior to use of the site commencing details of the siting and design of any gates to be erected along the access into the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. 12. Prior to the use of the site commencing an acoustic fence, the details of which shall be agreed in writing with the LPA, shall be erected in the position shown on drawing ref. C/1098/20 Rev. B and shall thereafter be maintained such in perpetuity. 13. SCN01 Machinery in building. 14. SCN02 Restrict to Class B1 and B8 15. SCN08 No retail sales 16. No lighting (including floodlights) shall be erected on the buildings or within the site without the prior written approval of the LPA. 17. Prior to the use of the site commencing details of the design and location of cycle parking shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall be implemented as such and maintained in perpetuity. 18. The hours of use of the premises shall be restricted to 0700 to 21.00 hours on any day. 19. The rating level of noise from fixed equipment at each unit shall not exceed 5dB(A) below the existing LA90 background noise level at the facade of any of the nearby residential premises. All measurements and assessments shall be done in accordance with BS4142.1997. 20. The level of noise emitted from each unit shall not increase the existing ambient noise levels, measured as 1 hourly Laeq at any time, at the facade of any of the nearby residential premises. 21. Any sound produced by vehicle reversing alarms or indicators when measured 1m from the facade of any nearby residential dwelling, shall not exceed 55dB LA max. 22. All vehicles shall switch off their engines and vehicle mounted refrigeration units once they have docked at a loading bay and whilst parked on site. 23. Works for the minimisation of disturbance by noise to the office block Building D shall be carried out as an integral part of the development, in accordance with a scheme to be submitted and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reasons
1. SCT02 Standard Time 2. RCM04 Avoidance of Doubt (Policy I.8) 3. RCB07 External Appearance (Policy I.8) 4. RCD03 Ensure Site Drained 5. RCL01 Assimilate Development (Policy I.8) 6. RCM04 Avoidance of Doubt (Policy I.8) 7. RCB09 Unsightliness 8. RCH02 Parking clear of highway 9. RCH08 Effective Use of Car Park 10. RCH09 Avoid Mud on Road 11. RCH06 Vehicle Clear of Highway 12. RCN01 Minimise Noise 13. RCN03 Contain Noise Indoors 14. RCM04 Avoidance of Doubt (Policy I.8) 15. RCM04 Avoidance of Doubt (Policy I.8) 16. RCB09 Unsightliness 17. RCB07 External Appearance (Policy I.8) 18. RCM03 Amenities of others (Policy I.8) 19. RCM03 Amenities of others (Policy I.8) 20. RCM03 Amenities of others (Policy I.8) 21. RCM03 Amenities of others (Policy I.8) 22. RCM03 Amenities of others (Policy I.8) 23. RCM03 Amenities of others (Policy I.8)
NOTES
1. GEN02 Samples on Site 2. GEN08 Building Regulations 3. GEN11 Access to the Buildings for Fire Brigade 4. GEN12 Planning Permission only 5. GEN33 Approval of Materials 6. GEN17 Amended Plans
Reason for Approval
SRA01 Standard Approval Reason Policy I.1. Industrial/Business Development Sites Policy I.8. Development Criteria for Industrial/Business Development
AV/JRH/HA/PH
------
No. 4 APPLICATION No. 8/05/0385 LOCATION 7 SWANPOOL LANE, AUGHTON PROPOSAL FIRST FLOOR SIDE EXTENSION APPLICANT MR. I MAXWELL SCOTT WARD AUGHTON PARK PARISH AUGHTON 8 WEEKS EXPIRE 18.5.2005
1.0 DEFERRAL
1.1 This application was deferred for an organised site visit to assess the impact of development on the amenity of adjacent property.
2.0 PREVIOUS RELEVANT DECISIONS
2.1 None.
3.0 OBSERVATIONS OF CONSULTEES
3.1 None received.
4.0 VIEWS OF PARISH COUNCIL
4.1 No comments to make on the application.
5.0 OTHER REPRESENTATIONS
5.1 One letter of objection has been received raising the following concerns :
• The side of the adjacent property (number 5) is south facing and it contains four windows, one of which is a main window to the living room. There is also a conservatory at the rear facing number 7. • The proposal would bring the first floor elevation closer to number 5 and it would be longer than the existing first floor elevation. Also as the roof is gabled there would be no relief from the increased height. • Although the property is on a lower level, this would not offset the impact of the increased height and length. • The result of the above is that there will be a significant reduction in light reaching the South facing windows of number 5; the proposal would also create an overbearing outlook. • Policies H.14 and GD1 state that the proposal should not cause unreasonable harm through overshadowing or by creating a poor outlook, and on this basis it should be refused. • The minimum distance accepted by the Local Planning Authority for new developments between habitable windows and blank gables is 13 metres, this should apply in this case where the distance is only 5 metres. • The applicant refers to a 450 rule, this is not relevant as it is not in council policies or guidance. • The proposal would create an overshadowing effect on number 5’s garden. • The fact that Certificate B has not been issued should be checked, and even if it does not encroach access will be required to number 5’s garden to build the proposal.
6.0 SUPPORTING STATEMENT
6.1 The applicant has submitted a document in favour of the development that raises the following points :
• When planning permission was first granted for the garage construction details were designed to accommodate a first floor extension, the foundations, eaves and soffit of the proposed roof will all be in land under the applicant’s ownership. • The proposal would be finished to fit in with the existing and would reflect the existing South elevation. • The adjacent property is 0.7 metres above the level of number 7 and is 5 metres away; the rooms all have primary windows on either the front of rear elevations and secondary windows to the side. • The increase in the height of the wall for the first floor extension would only be 2 metres above the existing. • As number 5 is 5 metres away there would be no infringement of the 450 rule in respect to light. • Number 5 has erected a conservatory, this projects 1.2 metres beyond the sidewall for a distance of 0.6 metres and would be unaffected by the proposal. • The applicant feels that at the moment the property is unfinished as it looks truncated, he also believes that the proposal would be a visual improvement to the property.
6.2 The applicant has submitted a response to the objector’s letter raising the following points:
• he fundamentally disagrees with the points raised by the objector.
• the side windows of number 5 that face number 7 are secondary windows as the living room which the ground floor side window serves has a large front window and patio doors to the conservatory at the rear. The first floor windows on the side elevation are also secondary windows.
• the windows already face a wall and planting at ground floor level.
• the statement that there would be no relief of the increase in height to 4 metres to the ridge is incorrect as the increase in height to the eves would be only 2 metres.
• the outlook from the conservatory would not be seriously impaired as there is currently planting that grows higher than the existing wall and will screen part of the new wall.
• the objector raised the point that in new developments the minimal distance between windows to a habitable room and blank gable walls accepted by the Local Planning Authority is 13 metres, this proposal is not a new development and he would consider that this is to cover where windows to primary elevations and habitable rooms face directly on to a blank gable end. In this case the proposal is an increase in height of 2 metres to an existing wall that would only face secondary windows. It would be interesting to see if a wall with a hipped roof and relief from overhanging eaves would be classified as a blank gable end.
• the majority of the planting in the side garden of number 5 is on a trellis parallel to the existing north facing wall of number 7 and so it can only gain light from the east, west and north anyway.
• the proposal would be located solely in the land of number 7.
7.0 OBSERVATIONS OF EXECUTIVE MANAGER PLANNING/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
7.1 The application property is a detached house in the main settlement of Aughton, which has been previously extended to the side to create a garage and utility room. The neighbouring property, number 5 has four windows on its south elevation that face number 7 and a conservatory at the rear. The properties are screened from each other by a boundary of 2.7 metre high bushes and shrubs.
7.2 The application proposes a pitched roof first floor side extension above the existing single storey garage and utility room. The extension would project 3.4 metres to the side and be 12.2 metres long with an eaves height of 5m and a ridge height of 7.4 metres.
7.3 Policy H.14 ‘House Extensions’ of the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan and Policy GD.1 ‘Design of Development’ of the Re-Deposit Draft West Lancashire Local Plan are relevant in consideration of this application.
7.4 The above policies require that extensions should not cause harm to the amenities of occupiers of neighbouring properties through overlooking, overshadowing or by creating a poor outlook.
7.5 The objector's letter makes reference to Council guidelines that there should be a minimum separation distance between walls containing habitable windows and blank gable walls. This guidance is taken from the Council's SPG for new residential developments. Its purpose is to achieve satisfactory relationship between the siting of the new dwelling. Reference to the guidelines is not wholly appropriate in this case as the issues being considered relate to existing dwellings. Furthermore, the guideline is also aimed at ensuring a reasonable level of light and outlook in cases where the windows in question are primary habitable windows.
7.6 The application is for a first floor side extension, which would be set back around 5 metres from the side elevation of the adjacent property (number 5) and the proposal would increase the height to the eaves of the property by 2 metres. Number 5 has windows on its gable wall facing number 7, which serve habitable rooms, i.e. bedrooms and lounge, however, they are secondary windows with the primary windows within the front and rear elevations of the property. This being the case, I do not consider that the proposal would result in a significant loss of light to the adjacent property or a poor outlook, from either the windows or the conservatory.
7.7 It is considered that the proposal complies with Policies H.14 and GD1 and therefore I recommend this application be approved.
8.0 RECOMMENDATION
8.1 That planning permission be GRANTED with the following conditions:
1. SCT02 Standard time 2. SCB01 Matching materials 3. SCB07 Restrict P.D. windows (side elevation of first floor extension)
Reasons
1. RCT02 Standard time 2. RCB07 External appearance (Policy H.14) 3. RCB04 Privacy (Policy H.14)
Notes
1. GEN01 Matching materials 2. GEN08 Building regulations 3. GEN11 Access to buildings for the Fire Brigade 4. GEN12 Planning Permission Only
Reason for Approval
SRA01 Standard Approval Reason Policy H.14 – House Extensions AK/JRH/PH/SK ------
No. 5 APPLICATION No. 8/05/0199 LOCATION 326 PRESCOT ROAD, AUGHTON PROPOSAL SINGLE STOREY EXTENSION, INCLUDING ATTACHED GARAGE AT SIDE APPLICANT MR. AND MRS. CLARK WARD AUGHTON AND DOWNHOLLAND PARISH AUGHTON 8 WEEKS EXPIRE 14.04.05.
1.0 DEFERRAL
1.1 This application was deferred for an organised site visit to assess the impact of development on the amenity of neighbouring properties.
2.0 PREVIOUS RELEVANT DECISIONS
2.1 None.
3.0 OBSERVATIONS OF CONSULTEES
3.1 None received.
4.0 VIEWS OF PARISH COUNCIL
4.1 No comments to make on the application.
5.0 OTHER REPRESENTATIONS
5.1 Two letters of objection have been received from the occupiers of the adjacent property stating:-
· The proposal would result in a loss of light and create a poor outlook · The light would have to be on when the dining room is used, resulting in a higher electricity bill · It would result in numbers 324 & 326 looking more like a semi detached property or a detached property from a modern estate and as a result would reduce the market price of the property · It would affect the light in a rear bedroom and be obtrusive and overlooking next to a patio area · The proposal is higher than the original garage, which was on the opposite side of the property. If it was the same size it would not reduce the light received in the dining room as much as the proposed extension and the objector would consider withdrawing his objection.
6.0 OBSERVATIONS OF EXECUTIVE MANAGER PLANNING/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
6.1 The application property is a detached bungalow in the main settlement of Aughton. The property has been previously extended at the rear and the boundary of the property with number 324 is a 2.5 – 3 metre high hedge. It is also screened from Prescot Road by dense shrubs and bushes.
6.2 The application proposes a pitched roof side extension that would include an attached double garage. The extension would project 5.8 metres to the side and be 6.7 metres long with a ridge height of 4.5 metres.
6.3 Policy H.14 ‘House Extensions’ of the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan and Policy GD.1 ‘Design of Development’ of the Re-Deposit Draft West Lancashire Local Plan are relevant in consideration of this application.
6.4 The above policies require that extensions should not cause harm to the amenities of occupiers of neighbouring properties through overlooking, overshadowing or by creating a poor outlook. Policy H.14 also requires that a proposal should not adversely affect the character of, or be an incongruous feature in the street or locality.
6.5 The application is for a single storey extension, which would be set back around 7 metres from the front elevation of the adjacent property (number 324) and the site is well screened from Prescot Road. The design of the extension is in character with the existing property with a separation distance from the gable wall of approximately 3 metres. Given these factors I do not consider the proposal an incongruous feature in the street scene, or that it will create a poor outlook or result in a significant loss of light to the adjacent property.
6.6 It is considered that the proposal complies with Policies H.14 and GD1 and therefore I can recommend this application for approval.
7.0 RECOMMENDATION
7.1 That planning permission be GRANTED with the following conditions:
1. SCT02 – Standard time 2. SCB01 – Matching materials
Reasons
1. RCT02 – Standard time 2. RCB07 – External appearance
NOTES
1. GEN01 – Matching materials 2. GEN08 – Building regulations 3. GEN11 – Access to buildings for the Fire Brigade 4. GEN12 – Planning Permission Only
Reason for Approval
SRA01 – Standard approval reason Policy H.14 – House Extensions
AK/JRH/HA/SK/PH ------
No. 6 APPLICATION No. 8/05/0009 LOCATION 71 COUSINS LANE, RUFFORD PROPOSAL FIRST FLOOR SIDE EXTENSION, TWO STOREY REAR EXTENSION APPLICANT MR M. GANDY WARD RUFFORD PARISH RUFFORD 8 WEEKS EXPIRE 2.3.05
1. DEFERRAL
1.1 This application was deferred for an organised site visit to assess the impact of development on the amenity of neighbouring properties.
2. PREVIOUS RELEVANT DECISIONS
2.1 8/04/1438 APPROVED. 17.12.04. First floor side extension, single storey rear extension. 8/98/0810 APPROVED. 12.10.98. Pitched roof to existing single storey extension at side.
3. OBSERVATIONS OF CONSULTEES
3.1 None.
4. VIEWS OF PARISH COUNCIL
4.1 RUFFORD P.C. – No representations have been received.
5. OTHER REPRESENTATIONS
5.1 One neighbour has no comments to make provided that any rear windows at first floor have obscure/decorative glazing. One other immediately adjoining neighbour has written a number of letters objecting to the proposal on the following grounds:
• Nos. 71 and 73 were originally one farmhouse dating back to mid 19th century, since divided into two cottages. The existing extension balance the property, the proposed extensions will alter the ‘sameness’ of the properties. • out of character with property. • extensions will lead to almost doubling size of cottage. • loss of light and overshadowing of patio and house • loss of view
6. OBSERVATIONS OF EXECUTIVE MANAGER PLANNING/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
6.1 The application relates to a semi-detached two-storey cottage within the Green Belt. The property would appear to have originally been one farmhouse, which was subsequently split into two separate dwellings. Both of the dwellings have existing single storey side extensions. To the east and north of the property is a relatively modern housing development consisting of large detached two storey dwellings. These are also set at a higher level than the application site. To the west and south of the property are agricultural fields.
6.2 It is proposed to erect a first floor over the existing single storey side extension, which measures 6.1m x 3.1m. It would be taken up to the existing ridge height of 7.1m. This part of the proposal has already been approved under 8/04/1438.
6.3 It is also proposed to erect a two-storey rear extension. Planning permission 8/04/1438 included a single storey rear extension along the boundary with No. 73 Cousins Lane and projecting 3.2m. In this latest application, it is proposed to add a first floor over the approved footprint, up to the main ridge height of 7.1m.
6.4 Policies H.14 ‘House Extensions’ and GB.6 ‘Domestic Extensions to Dwellings in the Green Belt’ of the adopted Local Plan and GD.1 ‘Design of Development’ and DS.2 ‘Protecting the Green Belt’ of the Re-Deposit Draft Replacement Local Plan are relevant. The adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance ‘Replacement dwellings and Domestic Extensions to Dwellings in the Green Belt’ is also relevant.
6.5 There are two main issues when considering this application. Firstly, the impact upon neighbouring residential amenity and secondly, the impact of the size and position of extensions upon the openness and visual amenity of the Green Belt and upon the size of the original dwelling. The rear gardens of the two properties 71 and 73 are only 4.4m long. The majority of the garden area for both properties is at the side, No. 73 having an 18m wide side garden, of which approximately half is hardsurfaced for the parking of vehicles. No. 71 has a 7m wide side garden. At the rear of No. 73 is the property 3 Croft Hey, which has an approximately 1.5m higher ground level. There is a retaining bank at the rear of No. 73 so the paved area between this house and the rear boundary is already quite sheltered. There are no rear habitable room windows close to the boundary to No. 71. The rear main room window at ground floor is approximately 2.5m away and the main rear bedroom window at first floor is a similar distance. There is a landing window within 1m of the boundary at first floor.
6.6 I consider that although some overshadowing and light would be lost to the rear garden area of No. 73, there would be no significant light lost to habitable room windows. This is due to the projection of only 3.2m, and the north west facing direction. Whilst I accept that the rear patio area would be overshadowed in the area immediately adjoining the neighbour, it is already overshadowed by the rear banking and boundary fence and is not in any case, the main grassed garden to the property.
6.7 There are no rear windows on the proposed rear extension and therefore no loss of privacy to the properties on Croft Hey.
6.8 The history of previous extensions to No. 71 is unclear. There are no records of any extensions other than a pitch roof over the existing side extension in 1998. the extension could have been built as ‘permitted development’ but would have required Building Regulations. There is no record of Building Regulations Approval for the extension. All this could mean that the extension was built prior to 1948 and thus be considered to be part of the ‘original’ building. The neighbour has submitted Deeds of her property dating from 1978 and these do not show any extension to No. 71; however this is not conclusive evidence that the extension at No. 71 was built after 1978. Indeed, on inspection of the brickwork at No. 71 it would suggest an earlier build than 1978. It is possible the extension was built at the time the original farmhouse was split into two as the extension contains the main entrance door to No. 71. In the light of all evidence before me, I therefore conclude that the existing extension forms part of the ‘original’ dwelling.
6.9 Having regard to the above, the proposed extensions amount to a 28% increase in floor area over and above the original dwelling and a 67% increase in volume. The floor area increase is below figures suggested in the Council’s SPG; however the volume exceeds the size that would normally be acceptable in the Green Belt. However, due to the location of the site within a significant group of residential properties, namely those on Croft Hey. I am satisfied that no unacceptable loss of openness of the Green Belt will result. There are much larger properties to the rear of the site and 71 and 73 Cousins Lane are also set at a lower level. Mature tree screening exists to the west of the site. The proposed first floor side and single storey at the rear have already been granted planning permission and I consider that the additional first floor rear element would not detract form the visual amenities of the immediate group of properties or the wider Green Belt
6.10 The original farmhouse is an attractive property with some historic character, however it is not listed nor in a Conservation Area and its original authenticity has already been somewhat compromised by existing additions. The two existing side extensions are of different size and appearance and the proposed extensions will not, in my opinion, significantly detract from the character of the property.
7. RECOMMENDATION
7.1 That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:
1. SCT02 Standard time. 2. SCP01 Amended plans – Ref: C/GF/3865/04/Arev G as amended by hand on 31.1.05. 3. SCB01 Matching materials. 4. SCB07 Restrict P.D. windows – after “provisions of these Orders” add “no first floor rear window shall be added to the extension hereby approved”.
Reasons
1. RCT02 Standard time. 2. RCM04 Avoidance of doubt – Policy H.14. 3. RCB07 External appearance – Policy H.14. 4. RCB04 Privacy – Policy H.14.
Notes
1. GEN08 Building Regulations. 2. GEN11 Access to buildings for Fire Brigade. 3. GEN12 Planning permission only. 4. GEN17 Amended plans.
Reason for Approval
1. SRA01 Standard Approval Reason Policy H.14 – House Extensions Policy GB.6 – Domestic Extensions to Dwellings in the Green Belt.
AV/JRH/SK ------
No. 7 APPLICATION No. 8/04/1664 LOCATION FORMER BROOKLANDS NURSING HOME, 77 DINGLE ROAD, UP HOLLAND PROPOSAL CONVERSION AND THREE STOREY SIDE EXTENSION TO PROVIDE 8 NO. 2 BED AND 4 NO. 1 BED “AFFORDABLE” FLATS AND PROVISION OF NEW VEHICULAR ACCESS, ASSOCIATED PARKING AND LANDSCAPING APPLICANT CATCHDALE LTD WARD WRIGHTINGTON PARISH UP HOLLAND 8 WEEKS EXPIRE 17.2.05
1. PREVIOUS RELEVANT DECISIONS
1.1 8/82/0959 APPROVED. 7.1.83. Conversion of dwelling into residential home for the elderly. 8/04/0212 REFUSED. 20.5.04. Outline – demolition of existing building and erection of 9 no. retirement apartments.
2. OBSERVATIONS OF CONSULTEES
2.1 U.U. (14.1.05) – no objection subject to various measures relating to drainage and water supply.
2.2 PRIVATE SECTOR HOUSING MANAGER (14.1.05) – no observations to make.
2.3 E.A. (19.1.05) – no objections.
2.4 E.M.E.S. (26.1.05) – require noise survey to assess impact on the development of noise from the surrounding area and measures be imposed during construction phase to control dust and noise.
2.5 E.M.H.S. (2.2.05) – confirms there is a requirement for additional affordable housing in Up Holland, which is supported by the Council’s Housing Needs Survey Update and the Housing Market Assessment. The proposed scheme has been developed as part of a pilot private finance Affordable Housing Programme with Consmopolitan Housing Association. The Housing Services Division supports the development of the scheme for a mix of affordable rent, intermediate rent, shared ownership or reduced market housing for sale. Properties developed will be allocated in accordance with the Council’s current Housing Allocation Scheme, which would give priority to people with a local connection to UpHolland. Additionally, the conversion of the property will assist in meeting Council targets of reducing number of empty homes in the District.
2.6 L.C.C. HIGHWAYS (4.3.05, 5.4.05 and 29.4.05) – concerns raised regarding original proposed access that it was too close to junction with A577/College Road. Satisfied with revised access arrangements but recommend conditions regarding gateposts, access surfacing and gradient of access.
3. VIEWS OF PARISH COUNCIL
3.1 UP HOLLAND P.C. – objects to the original scheme on the grounds that the proposed entrance is close to the junction of Dingle Road and College Road and increased traffic from this shared entrance is considered a traffic hazard. It is also considered that the original scheme would lead to an overdevelopment of the site and the extension would be overbearing for neighbouring properties. No comments have been received on the revised proposed.
4. OTHER REPRESENTATIONS
4.1 Five letters of objection have been received from neighbouring residents, business and “UpHolland Environmental and Building Control Group” raising the following concerns:-
- too may residential units - increase in traffic and on street parking - loss of trees - loss of light and privacy - out of character with area - extension too large - contrary to SPG on new residential development - infrastructure in area already at full capacity.
4.2 One letter of support has been received which notes that the building will not fall into dereliction.
5. SUPPORTING INFORMATION
5.1 The applicant has offered supporting information in respect of the proposed development. A design statement outlines the concept of the proposal and following discussions with Cosmopolitan Housing Association, the scheme put forward would be developed with them to provide 100% affordable units on the site.
5.2 The existing property is of striking design and previous extensions have been poorly matched. One incongruous element is the steel frame, timber clad fire escape to the northeast elevation which is to be removed. The proposed extension will acknowledge, but be subordinate to the main house.
5.3 The present scheme offers a solution to regenerate “Brooklands” and provide much needed affordable accommodation. At present, the vacant property has no alternative means of regeneration and would remain unattended for some time, with the site gradually deteriorating.
6. EXECUTIVE MANAGER PLANNING/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
6.1 The application site comprises an elegant two-storey Victorian building with rooms contained in the roof space and various single storey and one two- storey extensions and outriggers which represent later additions directly connected with the last use of the building as a nursing home. It is currently vacant and has been for the last 18 months and though set back from the road with extensive frontage landscaping, it remains an imposing building in a prominent location close to the Y junction of Dingle Road, College Road and Grove Road.
6.2 The proposal was originally to convert the building, remove some of the previous extensions and erect a new three storey extension on the north side of the building to provide 14 no. affordable residential units. It was also originally proposed to utilise the existing access close to the junction with Dingle road/College Road. This is a shared access with the residential property 75a Dingle Road.
6.3 Following extensive negotiations with the applicant, the proposal has been amended and now includes conversion and extension to form 12 no. affordable units and a new access to serve these units further northwards along College Road than the existing access, which is to be retained as the sole access to 75a Dingle Road.
6.4 The revised scheme includes the demolition of an existing two storey timber clad extension and a conservatory on the north elevation and replacement with a three storey block, attached to the original building by a part single and part two storey flat roof link block. The link building is 6m high with a parapet wall and has a width of 5.5m. It is set back 1m from the main front wall of the original building. The three-storey block measures 10.7m in width by 9m in depth and is 8m to the eaves and 11.5m to the ridge. The roof design mimics that of the original building and includes raised gable ends. Similarities with the existing design of the original building are also picked up in the stringcourses and soldier courses, the gutter line and plinth detail. However, the Victorian style window details have not been replicated and are more modern in both scale and design.
6.5 A new access will be formed at the northern-most end of the site, adjacent to the existing access to The Rectory. This access now satisfies County Highway Engineers requirements but does involve removal of 4 trees. Within the site, car parking for 8 vehicles can be achieved at the rear of the site adjacent to the Rectory. Parking is also provided for 6 vehicles at the south of the site on the area of the previous drive and hardsurfaced frontage. The existing vehicular access at the junction of Dingle Road/College Road will be retained but only to serve the private residence of 75a Dingle Road. Ramped pedestrian access would also be retained at this point into the site.
6.6 The applicants have clearly stated their intention to develop 100% affordable units and have commitment from Cosmopolitan Housing Association to develop the site for mixed rental/low cost subsidised market flats in accordance with a S106 Agreement to be agreed with the Council. In this respect, the proposal satisfies the criteria set out in Policy DE.1 of the Re- Deposit Draft West Lancashire Replacement Local Plan and is acceptable in principal.
6.7 The access and parking arrangements are considered to now satisfy Highway concerns. The new access will however mean removal of four trees in total along this north end of the site as well as the dense row of conifers along the boundary with the access drive to the Rectory. The loss of the conifers is considered acceptable, particularly as a screen of trees remains along the driveway to the Rectory. Three of the four trees to be removed to allow for the access are considered to be of minor importance, however, one large beech tree proposed for removal is subject to a TPO (T4) and another large TPO beech tree (T3) adjacent to the access is not shown for removal but could be at risk. Both these trees provide a great amount of screening and visual amenity within the streetscene. The Beech (T3) could be replaced if found to be damaged during construction of the access, but the other tree (T4)would be irreplaceable. There is no suitable alternative access arrangement to serve the site and a balance must be made as to the overall merits of the development in terms of affordable housing provision and improved access, against the loss of one tree covered by a TPO. I consider that the benefits of the proposal outweigh the loss of this tree.
6.8 Turning to issues of residential amenity, the impact on the immediately adjacent property 75a Dingle Road would be somewhat reduced than the existing arrangement since they would have their own access and a boundary treatment separating them from the proposed development. The proposed car park is adjacent to the Rectory and I would propose suitable conditions regarding boundary treatment in order to avoid noise and disturbance. Windows on the rear of the proposed extension would be 17m from the rear boundary, 19m from the garage of the Rectory and 24m from the gable elevation, which has no habitable room windows. The gable elevation of the proposed extension is 24m from the gable of the adjacent bungalow at 1 College Road but there are only obscure glazed bathroom windows on this elevation, therefore no loss of privacy would occur. Furthermore, I consider that at this distance and with substantial existing tree cover in between, no overshadowing would occur. The proposed extension is 32m from the property directly opposite on College Road and at this distance and with some tree cover remaining, I consider no loss of privacy would occur. I consider that the overall scale and appearance of the extension, whilst having significant impact upon the streetscene, satisfies Local Plan Policies on design and scale of development.
6.9 On balance, subject to an acceptable S106 Agreement detailing the deliverability of affordable housing I consider that the scheme now proposed satisfies Policy DE1 of the RDDWLRLP and Policies H.1, H.4, T.2 of the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan and should be granted.
7. RECOMMENDATION
7.1 That the decision to grant planning permission be delegated to the Executive Manager Planning/Development Services in consultation with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Planning Committee subject to completion of an agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 which requires measures to ensure the units are affordable.
1. SCT02 Standard time condition. 2. SCP01 Amended plans: Plan Ref: Existing site plan 1814-01 Rev D received 26.4.05. Plan Ref: Proposed site plan 1814-04 Rev F received 20.5.05. Plan Ref: Proposed elevations 1814-07 Rev C received 20.5.05. Plan Ref: Proposed ground floor layout 1814-05 Rev F received 20.5.05. Plan Ref: Proposed first and second floor layouts 1814-06 Rev G received 20.5.05. 3. SCB14 Details of materials. 4. SCB18 Obscure glazing – bathroom windows on north elevation of extension. 5. SCB26 Site levels – add including levels of site access. 6. SCL11 Submit landscaping/implement in 9 months. 7. SCD03 Drainage details. 8. SCH01 Access before dwellings first occupied. 9. SCH10 Vehicle areas first. 10. SCH14 Mark out car park. 11. SCL14 Screen walls. 12. SCL16 Tree Protection Method Statement – add the Method Statement shall include details of construction of access driveway to 75a Dingle Road. 13. Before either access is used for vehicular purposes, any gateposts erected at either the new access or retained access to 75a Dingle Road shall be positioned 5m behind the nearside edge of the carriageway and visibility splay fences or walls shall be erected from the gateposts to the existing boundary, such splays shall be 450 to the centre line of access. The gates shall open away from the highway. Should the access remain ungated 450 splays shall be provided between the highway boundary and points on either side of the drive measured 5m back from the nearside edge of the carriageway. 14. Before the access is used for vehicular purposes, that part of the access extending from the highway boundary for a minimum distance of 5m into the site, shall be appropriately paved in tarmacadam, concrete, block paviours or other approved materials.
Reasons
1. RCT02 Standard time. 2. RCM04 Avoidance of doubt – Policy H.4. 3. RCB07 External appearance – Policy H.4. 4. RCB04 Privacy – Policy H.4. 5. RCC01 Assimilate development – Policy H.4. 6. RCC01 Assimilate development – Policy H.4. 7. RCD03 Ensure site drained. 8. RCH01 Road safety. 9. RCH03 Assimilation of parking. 10. RCH03 Assimilation of parking. 11. RCL01 Assimilate development. 12. RCL07 Assess effect on trees. 13. RCH06 Vehicles clear of highway. 14. RCH07 Prevent loose material on road.
Reason for Approval
1. SRA01 Standard Reason Policy H.1 – Residential Development Policy H.4 – Design Criteria for Residential Development Policy H.6 – Affordable Housing Policy T.2 – Road Traffic and Development Policy LN.5 – Tree Surveys Policy LN.6 – Trees and Development.
AV/JRH/SK ------
No. 8 APPLICATION No. 8/04/1547 LOCATION THE COMRADES CLUB, WITHAM ROAD, SKELMERSDALE PROPOSAL DEMOLITION OF EXISTING CLUB AND ERECTION OF THREE-STOREY RESIDENTIAL BLOCK COMPRISING 12 SELF-CONTAINED FLATS. ALTERATIONS TO VEHICULAR/ PEDESTRIAN ACCESS AND PROVISION OF 18 CAR PARKING SPACES. APPLICANT SABP LTD WARD SKELMERSDALE SOUTH PARISH N/A 8 WEEKS EXPIRE 19.1.05
1. PREVIOUS RELEVANT DECISIONS
1.1 None.
2. OBSERVATIONS OF CONSULTEES
2.1 E.M.E.S. (7.12.04) – request Environmental Management Plan to control dust, noise and hours of operation, request noise assessment.
2.2 E.A. (2.12.04) – no objection.
2.3 LCC HIGHWAYS (13.12.04) – vehicular access should be constructed perpendicular to the carriageway. Proposed plan does not provide visibility splays or junction radii.
2.4 U.U. (17.12.04) – no objection subject to separate drainage system and access to public sewer not compromised.
2.5 E.M.H.S (6.5.05 & 7.6.05) – landowner wishes to develop this scheme and on completion transfer to a Housing Association for management. Discussions are at the early stages, therefore the affordable housing tenure mix has yet to be agreed. This Division would be supportive of any such scheme provided that the scheme meets appropriate Housing Corporation and private sector housing standards.
3. OTHER REPRESENTATIONS
3.1 Letters of objection have been received from the occupiers of 4 neighbouring properties, on the following grounds:
- other existing flats in the area are an eyesore; - loss of views and light due to height of building; - overlooking/loss of privacy from 3rd floor flats; - loss of property values; - may affect access to rear of house.
3.2 One letter of support has been received on the grounds that the proposal would be more pleasing to the eye than the existing club; and the problems caused by the social club include late-night noise, disturbance and anti-social behaviour, poor parking provision and lack of policing.
3.3 A 73 name petition has been received stating their agreement with the proposal.
4. SUPPORTING INFORMATION
4.1 The applicant has made the following points in support of the application:
- the three-storey block is in keeping with the area; - the social club represents a nuisance within the immediate community; - without the possibility to redevelop the site, the club would either fall into disrepair or would be sold and continue to function as a licensed club; - the new building would be more appropriate to the streetscene; - residential development on this site would be an exceptional circumstance, which will improve the quality and variety of housing within the neighbourhood; - the proposal aims to provide a mixed tenure development to include 25% shared ownership, with 75% affordable homes for first time buyers which will be discounted by 5-10%. A housing company is to act as landlord to manage the shared ownership properties, which will maintain a 30% ownership; - the proposed arrangement is strongly supported by local residents, as opposed to any rented option; - the club is a private social club and cannot be regarded as a community facility; - Policy DE1 is noted – this proposal offers significant regeneration, housing supply and amenity benefits in the public interest which justify the grant of planning permission.
5. OBSERVATIONS OF EXECUTIVE MANAGER PLANNING/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
5.1 The application site measures approximately 0.1ha and lies within the main settlement of Skelmersdale as defined by the West Lancashire Local Plan. The site is currently occupied by a single-storey, flat roof building which was previously in use as a social club. The existing building measures 27m x 27m with a maximum height of 5.1m and the front part of the site is occupied by an informal parking area. The site is surrounded on all sides by existing residential development, including 2 no. three-storey blocks of flats to the east.
5.2 Permission is sought for the erection of a three-storey brick and tile building on the front of the site, comprising 12 self-contained, two-bedroom apartments. The proposed building measures approximately 30m x 10m and 10m to ridge height. The proposed development also includes the provision of an 18-space car park at the rear of the site with access off the unadopted back street at the rear of Marchbank Road, and two areas of amenity space with additional landscaping.
5.3 Policy DE1 of the Re-Deposit Draft West Lancashire Replacement Local Plan states that within Skelmersdale, planning permission will only be granted for residential development which forms a key element within a mixed use regeneration project. Alternatively, it should be demonstrated that the site is not needed for community use and that the development will contribute to the wider regeneration of the town. An exception may also be made for schemes which provide 100% affordable housing or accommodation to meet the specific needs of a section of the community, to meet the identified needs of the local area. Residential Development which is acceptable in principle should comply with the criteria of Policy H.4 and Policy T.2 of the adopted Local Plan and Policy GD1 of the Replacement Local Plan.
5.4 The applicant has verbally indicated that he intends to develop the scheme and then transfer it to a Housing Association for management. However, no written confirmation of this has been received, nor any indication that agreement has been reached with a Housing Association. At this stage I therefore have no information as to the proposed housing tenure mix or the arrangements for the partnership, including proposed nomination and transfer of stock arrangements.
5.5 On the basis of the information received to date I have no certainty that the proposed scheme would be transferred to a Housing Association to provide an appropriate affordable housing scheme. The proposed development does not therefore fall within any of the exceptions to Policy DE1 and would contribute to the current oversupply of housing within the District. The applicant is aware of the content of Policy DE1. However, despite the absence of the above information, has requested that the application should be determined as soon as possible. I therefore have no choice but to recommend refusal of the application.
5.6 The proposed development incorporates vehicular access to the car park via the unadopted back street. Insufficient information has been received to satisfy the County Highways Engineer that adequate visibility and junction radii can be achieved. An objection is also raised on the grounds that the access should be perpendicular to the highway.
6. RECOMMENDATION
6.1 That planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:
1. RRR01 Residential Land Oversupply 2. RRH03 Substandard Access/Policy T.2.
AT/JRH/SK ------
No. 9 APPLICATION No. 8/04/1660 LOCATION LONG CROFT, BOUNDARY LANE, HUNDRED END, HESKETH BANK PROPOSAL VARIATION OF CONDITION 1 IMPOSED ON PLANNING PERMISSION 8/2002/1356 TO ALLOW RETENTION OF 22 CARAVANS FOR ACCOMMODATING AGRICULTURAL WORKERS UNTIL 30TH NOVEMBER 2007. APPLICANT MR & MRS EDGE WARD NORTH MEOLS PARISH NORTH MEOLS 8 WEEKS EXPIRE 7.02.2005
1.0 PREVIOUS RELEVANT DECISIONS
1.1 8/02/1356 APPROVAL. 26.02.04. Retention of use for site for siting of 22 residential caravans for use as temporary accommodation for workers employed by Riccadonna Produce. 8/02/0208 APPROVAL. 16.5.05. Erection of glasshouses for commercial growing and 3 metre high windbreaks along boundaries of glasshouses. 8/97/0479 APPROVAL. 21.08.97. Erection of three blocks of greenhouses, two polytunnels and windbreak. 8/96/0184 APPROVAL. 17.4.96. Retention of refrigeration and vacuum plant housing building.
2.0 OBSERVATIONS OF CONSULTEES
2.1 Nil.
3.0 OTHER REPRESENTATIONS
3.1 One letter of objection has been received raising the following concerns :
• There have been instances of theft and property being tampered with. • The lane at the side of an adjacent property has been used as a toilet.
4.0 VIEWS OF PARISH COUNCIL
4.1 Nil.
5.0 SUPPORTING STATEMENT
5.1 A supporting statement has been submitted which outlines the applicant's search for alternative accommodation for seasonal workers and why various options have been discounted, this is available on the file for inspection.
5.2 The report addresses the issues raised by the SPG and concludes that there is no alternative accommodation available and that the caravans remain the only practical solution to the accommodation needs of the operation. It suggests that very special circumstances exist to allow the caravans to stay on site until the end of November 2007.
5.3 Permission is sought for all year round occupation of the caravans due to the particular circumstances of Riccadonna Produce who grow crops throughout the whole year. It is considered that insofar as the impact upon the openness of the Green Belt is concerned, an empty caravan has exactly the same effect as an occupied one. If planning permission is to be granted for the caravans under very special circumstances, it is important that they are used only in accordance with the special need that justifies them.
5.4 A condition preventing any occupation during December, January and February would be impractical for Riccadonna Produce, as it would not meet their specific employment needs. More than half of the caravans at Long Croft are occupied throughout the year, although the same workers do not occupy them all year round because they are only employed on 3, 6 or 9 month contracts. It should also be noted that, unlike other growers, Riccadonna Produce rarely buys in ready packed produce. However, they do purchase crops from other growers whilst they are still in the field and they use their own staff to harvest them. They are also involved in share farming specially for flowers. For both of these reasons staff do work on other farmholdings, so a condition similar to the one imposed by the Inspector in the Gore Hall Farm appeal that restricted occupation of the caravans to workers employed on the holding would not be appropriate in this case. However, a condition that prevented the caravans from being occupied by the same workers for more than 9 months in any year would be acceptable to the applicant.
6.0 OBSERVATIONS OF EXECUTIVE MANAGER PLANNING/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
6.1 The original proposal was for the variation of Condition No. 1 of planning application 8/2002/1356 for the siting of 22 residential caravans until the end of November 2005. However, the application has been amended to seek the retention of all of the caravans on the site until the end of November 2007.
6.2 The application site lies on the north western side of Boundary Lane, Hundred End, which is approximately 1 mile to the east of the settlement of Banks. It is located at the rear of a dwelling (Sunnyhurst) which is in separate ownership and blocks of newly built glasshouses. Twenty-two static caravans are laid out in five rows on a hardstanding, together with a tank and wooden shed housing services. There are tall hedges along the outer boundaries, and tall windbreaks are in place where there are gaps in the hedging around the north-eastern corner.
6.3 The application site measures approximately 79m x 41m (0.32ha) and forms part of a larger area of land (5.2ha) which includes ‘Riccadonna’. Riccadonna is the operating centre of the whole farm and consists of packaging buildings, an agricultural machinery store, refrigeration areas, greenhouses and farmhouses. The area lies outside of any recognised settlements and is defined as Green Belt on both the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan Proposals Map and the Re-Deposit Draft Replacement Plan Proposals Map.
6.4 Policies GB.1 and GB.2 of the West Lancashire Local Plan and Policies DS2 and DE8 of the Re-Deposit Draft West Lancashire Replacement Local Plan are relevant in consideration of this application.
6.5 Policy GB.1 indicated the types of development, which are acceptable in the Green Belt. Policy GB.2 indicates that planning permission will not be given except in very special circumstances for the carrying out of engineering or other operations or for the change in the use of land unless they maintain the openness of the land and would not conflict with the purposes of including land in the Green Belt. Policy DS2 of the Re-Deposit Draft West Lancashire Replacement Local Plan covers the same issues.
6.6 There have always been guest workers on farms within the Hesketh Bank/North Meols area but the numbers have increased during the last few years. As Members are aware the issue of seasonal agricultural workers' accommodation has become a significant problem because of the increased use of foreign labour and the changes in the way that the industry operates, which means that workers are used for up to nine months each year. Consequently, most growers cannot take advantage of the GPDO permitted development rights that only allow for caravans of workers for one particular season (i.e. either the planting, the growing or the harvesting season of a single crop).
6.7 In view of this and the acceptance that there is a need for the temporary workers, Supplementary Planning Guidance has been prepared and was formally adopted in December 2003. This set out how the Council would deal with accommodation for seasonal agricultural and horticultural workers, with a view to encouraging growers to consider caravans only as a last resort and included some criteria on where accommodation should be sited. The Policy DE.8 and the SPG have since been revised in the Re-Deposit Draft West Lancashire Replacement Local Plan. This now indicated that the provision of semi-permanent single-storey accommodation, which is in keeping with the character of the area, will be permitted provided a need can be demonstrated and that there are no existing buildings which are clearly suitable for conversion to house the seasonal workers. The policy also indicates that in justifying that there is a long-term need for the accommodation the use of caravans will only be permitted for a maximum of three years.
6.8 The holding is in the Green Belt so the siting of residential caravans is an inappropriate form of development. Thus, the assessment of the proposal entails considering whether there are very special circumstances sufficient to justify the relaxation of normal presumption against inappropriate development in the Green Belt.
6.9 The applicant has submitted evidence to demonstrate that extensive efforts have been made to find alternative accommodation both within West Lancashire and Sefton and has had two applications refused for permission to convert former nursing homes into accommodation for seasonal agricultural workers. Members will be aware of one of the applications (8/2004/1156), which was at Nos. 5-7 The Gravel, Banks. The application was refused permission at the Committee Meeting on 10th December 2004 after a site visit because of concerns about noise and disturbance to nearby residential properties. The other application was at a property in Southport and was dismissed on appeal.
6.10 The previous application for the siting of the caravans was only granted consent for a temporary period due to the uncertainty about the policy situation because of the review of the Local Plan. Since the grant of planning permission, the Council has received a decision in respect of an appeal regarding the time limit imposed on a site used for the siting of seasonal agricultural workers caravans at Ridings Lane, Banks. In this decision the Inspector supported the fact that the Council is seeking to address the issue of seasonal agricultural workers accommodation through the Development Plan process. Having regard to the significant financial outlay of the applicant and the fact that the Local Plan Policy was still evolving the Inspector allowed the appeal and granted planning permission until November 2007. In his view this gave the applicants some certainty in their future business planning and staff recruitment and ample time to resolve the accommodation issue once the Local Plan had been adopted. This decision is in my view a material consideration. Indeed on the basis of this decision the Council has already granted temporary planning permission until 30th November 2007 for a number of similar applications. I consider a similar approach in this case would be appropriate and hence my recommendation that planning permission be granted.
6.11 In the Gore Hall Farm appeal decision the Inspector stated that "the need for the accommodation is so closely tied to the need for seasonal agricultural workers that the use should be so limited". The permission was, therefore, conditioned to prevent occupation of the caravans from December to February. The applicant has proposed a slightly differently worded condition to allow the occupation of the caravans all year round albeit not by the same workers for the whole year in order to take account of his specific circumstances as outline in para 5.4 above. Since the Inspector appears to have drafted the condition in the Gore Hall Farm case to reflect the particular needs of the applicant it seems reasonable to limit the use of the caravans in this case in a way that reflects the particular needs of Riccadonna Produce. I, therefore, consider the condition proposed by the applicant to be acceptable.
7.0 RECOMMENDATION
7.1 That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions :-
1. This permission is valid for a limited period only, expiring on 30th November 2007. Within one month of this date all the caravans and associated structures shall have been completely and permanently removed from the site. Prior to that date, a scheme shall have been submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority to determine the extent of hardcore to be removed and the restoration of the site. The approved scheme shall be implemented within 1 month of the expiry of this permission. 2. SCP01 In accordance with the amended location plan received by the LPA on the 10th January and the Layout Plan, Drawing No. 3180/01 received by the LPA on the 13th December 2004. 3. The caravan site shall be used for no other purpose other than to accommodate seasonal agricultural workers employed only by Riccadonna Produce. No caravan shall be continuously occupied by the same workers for in excess of 9 months in any 12 months and no caravan shall be used as a main or principal residence of any owner, occupier or tenant. 4. A permanent register of all workers living in the accommodation shall be available for inspection by the LPA at all times. 5. Access to the site shall be as shown on Plan RP.2B received by the Local Planning Authority on 10th January 2005 and the original access (alongside the dwellinghouse ‘Sunnyhurst’) shall remain effectively and permanently closed for the duration of this permission.
Reasons
1. This is an interim, not a long-term solution to the problem of housing seasonal agricultural workers and to ensure compliance in the long- term with Policy GB.2 of the West Lancashire Replacement Local Plan. 2. RCM04 Avoidance of doubt. Policy H.4 3. For the avoidance of doubt and RCG01 Protect Green Belt 4. To ensure the occupants of the caravans are seasonal agricultural workers to comply with the Local Planning Authorities SPG on Accommodation for Seasonal Agricultural Workers. 5. To protect the amenity of the occupiers of ‘Sunnyhurst’ and so comply with Policy H.4 of the West Lancashire Local Plan.
Reason for Approval
1. Policy GB.1 – Control over development in the Green Belt Policy GB.2 - Engineering operations and changes of use of land in the Green Belt.
NOTES
1. GEN08 Building Regulations 2. GEN11 Access to Buildings for the Fire Brigade 3. GEN12 Planning Permission Only 4. GEN17 Amended Plans
KU/JRH/PH ------
No. 10 APPLICATION No. 8/04/1256 LOCATION 467 MOSS LANE, HESKETH BANK PROPOSAL RETENTION OF HARDSTANDING; REMOVAL OF EXISTING SCREEN MOUNDS AND ASSOCIATED LANDSCAPING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF REPLACEMENT LANDSCAPING SCHEME APPLICANT ALAN BAYBUTT & SONS WARD HESKETH-WITH-BECCONSALL PARISH HESKETH-WITH-BECCONSALL 8 WEEKS EXPIRE 08.11.04.
1.0. PREVIOUS RELEVANT DECISIONS
1.1. 8/04/1462 GRANTED. 22.02.05. Adjacent Land - Retention of eight static caravans, hardstanding and ancillary infrastructure on site until 30th November 2007 for occupation by Seasonal Agricultural Workers only during the months of March through to November.
8/04/0267 REFUSED. 26.04.04. Proposed extension to existing Agricultural Storage Building.
8/04/0266 GRANTED. 26.04.04. Adjacent Land - Proposed erection of Agricultural Storage Building.
8/03/0632 REFUSED. 03.12.03. Proposed extension to existing Agricultural Storage Building (Dismissed at Appeal).
8/03/0631 GRANTED. 26.02.04. Adjacent Land - Retention of the use of land for the siting of eight static caravans for occupation by Seasonal Agricultural Workers during the months of March through to October and retention of hardstanding.
2.0. OBSERVATIONS OF CONSULTEES
2.1. C.L.A. (09.11.04) – The farming area remains the same as has been reported previously in August 2003. Briefly stated this is as follows:-
· The farming area remains the same consisting of 18.2 hectares (45 acres) of owned farmland and approximately 103 hectares (255 acres) of rented land.
· There are two main produce grown, which are lettuce and celery. There are three large storage buildings that provide a range of agricultural functions. These include workshop/machinery store cold storage, vacuum coolers and general crop and agricultural produce storage from time to time.
· The overall area of hardstanding referred to in the application is approximately 3325 metres squared (95 metres by 35 metres). It was evident from inspection that this is being utilised for general agricultural machinery storage.
· The jurisdiction for the retention of the hardstanding is for the agricultural storage purposes to include mainly agricultural machinery and also boxes of newly germinated seed or ‘grown-on’ plugs. It is noted that the applicants own an extensive range of agricultural machinery and equipment and that a range of the specified machinery was stored on the hardstanding at the time of inspection. Whilst there is some duplication of machinery owing to the diversity of locations that the applicant farms it is considered that the range of machinery/equipment is genuinely utilised by the applicant during the course of their farming operations. Furthermore, it is considered that there would be a seasonal use of the hardstanding area. For instance during the mid growing seasons much of the machinery will be out in the fields, which means less need for space for parking. However, during this period will be the time when the rate of sowing of crops will be highest and as such it is envisaged the area will be used to store boxed plants prior to planting in the fields. Consequently, it is considered that the area of hardstanding can be regarded as reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture within the unit.
· Whilst I am aware that wider planning policy issues may override an agricultural justification from an agricultural perspective the proposed location is conveniently sited for the applicant’s farm operations.
3.0. OTHER REPRESENTATIONS
3.1. There has been one letter of objection received raising the following concerns:-
· An application has been submitted to erect a building on this hardstanding, which has been denied. In which case there is no need for a hardstanding.
· The landscaping consists of dozens of Leylandii trees, which are growing out of control and absolutely no landscaping has been undertaken.
· The increased activity on this Green Belt land has been exacerbated by the upgrading of an agricultural access to form a vehicle access into the hardstanding. No permission has been granted for this.
· The hardstanding is directly in front of a dwelling.
4.0. VIEWS OF PARISH COUNCIL
4.1. No objections.
5.0. SUPPORTING STATEMENT
5.1. A supporting statement has been submitted in support of the retention of the hardstanding and screening mounds, which can be summarised as follows:-
· The erection of the most recent agricultural building has been on an area formerly used as an agricultural yard.
· The land to the west of the buildings that is the subject of this application is historically a low-lying area, frequently waterlogged and poorly productive. Stone was laid on this area to raise the levels and to provide an area for storage of farm machinery and hardening off of plants.
· This application is for the retention of the hardstanding on land, which has negligible agricultural value and avoids encroachment into more highly productive land to the south.
· The applicant has planted a low embankment which is planted with willows behind a Leylandii hedge to provide instant screening. The feature of low embankments is not alien to the area. Similar features have been constructed as flood defences, drainage channel construction and roadways left above the surrounding peat.
· The hardstanding is required entirely for agricultural purposes and will be used primarily for parking machinery, particularly during the winter and for hardening off of young plants in trays during the summer. At this time much of the machinery is out in the fields. The machinery needs to be parked on a hard surface as the ground cuts up very badly.
· A schedule has been provided detailing the number of plants and machinery that the hardstanding is required for.
· The proposal ensures that the parking of machinery is controlled within a specified area and the screening helps to assimilate the development into the surroundings.
6.0. OBSERVATIONS OF EXECUTIVE MANAGER PLANNING/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
6.1. The application site forms part of an existing farm complex that is situated on the southern side of Moss Lane. The site lies to the west of the rural settlement of Hesketh Bank. The land is defined as Green Belt in both the adopted and Re-Deposit Draft Replacement Local Plans.
6.2. The application seeks permission to retain a large hardstanding area (95m x 35m) located to the west of a large three bay agricultural building. The hardstanding area is screened on its western and southern and northern boundaries by a low mound planted with willows and behind a Leylandii hedge.
6.3. Members may recall that the applicant has previously sought permission to extend the adjoining agricultural building onto this land (8/03/0632 and 8/04/0267) but that those two proposals were refused due to concerns about the impact on the visual amenity and openness of this part of the Green Belt.
6.4. Policies GB.1, GB.2 and GB.4 of the West Lancashire Local Plan and Policies DS2 and DE8 of the Re-Deposit Draft West Lancashire Replacement Local Plan are relevant in consideration of both of these applications.
6.5. Policy GB.1 indicates the types of development which are acceptable in the Green Belt. Policy GB.2 indicates that planning permission will not be given except in very special circumstances for the carrying out of engineering or other operations or for the change in the use of land unless they maintain the openness of the land and would not conflict with the purposes of including land in the Green Belt. Policy DS2 of the West Lancashire Replacement Local Plan – Deposit Draft covers the same issues.
6.6. The creation of a hardstanding for agricultural purposes is considered to amount to a special circumstance provided that it can be demonstrated that there is a genuine need for it, it is the minimum required for the use; the siting and appearance are acceptable and appropriate landscaped. The County Land Agent has confirmed that this is the case and in his view the location of the hardstanding is the most convenient for the operational requirements of the farm.
6.7. Moss Lane is characterised by significant ribbon development along its road frontage. The areas of land, which remain open between existing buildings are important in safeguarding the openness and visual amenity of this area of the Green Belt. Whilst the hardstanding will reduce the gap between the development at 467 Moss Lane and that at the adjacent property (No. 493 Moss Lane) there will still be a reasonable gap, of approximately 35 metres, which maintain views through to the open land beyond. What is more the land has been used in part for storage of agricultural equipment and produce prior to the hardstanding being created and this in itself does not require planning permission. Therefore the only issue that is being considered is the retention of the hardstanding and whether its removal would lead to a material change in the use and appearance of the site. It is considered that the proposal will not unduly harm the character of the area or reduce the openness of the Green Belt and that the use of the land for storage of farm machinery and produce has less impact on the openness of the landscape than buildings would.
6.8. The existing landscaping is considered to be unacceptable because it contains mounding and Leylandii hedgerows, neither of which are natural features in the landscape. However the applicant has agreed to remove this and has submitted details of a replacement landscaping scheme, which contains native hedgerows and tree planting that are considered to be more appropriate and will help assimilate the development into the surroundings.
6.9. Consequently it is considered that the proposal is acceptable and complies with the requirements of Policies GB.1 and GB.4 of the West Lancashire Local Plan and Policies DS2 and GD1 of the Re-Deposit Draft West Lancashire Replacement Local Plan.
7.0. RECOMMENDATION
7.1. That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:-
1. SCP01 Amended details (in accordance with Plan reference 151/158/10A received by the Local Planning Authority on 3rd June 2005). 2. The hardstanding shall be used only for purposes ancillary to the operation of the holding on which it is located and shall not be used for any other purposes including the storage/parking of any other vehicles, equipment or produce. 3. SCL02 Landscaping as submitted in 9 months.
Reasons
1. RCM04 Avoidance of Doubt (Policies GB.1, GB.2 and GB.4) 2. RCG01 Protect Green Belt (Policies GB.1, GB.2 and GB.4) 3. RCL01 Assimilate Development (Policies GB.1, GB.2 and GB.4)
NOTES
1. GEN08 Building Regulations 2. GEN11 Access to Buildings for the Fire Brigade 3. GEN12 Planning Permission only
Reason for Approval
SRA01 Standard Approval Reason Policies GB.1 Control over development in the Green Belt GB.2 Engineering Operations and Changes of Use of Land in the Green Belt GB.4 Design and Location of acceptable development in the Green Belt.
KU/JRH/HA ------
No. 11 APPLICATION No. 8/05/0341 LOCATION 205 PRESCOT ROAD, AUGHTON PROPOSAL DEMOLITION OF DORMER BUNGALOW AND ERECTION OF DETACHED DWELLING HOUSE WITH SINGLE STOREY SUN LOUNGE AND DOUBLE GARAGE TO REAR APPLICANT CORINTHIAN COURT PROPERTIES WARD AUGHTON PARK PARISH AUGHTON 8 WEEKS EXPIRE 25.5.05
1. REFERRAL
1.1 This application was to be determined under the Council’s delegation scheme however Councillor Roberts has requested it be referred to Committee to consider the issue of impacts of the development on neighbouring residential amenity.
2. PREVIOUS RELEVANT DECISIONS
2.1 None.
3. OBSERVATIONS OF CONSULTEES
3.1 U.U. (8.4.05) – no objections.
3.2 E.M.C.S. (13.4.05) – request construction conditions to any approval due to close proximity of former tip site and possibility of landfill gas ingress.
3.3 ENGLISH NATURE (19.4.05) – request survey to establish the presence or absence of bats be carried out prior to commencement of development.
4. VIEWS OF PARISH COUNCIL
4.1 AUGHTON P.C. (12.4.05) – no comments.
5. OTHER REPRESENTATIONS
5.1 Six letters from adjacent and nearby neighbour objecting on the following issues:
• replacement dwelling out of scale with neighbouring properties and area generally; • excessive height; • will detract from the semi-rural character of area; • overbearing impact on rear garden area of 207 and outlook from that dwelling; • result in feeling of enclosure for occupants of 207 Prescot Road; • loss of light to neighbouring properties; • increased vehicle movements to and from the site – existing access is poor; • construction disturbance; • loss of tree (to rear); • proposal will exacerbate flooding and sewage problems in the locality.
6. OBSERVATIONS OF EXECUTIVE MANAGER PLANNING/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
6.1 The application relates to an existing large dormer bungalow sited to the eastern side of Prescot Road within the residential settlement area. The dwelling lies within a large ‘L’ plan plot and has several trees protected by Preservation Orders to the front of the site. An extended two-storey dwelling lying to the south of the plot shares a driveway with the application site. The neighbouring bungalow property to the north is set further back into its plot at a distance of approximately 57m from the highway.
6.2 The application proposes the demolition of the existing dwelling and erection of a replacement two storey dwelling with dormers to the front and rear roof slopes. The existing dwelling measures approximately 16.6m x 17.2m x 7.3(h)m (max. dimensions). The replacement dwelling measures approximately 15m x 15.8m with a fully hipped roof to a ridge height of 10m. The scheme also includes a large sun lounge approximately 10m x 5.7m to the rear with attached garage 6.0m x 6.0m accessed to the northern side of the dwelling.
6.3 Policy H.4 ‘Design Criteria for Residential Development’ of the adopted WLLP and Policies DE1 ‘Residential Development’ and GD1 ‘Design of Development’ of the Re-Deposit Replacement Local Plan are relevant in consideration of the application.
6.4 The area is characterised by mixed housing types and scales but including numerous large detached properties within significant plots. The area has good tree coverage but is urban in character.
6.5 Whilst the proposed dwelling is a large scale detached dwelling, it is sited within a commensurate plot and is not considered out of keeping in the locality. The proposal utilises a fully hipped roof to minimise the roof bulk.
6.6 The design and appearance of the dwelling is considered acceptable. The rear projecting extensions will not be easily seen from outside the site and again are proportionate to the main body of the dwelling.
6.7 It is not anticipated that any significant detrimental impact on residential amenity in the vicinity will result. Windows are located predominantly to front and rear elevations and address the garden areas of the property. Windows to the side elevations are proposed with obscure glazing at first floor. The proposed windows at ground floor to the northern elevation do not exacerbate the existing situation where windows currently exist and afford views across parts of the neighbouring property gardens.
6.8 Distances from the sun-room windows and rear-facing windows to the boundaries meet adopted privacy distances. Similarly, first floor rear facing windows, whilst addressing the garden area of the property also meet back- to-back guidance distances with respect to windows on the property at 203 Prescot Road.
6.9 In considering the issues of light loss and overbearing development, the property at 207 Prescot Road lies to the south of the application site and no overshadowing is anticipated. The bulk of the property, being positioned behind the line of 207 Prescot Road and, at closest, 2.5m from the boundary is not considered overbearing with nearest windows to habitable rooms being approximately 8.0m away. Given the height of the eaves at 5.6m and fully hipped roof I do not consider the proposal would constitute overbearing development.
6.10 The property at 203 Prescot Road, located behind the line of the proposed property may suffer some additional overshadowing of the front garden area lying adjacent to the proposed dwelling. However, given the extent of gardens associated with that dwelling it is not considered this would be significant or cause significant harm to residential amenity of the occupiers.
6.11 Parking provision at the site is acceptable with sufficient space and turning area for several cars.
6.12 Finally, some works are proposed to the trees within the site including the removal of an existing conifer to the rear (east) close to the boundary with 203 Prescot Road. This tree is of little merit and not worthy of formal protection. Some works may be required to protected trees to the front of the dwelling – details of these are sought by condition (the current submission outlines tree works including felling not relating to the development and subsequently are not considered appropriate for approval under this application).
7. RECOMMENDATION
7.1 That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:
1. SCT02 Standard time condition. 2. SCB26 Submit levels. 3. SCB22 Species protection schemes for bats. 4. SCB14 Details of materials 5. SCL16 Tree protection method statement. 6. SCL12 Ground levels.
Reasons
1. RCT02 Standard time reason. 2. RCM04 Avoidance of doubt – Policy H.4. 3. RCB12 Safeguard protected species. 4. RCB07 External appearance – Policy H.4. 5. RCL07 Assess affect on trees. 6. RCL06 Tree health.
NOTES
1. The submitted method statement for protection of and works to trees includes proposals to remove protected trees. As the tree removal does not relate directly to the proposed development these details are NOT approved. Should you wish to proceed with works to trees protected by Preservation Orders then a separate application should be made to the Council for such works. 2. GEN02 Samples on site. 3. GEN06 Landill Gas Mitigations Measures. 4. GEN07 Landfill Gas Disclaimer (200m). 5. GEN08 Building Regulations. 6. GEN11 Access to buildings for the Fire Brigade. 7. GEN12 Planning Permission only. 8. GEN35 Demolition.
Reason for Approval
SRA01 Standard approval reason, Policy H.4 ‘Design Criteria for Residential Development’ of the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan.
RH/JRH/SK ------
No. 12 APPLICATION No. 8/05/0290 LOCATION 248 PRESCOT ROAD, AUGHTON PROPOSAL INCORPORATION OF LAND INTO RESIDENTIAL CURTILAGE APPLICANT MISS D. RANFORD AND MR P. MAGUIRE WARD AUGHTON & DOWNHOLLAND PARISH AUGHTON 8 WEEKS EXPIRE 9.5.2005
1.0 REFERRAL
1.1 This application was to be determined under the Council’s delegation scheme, however, Councillors D. Westley and D. O’Toole have requested it be referred to Committee to consider the issue of the loss of public amenity open space and setting of an undesirable precedent in the locality.
2.0 PREVIOUS RELEVANT DECISIONS
2.1 8/04/1492 REFUSAL. 7.1.05. Incorporation of land into residential curtilage. 8/03/0871 APPROVAL. 28.08.03. Raising height of roof to provide first floor accommodation. Single-storey extensions to front, side and rear. Pitched roof to replace flat roof over existing garage. 8/02/0581 APPEAL ALLOWED/DISMISSED. 21.5.03. Incorporation of land into residential curtilage; single storey extensions at front and rear, including pitched roof to garage/w.c. The appeal was dismissed with respect to the extension of the residential curtilage.
3.0 OBSERVATIONS OF CONSULTEES
3.1 POWER SYSTEMS (30.03.05) (1.04.05) – No objections.
3.2 EXECUTIVE MANAGER COMMUNITY SERVICES - (01.04.05) – No objections.
3.3 EXECUTIVE MANAGER REGENERATION & PROPERTY (1.4.05) – No objections.
4.0 VIEWS OF PARISH COUNCIL
4.1 AUGHTON P.C. (4.4.05) (19.4.05) – Objects on similar grounds to previous applications in that the development conflicts with Local Plan Policy LE.11 and Re-Deposit Local Plan Policy EN.8 in that the public amenity land to the entrance of the estate is valued by the local community making a worthy contribution to the street scene; insufficient special circumstances justify the proposal and, if approved, the application would set an undesirable precedent. The Parish Council also objects to the proposed Conifer boundary treatment; this objection remains to the alternative Beech hedge proposal.
5.0 OTHER REPRESENTATIONS
5.1 Thirteen letters from local residents objecting on the following grounds :
· Land is set aside for public amenity not private use · Will set precedent resulting in further loss · Arguments relate to personal circumstances and Building Regulation requirements created by the applicants only · This is the third application submitted stating different justifications each time · Property is not within the Norris House Green estate · Applicants will increase the value of their property at the expense of houses within the estate · A legal agreement exists with the original developer for land to remain for benefit of estate occupiers – compensation is, therefore, due if land is removed from the public realm; price of land should be at housing development prices · Inappropriate boundary treatments proposed · Hedge will not enhance the area · Litter not a problem in the locality · Attractive entrance to the estate a consideration when purchasing property · The property has an existing large rear garden · Loss of maintenance access to neighbouring property
6.0 SUPPORTING STATEMENT
6.1 The applicant states that the proposal is required to permit internal re- arrangement of the property to provide additional bedroom accommodation. Such accommodation requires additional windows to the northern elevation under current Building Regulations, however, the Regulations also prevent the insertion of additional windows and doors where the distance to the boundary is less than one metre.
6.2 The area of land in question falls away sharply from the remainder of the green space and collects litter and fallen leaves. Subsequently, the strip detracts from the wider area.
6.3 If approved, the applicants have agreement with Wimpey Homes (the original developer of the estate) that an existing covenant on the land may be varied.
7.0 OBSERVATIONS OF EXECUTIVE MANAGER PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
7.1 The application relates to a strip of amenity open space land approximately 1 x 36m to the northern boundary of 248 Prescot Road. The land forms part of a larger area of amenity open space to the southern side of Norris House Drive at the junction with Prescot Road. A similar area of slightly lesser proportions exists to the northern side of Norris House Drive. A timber panel fence exists on this boundary between the garden of 248 Prescot Road and the area of amenity open space.
7.2 The application proposes the incorporation of this area of land into the residential curtilage of 248 Prescot Road. The applicants propose the new boundary would be planted with a Beech hedge to be maintained at a height of approximately 2m to enhance the visual amenity of the locality.
7.3 A previous application for the incorporation of a 5m wide strip was refused at Planning Committee on 3rd October 2002. This decision was taken to appeal and insofar as the application related to the incorporation of land into the residential curtilage was dismissed. The Planning Inspectorate considered that the applicant’s arguments of improving security and prevention of overlooking were insufficient to warrant overriding the policy presumption against the loss of amenity open space.
7.4 A further application for the incorporation of a 3m wide strip was refused under delegated powers in January of this year. The arguments relating to a better resultant symmetry of the amenity areas either side of Norris House Drive and improved aesthetics through the planting of the boundary with a 2.5m Conifer hedge were similarly considered insufficient to warrant overriding the Policy provisions.
7.5 Policies LE.11 ‘Protection of Amenity Open Space, Sporting and Recreational Facilities’ and LN.7 ‘Landscape Proposals Accompanying Applications for Development’ of the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan and Policy EN8 ‘Green Spaces’ of the Re-Deposit Draft Replacement West Lancashire Local Plan are relevant in consideration of this application.
7.6 Policy LE.11 requires that proposals resulting in the loss of amenity open space will not be granted unless compensatory provision is offered or the development forms part of a wider development serving the needs of the local community. Neither of these instances are applicable in this case. However, the strip of land in question plays no significant beneficial role in the appearance or use of the amenity open space. The strip includes land that drops away from the main grassed area to the footing of the existing close- boarded fence and has little or no grass growth. At present this acts as a collection channel for fallen leaves.
7.7 I consider that benefits may accrue through the implementation of planting within the 1m strip with Beech hedging. Given sufficient control by planning condition, such hedging, by softening the boundary and screening the rear garden area of the property fronting Prescot Road would enhance the entrance to the main Norris House Green Estate as intended at the time of its development circa 1968. On this basis I consider there is merit to the proposals without any significant loss to the amenity open space.
7.8 The arguments submitted relating to the requirement for additional windows to the northern elevation of the house being in conflict with Building Regulations are not given significant weight as it has not been demonstrated that the recently significantly extended property cannot be internally re-arranged to suit requirements. In any case if this argument was to be followed through it would not justify the incorporation of all the land subject of the application.
7.9 With respect to submitted points of concern I would respond as follows to relevant planning points not covered by the above text.
• The proposal, if approved, would not necessarily set a precedent as each planning application is considered on its own merits and the circumstances of the land conditions in this case will not be applicable elsewhere.
• The application is considered on its planning merits and not in relation to the personal circumstances of the applicants.
7.10 In summary, I consider that there is sufficient merit to the proposals to warrant recommendation for approval despite these not meeting the requirements of the Adopted Local Plan policy.
8.0 RECOMMENDATION
8.1 That planning permission be APPROVED subject to the following conditions :-
1. SCT02 Standard time condition 2. SCP01 In accordance with amended plans. Plan reference A1/04/64/6/B received by the Local Planning Authority on 6.4.05 3. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development and General Development Procedure) Orders 1995 or any subsequent Orders or statutory provision re-enacting the provisions of these Orders no means of enclosure shall be erected until detailing of the positioning, size and design have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 4. SCL11 Submit landscaping/implement in 9 months 5. SCL06 Compliance with landscaping condition
Reasons
1. RCT02 Standard time reason 2. RCM04 Avoidance of doubt. Policy LN.7 3. RCB03 Character of property. Policy LN.7 4. RCL01 Assimilate development. Policy LN.7 5. RCL01 Assimilate development. Policy LN.7
Reason for Approval
SRA02. Policies LE.11 and LN.7 of the Adopted West Lancashire Local Plan and Policy EN8 of the Re-Deposit Draft Replacement West Lancashire Local Plan/Policies LE.11 ‘Protection of Amenity Open Space, Sporting and Recreational Facilities’. The land in question plays no positive role in the general or visual amenity of the public open space and through appropriate boundary landscaping the proposal would enhance the general and visual amenity of the locality.
NOTES
1. GEN11 Access to buildings for the Fire Brigade 2. GEN12 Planning permission only 3. GEN17 Amended plans 4. GEN25 No civil right to encroach
RH/JRH/PH ------
No. 13 APPLICATION No. 8/05/0153 LOCATION 250 JACKSMERE LANE, SCARISBRICK PROPOSAL APPLICATION FOR REMOVAL OF CONDITION NO.4 (AGRICULTURAL OCCUPANCY CONDITION) IMPOSED ON PLANNING PERMISSION 8/99/0989 APPLICANT MR D NELSON WARD SCARISBRICK PARISH SCARISBRICK 8 WEEKS EXPIRE 04/04/05
1. PREVIOUS RELEVANT DECISIONS
On Site
8/2004/0983 GRANTED 25.08.04 Erection of Agricultural Workshop.
8/2003/0904 GRANTED 15.01.04 Use of Land for Grazing of Horses and Change of Use of Agricultural Building to 10 Stables and Yard Area to Ménage in Order to Operate Livery Business.
8/2002/0633 GRANTED 05.09.02 Erection of Detached Building for Dual Use of Agricultural Store and Domestic Garage.
8/2001/0933 GRANTED 14.12.01 Reserved Matters – Agricultural Workers Dwelling House.
8/2000/0866 GRANTED 04.01.01 Siting of Mobile Home for Temporary Period.
8/99/0989 REFUSED 27.04.00 Outline – Agricultural Workers Dwelling (Allowed on appeal 30.01.01).
Adjacent Site
8/98/1078 GRANTED 28.04.99 Alderbrook Farm – Nature Conservation Project involving Planting Areas and Retention of Replacement Equipment Store/Domestic Garage.
2. OBSERVATIONS OF CONSULTEES
2.1 CLA 17.02.05 – There is no agricultural justification in accordance with current planning policy to remove the agricultural occupancy condition. The reasons referred to by the applicant are outside the scope of my instruction and should be classed as other material considerations for the Local Planning Authority to consider. The full contents of the County Land Agents report are attached as Appendix A to this report.
2.2 Environment Agency 06.06.05 – It can be confirmed that based on the evidence gathered during site investigations, it is considered that the land at Alderbrook Farm presents no perceptible risk to activities carried out on adjacent land. The full contents of the Agency’s letter are attached as Appendix B to this report.
3. OTHER REPRESENTATIONS
3.1 I have received one letter in respect of this application from a resident of Hampshire who has commented after watching a recent TV documentary, which featured the adjacent site. The writer comments on the conduct of the applicant and Environment Agency but offers no real view on the merits of the application.
4. VIEWS OF PARISH COUNCIL
4.1 SCARISBRICK P.C. (08.03.05) - There is still an apparent need for agricultural workers' dwellings in the area.
5. SUPPORTING STATEMENT
5.1 The applicant has submitted a significant amount of correspondence in support of his application. This is available on the file for inspection but can be summarised as follows:
· Local Plan/PPS7 – The second option in the local plan for the removal of an Agricultural Occupancy Condition (AOC) is being relied upon, to demonstrate that there is not a genuine need for an agricultural dwelling. The example of an affordable agricultural dwelling nearby at Turning Lane Farm has been quoted.
· A precedent has been set by the removal of AOC on adjacent Alderbrook Farm, despite need at application site.
· The thrust of the new PPS7 is sustainability.
· The agricultural restriction substantially undermines the value of the property and deters 99% of good lenders. The primary planning liability of an agricultural dwelling is to the site for which it was approved, then the rest of agriculture.
· The restriction defeats its objective by leaving the business vulnerable to hostile activities in fact it invites them. The agricultural restriction constrains income to one source, a well known fact to most people living in a rural area. One only has to remove these ties to force someone's property onto the market, especially a highly specialised unit.
· Previous planning applications have been delayed which has caused a loss of production time.
· Consultee and statutory authority advice was ignored in respect of application at adjacent site for the nature reserve (8/98/1078).
· Due to publicly proclaimed statements of contamination from the Environment Agency made on TV it has not been possible to continue production. This has affected customer base of business.
· There are inconsistencies in the advice from the Environment Agency. The advice from the EA is based on the samples obtained from one site visit. The Food Standards Agency letters are based on the same samples.
· The Environment Agency’s comments are based on less than 2% of the site having been sampled. Therefore there is still a 98% risk.
· The water sampling tests and ecological monitoring only give an indication of past and current conditions of the watercourse – no guarantee of future health of the watercourse.
· The AOC has now moved into a position where it is in contravention of Common Law.
· The courts have ruled that residents affected by a nearby chemical works should have ‘essential information that would have entitled them to assess the risks they were subject to’.
· If all three authorities had acted when they should have, the situation on Alderbrook Farm would never have occurred.
· The Human Rights Act 1998 Article 8 (home and private life) covers planning at all levels, as illustrated in Porter -v- S. Bucks – House of Lords.
· More recently ‘where an authority carries on an undertaking in the interests of the community as a whole it may have to pay compensation to individuals whose rights are infringed by that undertaking in order to achieve a fair balance between the interests of the individual and the community’. Dennis -v- MoD and Marcic -v- Thames Water Utilities.
· Agricultural dwellings are still being approved all over Europe, based on land size and/or financial investment but nowhere in Europe today does an agricultural occupancy condition exist.
· The applicant has indicated that he is considering taking litigation against the Environment Agency in respect of their handling of the tipping operation at Alderbrook Farm. Given this, he believes reliance by the Council on the advice from the Environment Agency is a flagrant breach of the Common Laws of Natural Justice.
6. OBSERVATIONS OF EXECUTIVE MANAGER PLANNING / DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
6.1 This application seeks the removal of an agricultural occupancy condition imposed on planning application ref: 8/99/0989 granted on appeal in January 2001. The condition (No.04) sought to limit the occupancy of the dwelling to a “person solely or mainly working, or last working, in the locality in agriculture or forestry, or a widow or widower of such a person and to any resident dependants”.
6.2 The application site is located on the north side of Jacksmere Lane and is surrounded by flat open farmland. The site covers some 1.8 Ha of land and comprises a detached dwelling a large hardstanding area and three polytunnels. Alderbrook Farm lies immediately to the east and is separated from the application site by Black Brook. The area lies outside of any recognised settlements and is defined as washed over Green Belt in both the adopted West Lancashire Local Plan proposals map and the Re-Deposit Draft West Lancashire Replacement Plan proposals map.
6.3 Annex A of PPS 7 provides guidance on both the provision of agricultural workers' dwellings and removal of agricultural occupancy conditions. Paragraphs 16 to 18 of the Annex are of particular relevance to the matter of occupancy conditions. Paragraph 17 states that whilst changes in the scale and character of a farming enterprise may affect the long-term requirements for a dwelling that was granted permission subject to an occupancy condition such dwellings should “not be kept vacant, nor should their present occupants be unnecessarily obliged to remain in occupation simply by virtue of planning conditions restricting occupancy which have outlived their usefulness”. Applications for such dwellings or the removal of such conditions should be considered on the basis of an “up to date assessment of the demand for farm (or other occupational) dwellings in the area, bearing in mind that it is the need for a dwelling for someone solely, mainly or last working in agriculture or forestry in an area as a whole and not just on the particular holding” that is relevant.
6.4 Policy AG.8 of the West Lancashire Local Plan sets out the Council’s policy in relation to applications for the removal of agricultural occupancy conditions (AOC). The policy indicates that where buildings are within the Green Belt a realistic and effective marketing exercise should be undertaken and sets out guidelines for the marketing exercise, which should be undertaken by applicants in order to demonstrate that there is no longer a long-term need in the locality for agricultural workers dwellings. Alternatively the policy looks for other realistic evidence that clearly indicates whether or not there is a continuing need to retain the dwelling for agricultural workers in the locality to be provided. The draft replacement local plan policy (DE9) is unaltered in this respect.
6.5 The applicant contends that the second option in the local plan policy (AG.8) is relevant to the consideration of this application for the removal of the agricultural occupancy condition. That is to say that there is other evidence that clearly indicates that there is not a continuing need to retain the dwelling for an agricultural worker in the locality.
6.6 This evidence from the applicant essentially relates to the fact that the adjacent land, at Alderbrook Farm, has been tipped on. In the opinion of the applicant the unauthorised waste material that has been deposited on the site will likely, if not now but at sometime in the future, pollute the watercourse (Black Brook), through leachate of ground water from water penetration. The applicant states that his business, which is the production of mushroom composting material, is reliant on the use of uncontaminated water and until recently this was provided by abstracting from Black Brook. He further states that his perceived increased risk of contamination means that he can no longer draw water from Black Brook, due to his concerns that this would pose a risk to his product and subsequently public health.
6.7 The applicant considers that the material tipped on the land at Alderbrook Farm includes toxic substances and that this material not only poses a threat by polluting the watercourse but that windborne pollution poses a high risk. This is relevant as the mushroom composting operation is undertaken partly out in the open and as such is subject to deposition of substances carried from the adjoining site. The applicant believes the failure of some Phase III compost material he recently produced and supplied to mushroom growers is down to contamination by the above two sources.
6.8 The applicant is adamant that whilst he is applying to lift the occupancy condition from the property he has no intention of ceasing his mushroom compost production operation. His justification for lifting the occupancy condition is to enable him to raise finance through borrowing against the value of his property so that he can continue producing mushroom compost but which is not at risk of contamination from the adjacent land at Alderbrook Farm. In order to do this he is intending to import water by road transport and cover over the whole of the existing concrete yard area, where the composting operation normally takes place, with a portal frame building.
6.9 It is also argued that the condition restricting the occupation of the dwelling to someone solely or mainly working, or last working, in the locality in agriculture or forestry, or a dependant of theirs defeats its objective by making a business unsustainable in the long term and vulnerable to hostile “activities” and that nowhere else in Europe are there occupancy restrictions of agricultural properties. Furthermore it is argued the applicants Human Rights are being infringed by the imposition of the condition because it is interfering with his right under Article 8.
6.10 The applicant's concerns all relate to works which have been undertaken on adjacent land at Alderbrook Farm. Planning permission (8/98/1078) was granted in 1999 on this site for the creation of a nature reserve. Whilst this permission did not allow for any changes in land levels substantial amounts of material have been tipped on the land increasing its height by in excess of I metre in some places. These tipping operations were brought to the attention of the Environment Agency who investigated the matter. The investigation involved the digging of a number of trial pits and the logging, sampling and chemical analysis of the materials on site. This work was supervised by a qualified geotechnical engineer experienced in contaminated land assessment and remediation. The investigation was carried out in accordance with BS5390:1999 Code of Practice for Site Investigations. Investigation of the trial pits showed no evidence of asbestos beneath the surface. Material found consisted of construction and demolition waste and screened soils i.e. soils, sub soils and hardcore including stone, rubble, aggregate and common house bricks with some plastic and metal. One key area of concern featured in the recent BBC programme (referred to by the applicant) was the presence of fragments of bonded asbestos. This issue has been addressed through the removal of the material from site by a registered contractor and its authorised disposal. The site has been inspected by officers from the Environment Agency who are now satisfied that this material has been removed.
6.11 Water sampling has been carried out by, or on behalf of, the Environment Agency on a number of occasions, in part to alleviate concerns regarding water contamination of crops grown on adjacent premises. Chemical and ecological monitoring showed, according to the Environment Agency, that there was no evidence of contamination arising from the site. Ecological monitoring, involving the assessment of the aquatic invertebrate population gives a longer term indication of the health of a watercourse, as opposed to the “snapshot” chemical analysis. In the view of the Environment Agency, none of the water sampling indicated any adverse impact resulting from the activities undertaken at Alderbrook Farm.
6.12 Whilst the applicant disputes the validity of the sampling methods used to assess the imported material at Alderbrook Farm the Environment Agency have confirmed that the “land at Alderbrook Farm presents no perceptible risk to activities carried out on adjacent land”. What is more the Food Standards Agency has agreed that the sampling and analytical methodology employed by the Environment Agency was appropriate and could find no risk to the production of crops intended for human consumption on land at Blackbrook Farm as a result of the materials imported to Alderbrook Farm. This substantially undermines the main reason put forward by the applicant to justify the removal of the condition.
6.13 The applicant has sited other examples where properties with AOC have not sold (i.e. Turning Lane) and suggested that this demonstrates that there is no need for them anymore. However the mere fact that properties with restrictions on them have not sold does not in its self demonstrate that such conditions are unnecessary. There could be a number of reasons why the properties have not sold, for example the asking price may have been too high. In addition the County Land Agent has commented that there have been several planning applications for agricultural workers' dwellings within the local parish and neighbouring parish of Halsall over the last three years which, in itself, demonstrates a continuing need in the local area.
6.14 There is no evidence to suggest that an occupancy condition makes a business unsustainable in the long term. There are numerous agricultural operations across the District and indeed the country that have dwellings associated with them that have agricultural occupancy restrictions, many of which are associated with long-standing successful enterprises. Furthermore just because there are no other countries in Europe that do not have agricultural occupancy conditions does not in itself mean that such conditions are unnecessary or inappropriate in this country.
6.15 In respect of human rights issues. The applicant refers to Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights which states that ‘everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence’, and prohibits interference with that right unless such interference is necessary in the interests of the need to protect ‘the rights and freedoms of others’. The Human Rights Act became part of English law in October 2000. It has been established in case law that planning controls aiming to protect the environment exist for the protection of ‘the rights and freedoms of others’, and so are capable in principle of justifying interferences with Article 8 rights. However the applicant is still proposing to work in agriculture and the condition does not prevent this. Therefore if planning permission is refused I do not consider that there will be any interference with Human Rights of the applicant.
6.16 What is more PPS 7 has only very recently been revised in October last year (2004). If the Government thought there was any need to alter the policy in relation to applications for agricultural workers' dwellings in terms of the way in which they are controlled or the way in which the removal of occupancy conditions are assessed taking into account the Human Rights Act, then they would have been reflected in the new guidance. Nothing has changed in this respect.
6.17 In summary, I note the strongly held concerns of the applicant that works which have taken place on adjacent land outside his control has seriously compromised his business operations and that these concerns can only be overcome by substantial investment, which can only be realised by the removal of the agricultural occupancy condition. However, the Environment Agency, who are fully aware of the applicant's concerns, have carried out extensive tests on the site and the local watercourse and have concluded that the material which has been deposited at Alderbrook Farm presents no perceptible risk to activities carried out at the applicant's site. This is a view supported by the Food Standards Agency. These two bodies are the recognised experts in respect of such matters and in the absence of any hard evidence to the contrary I believe the Council has no alternative but to conclude that there is no basis to support the removal of the agricultural occupancy condition. Clearly, if circumstances change and evidence of contamination does become available, then the applicant could submit a new application to enable the matter to be re-assessed in the light of that new evidence.
6.18 No other matters advanced in support of the application have sufficient merit in my view to justify the grant of planning permission.
7. DEPARTURE APPLICATION
7.1 The proposal is technically a departure from the development plan in the Green Belt, but it is not considered that it would significantly prejudice the implementation of the development plan's policies and proposals and therefore need not be referred to the Secretary of State.
8.0 RECOMMENDATION
8.1 That planning permission be REFUSED with the following reason:
1. The proposal would conflict with policy AG.8 of the West Lancashire Local Plan and policy DE9 of the Re-Deposit Draft West Lancashire Replacement Local Plan in that it has not been demonstrated that there is not a continued need for the dwelling on the holding or for persons employed locally in agriculture. In addition, the special circumstances put forward by the applicant are not considered sufficient to justify overriding the policy concerns.
KU/JRH