Development Management Report

Committee and date Item

South Planning Committee [Ludlow] 6 17th November 2009

Application Number: 09/02535/FUL Parish: Worthen With Shelve

Grid 337530 - 302252 Ref:

Proposal: Application under Section 73a of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for erection of garage; following demolition of existing garage (retrospective)

Site Address: Lilac Cottage 5 Snailbeach Shropshire SY5 0NS

Applicant: Mr L Greenwood

Case Officer: Mr Trystan Williams email: [email protected]

1.0 THEPROPOSAL

1.1 This retrospective application seeks full planning permission to retain a detached outbuilding which has been erected within the curtilage of the above dwelling house. It replaced a dilapidated sheet metal garage which previously stood in a similar position.

2.0 SITE LOCATION/DESCRIPTION

2.1 Lilac Cottage is a detached 1½-storey dormered cottage finished in render beneath a slate roof. Located within the village of Snailbeach, it sits low down in a hollow between the Grade II-listed Lord’s Hill Baptist Church to the west and the wooded slopes of Lordshill itself to the east. The replacement outbuilding is sited at the southern tip of the plot, beyond which is an area of scrubby woodland.

2.2 The surrounding area is characterised by the spoil heaps and ruins of buildings associated with the former Snailbeach Lead Mine, these being interspersed with a scatter of cottages. Those closest to the application site are No. 4 on the northern side of Lilac Cottage, and a

1 relatively modern red brick house on an elevated plot on the opposite side of a track which runs along the eastern boundary. The site is within the village conservation area and wider Shropshire Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, but is just outside the Snailbeach Lead Mine Scheduled Ancient Monument.

3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

3.1 Permit, subject to conditions.

4.0 REASON FOR COMMITTEE DECISION

4.1 In accordance with the Council’s adopted ‘Scheme of Delegation’, the application is referred to the Area Regulatory Committee for determination because the Parish Council has submitted representations contrary to the recommendation of this Council’s officers.

5.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

5.1 This application to regularise the currently unauthorised development has been requested by the Local Planning Authority as a result of an enforcement case (ref. 2/08/E01747).

6.0 CONSULTEE RESPONSES

6.1 Shropshire Council Minerals & Waste Section – comment:  The scale and nature of the development is such that it would not further sterilise the potentially economic mineral resource of the site.  The site lies outside the Snailbeach Lead Mine reclamation area and the Minerals section holds no further information as to whether it has been affected by former mine workings.

6.2 Shropshire Council Conservation & Design Section – no objection:  The new garage is constructed of materials which are more sympathetic to the surroundings than those of the previous structure. As a result it is not drastically detrimental to the fabric or character of the conservation area.  It does not affect the significance of the nearby scheduled monuments or listed buildings.

6.3 Worthen with Shelve Parish Council – object due to the building’s size, and consider that it is not in keeping with the area.

7.0 PUBLIC REPRESENTATIONS

7.1 An anonymous letter raises the following points:  Inappropriate use of materials which do not fit in with the

2 surrounding area.  The building is not use to garage cars, which are left outside blocking the road.  Loud music is played in the garage.

8.0 PLANNING POLICY

8.1 Central Government Guidance: PPG15: Planning and the Historic Environment

8.2 West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy Policies: QE5: Protection and Enhancement of the Historic Environment QE6: The Conservation, Enhancement and Restoration of the Region’s Landscape

8.3 South Shropshire Local Plan Policies: E1: Landscape Conservation E6: Design

8.4 Supplementary Planning Guidance: Alterations and Additions to and Replacement of Dwellings

9.0 THEMAINPLANNINGISSUES

 Principle of development  Appropriateness of design  Impact on character and appearance of the conservation area  Impact on landscape quality and character  Impact on residential amenity

10.0 OFFICERAPPRAISAL

10.1 Principle of development 10.1.1 The purpose of Section 73a of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is to provide people with an opportunity to regularise unauthorised development. Therefore, retrospective applications have to be considered objectively within the same framework as any other planning application. Put simply, it is a question of whether or not the application would have been considered favourably had it been presented as a proposal as opposed to being retrospective.

10.1.2 The principle of providing a domestic outbuilding within the curtilage of an existing dwelling is not in question, and indeed most properties benefit from ‘permitted development’ rights to do so. It should also be noted that outbuildings can be put to any use which is incidental to the enjoyment of a dwelling house as such. This would include a music or hobby room, and as such there is no requirement for the applicant to garage cars in the building with which this application is concerned. The parking of vehicles off site is a matter for other authorities (such as the police) or the relevant landowners to enforce.

3 10.2 Appropriateness of design 10.2.1 Because of the building’s irregular footprint it cannot be fitted with a conventional duo-pitched roof. Instead it features a very shallow mono-pitched roof of profiled metal sheets similar to those commonly used for modern agricultural buildings. Whilst its form does not strictly reflect the vernacular tradition it does help to reduce the overall height and is felt to be acceptable for an ancillary domestic outbuilding in this context, there being numerous flat-roofed sheds and various forms of sheet metal cladding in this industrial village. The use of timber weatherboarding for the external walls is entirely appropriate, particularly in a rural area. On balance, therefore, the proportions and external materials of the garage are considered to be acceptable, subject to a condition requiring the application of a dark matt finish to the roof sheets in order to reduce their prominence.

10.2.2 With regard to the building’s scale, because of the steep gradient of the site it is elevated considerably above the house atop a brick retaining wall. However, this aspect faces into the site and is effectively screened from most public vantage points by established vegetation. Furthermore, the paths along the eastern and western sides are elevated above the site and consequently the building’s mass appears reduced when glimpsed occasionally between the trees. The southern elevation is cut into the embankment behind and its appearance is again softened by vegetation. Meanwhile the southwest elevation, which is the most publicly visible, is much narrower and belies the true size of the building. It is visible only fleetingly between clusters of trees to either side and is seen against the backdrop of other dwellings to the east and the higher ground beyond. For these reasons it is considered that the building does not overwhelm or dominate its environs and is of an appropriate scale.

10.3 Impact on character and appearance of the conservation area 10.3.1 Given the limited impact of the development beyond the confines of the site, the industrial nature of this part of the village and irregular pattern of development, combined with the visual benefit resulting from the removal of the previous dilapidated garage, it is felt that the replacement complies with the objective of preservation by leaving the character and appearance of the conservation area unharmed.

10.4 Impact on landscape quality and character 10.4.1 As noted above the building is visible only fleetingly from public vantage points and is seen in the context of other residential development against a backdrop of higher ground to the east. It is therefore considered that the generally open character and natural beauty of the wider landscape is not unduly affected.

10.5 Impact on residential amenity 10.5.1 The building is sited at the end of the site furthest from the neighbouring dwellings, and is largely screened from view by Lilac

4 Cottage itself and the boundary planting in-between. Furthermore, the property to the northeast has a considerable advantage in height which ensures that the development has no overbearing impact.

10.5.2 The use of the building for ancillary domestic purposes is reinforced by condition, and if loud music or any other noise arising therefrom is beyond what might reasonably be expected for a residential property action may be taken under separate environmental health legislation.

11.0 CONCLUSION

11.1 On balance, the application is considered to accord with the principal determining criteria of the relevant development plan policies. Account has been taken of the issues raised in the representations received, but it is felt that these can to an extent be addressed by condition and are insufficient to warrant refusal. Approval is therefore recommended, subject to conditions to reinforce the critical aspects of the scheme.

LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS:

HUMAN RIGHTS

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

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

Reason for Approval

The proposal conforms to the provisions of the development plan insofar as they are relevant to the application. No material considerations, including those raised in representations, were considered to outweigh the policies of the development plan. In determining the application the Local Planning Authority gave consideration to the following policies:

Central Government Guidance: PPG15: Planning and the Historic Environment

West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy Policies: QE5: Protection and Enhancement of the Historic Environment QE6: The Conservation, Enhancement and Restoration of the Region’s Landscape

5 South Shropshire Local Plan Policies: E1: Landscape Conservation E6: Design

Supplementary Planning Guidance: Alterations and Additions to and Replacement of Dwellings

Conditions

1. Within three months of the date of this permission, the roof of the development hereby permitted shall be painted matt black and thereafter maintained in the absence of any further specific permission in writing from the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the Snailbeach Conservation Area and Shropshire Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, in accordance with PPG15, Policies QE5 and QE6 of the West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy, and Policies E1 and E6 of the adopted South Shropshire Local Plan.

2. The development hereby permitted shall only be used in connection with and ancillary to the occupation of the existing property on the site as a single dwelling house and shall not at any time be occupied as a separate dwelling or used for commercial or business purposes.

Reason: To safeguard the residential amenities of the area and prevent the use of the development for purposes inappropriate in this rural location, in accordance with Policies E1, E6, ED1 and SDS3 of the adopted South Shropshire Local Plan.