ITEM:

Application Reference DC/073895 Location: Werneth Hall Farm Cowlishaw Road Romiley Stockport SK6 4NU PROPOSAL: Extension of ancillary outbuilding (former barn) and conversion to dwelling Type Of Application: Full Application Registration Date: 25.06.2019 Expiry Date: 20190820 Case Officer: Dominic Harvey Applicant: Mr P Rhodes Agent: Steve Lamb

DELEGATION/COMMITTEE STATUS

Under the Delegation Agreement, should Marple Area Committee be minded to grant permission then the application will be referred to the Planning & Highways Regulations Committee as a Departure from the Statutory Development Plan.

DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT

This application seeks permission for the conversion of a former barn and extension to form a four-bedroom open market dwelling (Use Class C3a), new window openings are proposed and amenity space would be provided. No changes are proposed to the sites access arrangements and parking would be provided within the site for two cars. Plans remain substantively identical to those, previously approved in 2012 and 2015 albeit for the conversion and extension to provide holiday accommodation. Submitted evidence demonstrates that the previous holiday accommodation permissions are not viable and unlikely to provide a reasonable return on capital investment, given a lack of demand in the area.

SITE AND SURROUNDINGS

The site lies within the Green Belt and ‘Ludworth Moor’ Landscape Character Area as identified on the Proposals Map of the Stockport UDP Review. The existing underutilised building, originally a hay barn with adjoining pigsty has more recently been used for domestic storage in conjunction with the residential use of Werneth Hall Farm a detached dwellinghouse (Use Class C3a) and Grade II Listed Building. The building comprises a non-designated heritage asset constructed of red brick and stone, with timber detailing and a gable stone flag roof. A cluster of residential properties comprising Werneth Hall Farm, Werneth Hall and Werneth Hall Cottage to the rear form a pocket of development in the countryside characterised by open fields. POLICY BACKGROUND

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that planning applications be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

The Development Plan includes-

 Policies set out in the Stockport Unitary Development Plan Review adopted 31st May 2006 which have been saved by direction under paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 8 to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004; &

 Policies set out in the Stockport Local Development Framework Core Strategy Development Plan Document adopted 17th March 2011.

Saved policies of the SUDP Review

LCR1.1: LANDSCAPE CHARACTER AREAS GBA1.1: EXTENT OF GREEN BELT GBA1.2: CONTROL OF DEVELOPMENT IN GREEN BELT GBA1.5: RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN GREEN BELT GBA1.6: REUSE OF BUILDINGS IN THE GREEN BELT L1.1: LAND FOR ACTIVE RECREATION L1.2: CHILDRENS PLAY MW1.5: CONTROL OF WASTE FROM DEVELOPMENT

LDF Core Strategy/Development Management policies

CS1: OVERARCHING PRINCIPLES: SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT – ADDRESSING INEQUALITIES AND CLIMATE CHANGE SD-1: Creating Sustainable Communities SD-3: Delivering the Energy Opportunities Plans - New Development SD-6: Adapting to the Impacts of Climate Change

CS2: HOUSING PROVISION

CS4: DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSING H-1: Design of Residential Development H-2: Housing Phasing

CS8: SAFEGUARDING AND IMPROVING THE SIE-1: Quality Places SIE-2: Provision of Recreation and Amenity Open Space in New Developments SIE-3: Protecting, Safeguarding and Enhancing the Environment

CS9: TRANSPORT AND DEVELOPMENT

CS10: AN EFFECTIVE AND SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT NETWORK T-1: Transport and Development T-2: Parking in Developments T-3: Safety and Capacity on the Highway Network

Supplementary Planning Documents and Guidance

Supplementary Planning Guidance (Saved SPG’s & SPD’s) does not form part of the Statutory Development Plan; nevertheless it does provide non-statutory Council approved guidance that is a material consideration when determining planning applications.

‘Recreational Open Space and Commuted Payments’ (2019), ‘The Design Of Residential Development’ (2007), 'Sustainable Transport' (2007), ‘Sustainable Design and Construction’ (2012).

National Planning Policy Framework

A Revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) issued by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government on 19th February 2019 replaced the previous NPPF (originally issued 2012 & revised 2018). The NPPF has not altered the fundamental legal requirement under Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 that decisions must be made in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations (such as the NPPF) indicate otherwise.

The NPPF representing the governments up-to-date planning policy which should be taken into account in dealing with applications focuses on achieving a lasting housing reform, facilitating the delivery of a greater number of homes, ensuring that we get planning for the right homes built in the right places of the right quality at the same time as protecting our environment. If decision takers choose not to follow the NPPF, then clear and convincing reasons for doing so are needed.

National Planning Policy Framework.

Para.1 “The National Planning Policy Framework sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these should be applied”.

Para.2 “Planning law requires that applications for planning permission be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise”.

Para.7 “The purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development”.

Para.8 “Achieving sustainable development means that the planning system has three overarching objectives, which are interdependent and need to be pursued in mutually supportive ways (so that opportunities can be taken to secure net gains across each of the different objectives): a) an economic objective – to help build a strong, responsive and competitive economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right types is available in the right places and at the right time to support growth, innovation and improved productivity; and by identifying and coordinating the provision of infrastructure; b) a social objective – to support strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by ensuring that a sufficient number and range of homes can be provided to meet the needs of present and future generations; and by fostering a well-designed and safe built environment, with accessible services and open spaces that reflect current and future needs and support communities’ health, social and cultural well-being; and c) an environmental objective – to contribute to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment; including making effective use of land, helping to improve biodiversity, using natural resources prudently, minimising waste and pollution, and mitigating and adapting to climate change, including moving to a low carbon economy”.

Para.9 “These objectives should be delivered through the preparation and implementation of plans and the application of the policies in this Framework; they are not criteria against which every decision can or should be judged. Planning policies and decisions should play an active role in guiding development towards sustainable solutions, but in doing so should take local circumstances into account, to reflect the character, needs and opportunities of each area”.

Para.10 “So that sustainable development is pursued in a positive way, at the heart of the Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development (paragraph 11)”.

Para.11 “Plans and decisions should apply a presumption in favour of sustainable development.

For decision-taking this means: c) approving development proposals that accord with an up-to-date development plan without delay; or d) where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date7, granting permission unless:

i. the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed6; or

ii. any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.

Footnote “7 This includes, for applications involving the provision of housing, situations where the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites (with the appropriate buffer, as set out in paragraph 73).

Para.12 “Where a planning application conflicts with an up-to-date development plan, permission should not usually be granted. Local planning authorities may take decisions that depart from an up-to-date development plan, but only if material considerations in a particular case indicate that the plan should not be followed”.

Para.34 “Plans should set out the contributions expected from development. This should include setting out the levels and types of affordable housing provision required, along with other infrastructure. Such policies should not undermine the deliverability of the plan”.

Para.38 “Local planning authorities should approach decisions on proposed development in a positive and creative way. Decision-makers at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable development where possible”.

Para.47 “Planning law requires that applications for planning permission be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise”.

Para.54 “Local planning authorities should consider whether otherwise unacceptable development could be made acceptable through the use of conditions or planning obligations. Planning obligations should only be used where it is not possible to address unacceptable impacts through a planning condition”.

Para.57 “Where up-to-date policies have set out the contributions expected from development, planning applications that comply with them should be assumed to be viable”.

Para.59 “To support the Government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes, it is important that a sufficient amount and variety of land can come forward where it is needed”.

Para.63 “Provision of affordable housing should not be sought for residential developments that are not major developments”.

Para.68 “Small and medium sized sites can make an important contribution to meeting the housing requirement of an area, and are often built-out relatively quickly. To promote the development of a good mix of sites local planning authorities should: c) support the development of windfall sites through their policies and decisions”.

Para.73 “Strategic policies should include a trajectory illustrating the expected rate of housing delivery over the plan period, and all plans should consider whether it is appropriate to set out the anticipated rate of development for specific sites. Local planning authorities should identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide a minimum of five years’ worth of housing against their housing requirement set out in adopted strategic policies, or against their local housing need where the strategic policies are more than five years old. The supply of specific deliverable sites should in addition include a buffer (moved forward from later in the plan period) of: c) 20% where there has been significant under delivery of housing over the previous three years, to improve the prospect of achieving the planned supply”.

Para.79 “Planning policies and decisions should avoid the development of isolated homes in the countryside unless one or more of the following circumstances apply: b) the development would represent the optimal viable use of a heritage asset or would be appropriate enabling development to secure the future of heritage assets; c) the development would re-use redundant or disused buildings and enhance its immediate setting;

Para.96 “Access to a network of high quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and physical activity is important for the health and well-being of communities”.

Para.103 “Significant development should be focused on locations which are or can be made sustainable, through limiting the need to travel and offering a genuine choice of transport modes. However, opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas, and this should be taken into account in both plan- making and decision-making”.

Para.109 “Development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe”.

Para.117 “Planning policies and decisions should promote an effective use of land in meeting the need for homes and other uses, while safeguarding and improving the environment and ensuring safe and healthy living conditions. Strategic policies should set out a clear strategy for accommodating objectively assessed needs, in a way that makes as much use as possible of previously-developed or ‘brownfield’ land”.

Para.118 “Planning policies and decisions should:

d) promote and support the development of under-utilised land and buildings, especially if this would help to meet identified needs for housing where land supply is constrained and available sites could be used more effectively”.

Para.122 “Planning policies and decisions should support development that makes efficient use of land, taking into account:

a) the identified need for different types of housing and other forms of development, and the availability of land suitable for accommodating it;

b) local market conditions and viability;

c) the availability and capacity of infrastructure and services – both existing and proposed – as well as their potential for further improvement and the scope to promote sustainable travel modes that limit future car use;

d) the desirability of maintaining an area’s prevailing character and setting, or of promoting regeneration and change; and

e) the importance of securing well-designed, attractive and healthy places”.

Para.123 “Where there is an existing or anticipated shortage of land for meeting identified housing needs, it is especially important that planning policies and decisions avoid homes being built at low densities, and ensure that developments make optimal use of the potential of each site. In these circumstances:

c) local planning authorities should refuse applications which they consider fail to make efficient use of land, taking into account the policies in this Framework. In this context, when considering applications for housing, authorities should take a flexible approach in applying policies or guidance relating to daylight and sunlight, where they would otherwise inhibit making efficient use of a site (as long as the resulting scheme would provide acceptable living standards)”.

Para.124 “The creation of high quality buildings and places is fundamental to what the planning and development process should achieve. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, creates better places in which to live and work and helps make development acceptable to communities”.

Para.130 “Permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions, taking into account any local design standards or style guides in plans or supplementary planning documents. Conversely, where the design of a development accords with clear expectations in plan policies, design should not be used by the decision- maker as a valid reason to object to development”.

Para.133 “The Government attaches great importance to Green Belts. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence”.

Para.134 “Green Belt serves five purposes:

a) to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; b) to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another; c) to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; d) to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and e) to assist in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land”.

Para.143 “Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances”.

Para.144 “When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. ‘Very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations”.

Para.145 “A local planning authority should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in the Green Belt. Exceptions to this are:

“c) the extension or alteration of a building provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building”

Para.146 “Certain other forms of development are also not inappropriate in the Green Belt provided they preserve its openness and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within it. These are: d) the re-use of buildings provided that the buildings are of permanent and substantial construction;

Para.153 “In determining planning applications, local planning authorities should expect new development to: a) comply with any development plan policies on local requirements for decentralised energy supply unless it can be demonstrated by the applicant, having regard to the type of development involved and its design, that this is not feasible or viable; and b) take account of landform, layout, building orientation, massing and landscaping to minimise energy consumption”.

Para.170 “Planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by: a) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, sites of biodiversity or geological value and soils (in a manner commensurate with their statutory status or identified quality in the development plan); b) recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, and the wider benefits from natural capital and ecosystem services – including the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land, and of trees and woodland; d) minimising impacts on and providing net gains for biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures”

Para.192 “In determining applications, local planning authorities should take account of: a) the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation; b) the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and c) the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.

Para.197 “The effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that directly or indirectly affect non-designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset”.

Para.212 “The policies in this Framework are material considerations which should be taken into account in dealing with applications from the day of its publication”.

Para.213 “However existing policies should not be considered out-of-date simply because they were adopted or made prior to the publication of this Framework. Due weight should be given to them, according to their degree of consistency with this Framework (the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given)”.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

DC/046188: Conversion and extension of an existing hay barn into holiday accommodation, granted 26th January 2012.

DC/057482: Conversion and extension of existing hay barn into a 4 bedroom holiday let, granted 14th May 2015.

DC/059048: Application seeking to remove conditions Nos.18 & 21 pertaining to DC057482 refused 26th August 2015 on grounds that the site falls within a location that is neither accessible nor sustainable, a subsequent appeal considering whether or not the disputed conditions are necessary and reasonable was dismissed on 23rd February 2016.

NEIGHBOUR'S VIEWS

The proposal has been advertised as a Departure from the Development Plan’ by Site and Press Notice; additionally the owner/occupiers of nearby properties have been notified by letter, to date no representations have been received.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Environmental Health Officer (Contaminated Land): The developer has submitted a Phase 1 which recommends that a Phase 2 is undertaken for soil and gas, as such subject CTM1-3, LFG1 and LFG3 conditions (CTM1, CTM2 AND LFG1 will be pre-commencement conditions) I raise no objection.

Conservation Officer: The former hay barn at Werneth Hall that is the subject of the application is included within the Greater Manchester Historic Environment Record MGM15123 for Werneth Hall. It should therefore be treated as a non-designated heritage asset for planning policy purposes. The entry reads as follows :

Described by James Butterworth in 1827 as ‘an old mansion of very antiquated appearance’. Bought in 1815 by George Andrew of Compstall Printworks; still in his ownership at time of 1839 tithe award(a) but leased out to tenants (1,2). House extensively modernized and subdivided (1,3). 2 storey range aligned alongside Cowlishaw Road. Southern part is stone-built and appears to be late 18th/early 19th century. Northern part is rendered, of 6 bays with small windows. It is abutted at a right angle by a taller 2 storey, stone-built house. It is unclear as to what extent the present buildings incorporate any remains of the early hall. Outbuildings include Grade II Listed barn (SMR 11992.1.0) and, on the south side of the yard, a single-storey brick-built range (Site visit, P Arrowsmith, 27/9/2005)(1).

The hay barn also forms part of the setting of the statutorily Grade II Listed stone barn that is located to the north. Subject to the use of appropriate materials and careful architectural detailing it is considered that the current proposals would not result in harm to the significance or setting of the listed structure.

It is acknowledged that the design of the current proposal replicates a previously approved scheme that was subject to a restriction of its use for holiday accommodation. It is also acknowledged that the re-use of the barn as a single dwelling provides a mechanism for the future maintenance and long-term preservation of the building. It is important that the character of the farm group and setting of the Grade II Listed barn is maintained by maintaining a sense of openness and providing for, wherever possible, the use of shared spaces. Any future proposals for domestic outbuildings, boundary structures, etc. can be controlled through the removal of permitted development rights and it is therefore recommended that these matters are subject to a planning condition to remove permitted development rights.

Senior Highway Engineer: From a layout / design perspective, this current application does not differ from the scheme approved under application DC/057482, with the dwelling proposed to be accessed via the site's existing access on Cowlishaw Road, which serves two existing dwellings, and parking will be provided within the site for two cars. These access and parking arrangements were considered acceptable for a holiday let and I would consider them acceptable for a single dwelling. Cycle parking, however, would need to be provided, although this matter could be dealt with by condition. As such, the main matter for consideration is the suitability of the site for a standard residential dwelling, as opposed to a holiday let. Recommend that the application be refused on the following grounds:-

“The proposed dwelling would be sited in a location that is not accessible or sustainable, having regard to the site’s rural remote location, public transport provision, available and safe pedestrian and cycle routes and proximity to shops, schools, services, leisure uses and places of employment, which would result in the occupants of the dwelling being entirely reliant upon the use of private motor vehicles and being unable to safely access the site by foot or cycle. As such the proposal will be contrary to Polices CS9 ‘Transport and Development’, T-1 ‘Transport and Development’ and CS4 'Distribution of Housing' of the Stockport Core Strategy DPD 2011 and Paragraph 78 of the NPPF”.

Senior Arboriculture & Habitat Officer: The proposed development is not within or affected by a Conservation Area. There are no legally protected trees within this site or affected by this development. The construction site footprint predominantly sits within the hard standing and informal grounds of the site and the proposed new developments potentially will potentially only impact on several small, poor valued regenerated trees.

In principle the design will potentially have a small negative impact on the trees on site and within neighbouring properties, therefore it could be accepted in its current format with some improved landscaping design, take care with the proposed siting of the trees and the species of the trees to offer some diversity in the species and improved biodiversity the trees offer increasing wildlife benefits to an ever increasing urban area. The following conditions would be relevant to any planning application relating to the site if it was minded to approve;

Condition Tree 1: No existing tree within the site shall be cut down, topped, lopped, uprooted, wilfully damaged or wilfully destroyed without the prior written approval of the local planning authority, with the exception of those indicated otherwise on the approved plan. Any hedgerows, woody plants or shrubbery removed without such consent or dying or being severely damaged or being seriously diseased, within 5 years of the development commencing, shall be replaced within the next planting season with trees of such size and species as may be approved in writing by the local planning authority.

Condition Tree 2: No development shall take place until all existing trees on the site except those shown to be removed on the approved plans, have been fenced off in accordance with BS 5837:2012 "Trees in relation to construction - Recommendations". The fencing shall be retained during the period of construction and no work, excavation, tipping or stacking of materials shall take place within any such fence during the construction period.

Condition Tree 3: No development shall take place until details of all proposed tree planting, including the intended dates of planting, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. All tree planting shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details prior to the development being brought into use.

Nature Development Officer: No evidence of roosting bats was recorded during the surveys and so there is considered to be limited risk of impacting a bat roost as a result of the proposed works. Bats can regularly switch roosting sites however and so as a precautionary measure, I would recommend that an informative is attached to any planning permission granted so that the applicant is aware of the potential for bats to be present on site. It should also state that the granting of planning permission does not negate the need to abide by the legislation in place to protect biodiversity. If at any time during works evidence of bats (or any other protected species, such as great crested newts) is discovered on site, works must cease and a suitably experienced ecologist contacted for advice. It is also advised that an update bat survey is carried out prior to works, should works be delayed beyond two years from the date of most recent survey (i.e. after June 2021). This can be secured by condition.

No roof works or vegetation clearance should take place during the bird nesting season (which is generally between 1st March and 31st August inclusive), unless it can be demonstrated that nesting birds are not present (following recommendations in section 4.12 of the ecology report: Penny Anderson Associates, 2019). This can be secured by condition.

To mitigate for the loss of bat roosting and bird nesting opportunities as a result of the proposed conversion works it is advised that the recommendations in section 4.13 are followed. Details of the proposed number, type and location of bat and bird boxes should be submitted to the LPA for approval. To further enhance the site for biodiversity, any landscape planting should incorporate species of locally native origin.

ANALYSIS

The site lies within the Greater Manchester Green Belt and 'Ludworth Moor' Landscape Character Area as identified on the Proposals Map of the SUDP Review. At the outset, it is noted that the submitted plans remain substantively identical to those, previously approved in 2012 and 2015 albeit for the conversion and extension to provide holiday accommodation.

GREEN BELT

The NPPF addresses Green Belt policy under the heading entitled ‘Protecting Green Belt Land’ and takes as its fundamental starting point the importance of maintaining ‘openness’ on a ‘permanent’ basis’, where para.133 provides that the Government attach great importance to Green Belts. Policy GBA1.2 states that forms of development other than new buildings, including changes in the use of land will not be permitted unless they maintain openness and do not conflict with the purposes of including land in the Green Belt and that proposals for the re-use of buildings will be assessed against the provisions of Policy GBA1.6. Additionally Policy GBA1.5 specifies amongst other categories that within the Green Belt new residential development will be restricted to re-use of buildings as provided for by Policy GBA1.6.

POLICY GBA1.6: ‘RE-USE OF BUILDINGS IN THE GREEN BELT’ ASSESSMENT

Policy GBA1.6 confirms that the change of use or conversion of buildings of permanent and substantial construction will be permitted provided that a number of criteria are satisfied as outline below:

(i) would be used for economic or other purposes other than wholly residential ones;

Whilst Policy GBA1.6 is broadly consistent with the NPPF criteria (i) which precludes wholly residential uses is in direct conflict with para.146(d) of the NPPF, which makes no distinction between types of uses.

In this context of para. 213 of the NPPF requires weight to be afforded to Local Plan Policy according to its degree of consistency with the NPPF, accordingly this discrepancy relating to criteria (i) is outdated and accordingly should not be apportioned any weight.

Overall in Green Belt Policy terms it is therefore left to be considered whether or not the conversion satisfies the remaining criteria ((ii), (iii), (iv), (v), & (vi)) and exceptions set out in para’s.145(c) and 146(d) of the NPPF.

 Para.145(c) the extension or alteration of a building provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building; &

 Para.146(d) the re-use of permanent and substantial buildings regardless of their intended use that preserve openness and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within the Green Belt

(ii) would maintain openness and would not conflict with the purposes of including land in the Green Belt;

The extension (117m³) would result in a built form amounting to a 22% increase in volume, which would comfortably fall within the “about one third” increase in volume guideline outlined in the explanatory text to Policy GBA1.5, accordingly the extension would not represent a disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original building (535m³). Overall given there would be no substantial change to the scale character and appearance of the building, the proposal would maintain openness and would not conflict with the purposes of including land within the Green Belt; accordingly the proposal satisfies with the requirements of Policy GBA1.5 and under para’s.145(c) and 146(d) of the NPPF represents an exception to what would otherwise be regarded as inappropriate development. Whilst the residential conversion would be likely to generate domestic paraphernalia within the garden area, it would be viewed within the context of the other dwellings in the group and would not encroach into the wider landscape. Nonetheless should permission be forthcoming it would be appropriate to withdraw domestic permitted development rights given that future alterations/extension are likely to result in a disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building and as such constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

(iii) would safeguard or improve the appearance of the rural environment;

Policy CS8 states that the landscape and character of the countryside will be preserved and enhanced, taking into account the distinctive attributes of local areas based on a landscape character assessment. Policy SIE-1 states that development that is designed and landscaped to the highest contemporary standard, paying high regard to the built and/or natural environment, within which it is sited, will be given positive consideration. Moreover Policy SIE-3 states that the borough’s rural landscape will be conserved and enhanced in line with the borough’s Landscape Character Assessment and Policy LCR1.1 requires development to be sensitively sited, designed and constructed of materials appropriate to the landscape character area and be accommodated without adverse effect on the landscape quality of the particular character area. Overall, the sympathetic conversion of the building would improve the general character and appearance of its rural setting within the 'Ludworth Moor' Landscape Character Area.

In addition, all buildings should be structurally sound, well related to their surroundings and capable of:

(iv) accommodating the new use without the need for major rebuilding or extension;

A Structural Survey supported earlier permissions since which a visual inspection confirms that the building has not deteriorated and is clearly of permanent and substantial construction, structurally sound and capable of conversion without needing major rebuilding or extension, and accordingly satisfies the requirements of para.146 (d) of the NPPF.

(v) being provided with an adequate curtilage without adverse impact on the Green Belt; and

The existing curtilage, which is tightly defined around the existing building, would avoid any adverse impact or encroachment into the Green Belt and private amenity areas (170m3) would exceed the minimum standard (100m3) set out in the ‘Design of Residential Development’ SPD

(vi) being satisfactorily accessed and serviced without adverse impact on the Green Belt.

From a layout/design perspective, details of access and parking arrangements are identical to those approved under 2012 and 2015 permissions relating to holiday let accommodation, accordingly the Council’s Highway Engineer raises no objection subject to securing cycle parking by conditional control. Additionally given the relatively minor nature of the improvements required there would be no adverse impact on the Green Belt.

In the case of buildings, which may be used by bats, barn owls or other protected species, satisfactory investigation must be carried out into the possible presence of such species and, where appropriate, measures must be implemented to ensure that legal obligations are met and that any damage to habitats is minimised.

Whilst there maybe some resulting loss of potential roosting and nesting features, mitigating measures propose the installation of bat and bird boxes to retain and enhance the ecological value of the building and help to support local bat and bird populations. The Council’s Nature Development Officer raises no objection subject to conditional control; accordingly, the proposal would contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment, providing net gains for biodiversity in accordance with the final element of Policy GBA1.6 and requirements of Policy CS8.

Overall the conversion represents a Green Belt exception for the purposes of para’s.145(c) and 146(d) of the NPPF and does not amount to inappropriate development; accordingly there is no requirement to demonstrate ‘very special circumstances’.

DELIVERY OF HOUSING/ACESSIBILITY

The Council’s Highway Engineer’s raises concern that the site cannot be regarded as being in a particularly accessible location and conflicts with the general thrust of Policies CS9 and T-1 which seek to facilitate a reduction in the need to travel through locating development in more accessible centres and ensuring that new development is accessible by public transport, walking and cycling. Nonetheless, the proposal should be viewed in the light of the approach taken by the Council in relation to Policy H2 where accessibility is fundamental to the consideration of sustainable development in the NPPF when read as a whole. Additionally the proposal should also be considered in the context of para.103 of the NPPF which recognises that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions vary between urban and rural areas and para.79 of the NPPF which is permissive to proposals which represent the optimal viable use of a heritage asset and/or the re-use of redundant/disused buildings which enhance their immediate setting.

Para.59 of the NPPF puts additional emphasis upon the government's objective to significantly boost the supply of homes. Para.117 of the NPPF outlines that decisions should promote an effective use of land in meeting the need for homes where strategic policies should make as much use as possible of previously-developed land and para.118 of the NPPF indicates that decisions should promote and support the development of under- utilised land and buildings, especially if this would help to meet identified needs for housing where land supply is constrained. Policy CS2 states that a wide choice of high quality homes will be provided to meet the requirements of existing and future Stockport households and Policy CS4 directs new housing towards 3 spatial priority areas (the town centre, district and large local centres, and finally, other accessible locations). The 2018 Housing Delivery Test (Feb 2019) indicates that Stockport has only delivered 75% of its housing requirement over the latest 3-year period and is currently in a position of significant housing undersupply (2.8 years) against the minimum requirement of five years +20% buffer as set out in para.73 of the NPPF.

In situations of housing undersupply, Policy CS4 allows Policy H-2 to come into effect, requiring 80% of new housing development to be located on previously developed land and on sites, which meet the Council’s accessibility criteria; allowing the deliverable supply to be topped up by sites in other accessible locations. The accessibility score (AS) is based on an assessment of whether amenities, retail opportunities, education, health and employment are accessible from a site via sustainable transport mode (public transport, walking and cycling). In accordance with the accessibility model the site achieves an AS of 25, exceeding the current minimum threshold score lowered to ‘zero’ having regard to Stockport’s significant under delivery of housing undersupply and to allow supply to be topped up in accordance with Policy H-2.

HERITAGE

The former hay barn is included within the Greater Manchester Historic Environment Record for Werneth Hall and as a building within the curtilage of Werneth Hall Farm; a Grade II Listed Building should therefore be treated as a non-designated heritage asset for planning policy purposes. The former hay barn significance derives from the manner in which its materials and features reflect the significance of the Listed Building and its contribution to the group setting of the buildings within the ‘Ludworth Moor’ Landscape Character Area. Para.197 of the NPPF states that in weighing applications that directly or indirectly affect non-designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset. Policies CS8 and SIE- 3 advise that development will be expected to make a positive contribution to the protection and/or enhancement of heritage assets and which preserves or enhances the significance of heritage assets, will be welcomed is consistent with para.192 of the NPPF which outlines that account should be taken of the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation. This is in line with legislation 1, which makes clear that in considering whether to grant planning permission for development, which affects the setting of a listed building, the decision maker shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest it possesses. It is acknowledged that the conversion provides a mechanism for the future maintenance and long-term preservation of the building, which is desirable. The Council’s Conservation Officer considers that the proposal would not result in harm to the significance or setting of ‘Werneth Hall Farm’ a Grade II Listed Building and raises no objection subject to the use of appropriate materials, careful architectural detailing and the removal of domestic permitted development rights in respect of alterations and extensions. Overall, in heritage terms the retention, refurbishment and conversion of a building comprising non-designated heritage is wholly endorsed and welcomed in accordance with the provisions of Policies CS8 and SIE-3 and para’s 192 and 197 of the NPPF.

LIVING CONDITIONS, AMENITY, DESIGN, CHARACTER & APPEARANCE

The design approach would be sympathetic in terms of its siting, scale, massing, design, roofline, and materials and can be accommodated without adverse effects on landscape quality of the 'Ludworth Moor' Landscape Character Area. The extension is discreet, well considered and proportionate; overall, the conversion represents a considered response to its context and would provide good standards of amenity and privacy for both the occupiers of existing housing, which neighbour the site, and future occupiers of the proposed housing. Separation distances and private amenity space would accord with guidelines set out in ‘The Design of Residential Development’ SPD - to reflect its immediate setting, whilst maintaining existing privacy for existing residents and providing sufficient amenity for the new homes whilst respecting the character and openness of the Green Belt. Overall, the proposal accords with the provisions of Policies LCR1.1, CS8, SIE-1, SIE-3, H-1 and guidelines set out in the ‘Design of Residential Development’ SPD.

OTHER MATTERS

In respect of contamination, the Council’s Environmental Health Officer remains satisfied the development could be carried out safely without unacceptable risks in accordance with the provisions of Policy SIE-3. In respect of drainage, Policy SD-6 requires a 50% reduction in existing surface water run-off and incorporation of SuDS to manage the run off of water from the site through the incorporation of permeable surfaces and SuDS, which can be addressed through conditional control. In respect of trees, the Councils Senior Arboriculture & Habitat Officer for the reasons outlined above raise no objection subject to conditional control as such the proposal accords with the requirements of Policies CS8 and SIE-3. Whilst the conversion does not trigger Stockport's carbon reduction targets, the submitted Energy Statement reviews the feasibility and appropriateness of a number of Low and Zero Carbon Technologies. Given the inherent constraints associated with the non-designated heritage asset and its close proximity to Werneth Hall Farm a Grade II Listed building the proposal sympathetically relies solely upon minimising heat loss through maximising thermal insulation in accordance with the provisions of Policy SD-3. Notwithstanding the provisions of Policy H-3, there is no requirement for affordable housing given that para.63 of the NPPF states that the provision of affordable housing should not be sought for residential developments that do not comprise major developments (10 residential units). The requirement of Policy SIE-2 can be satisfied through either a suitably worded condition requiring approval and implementation of a scheme for the provision and maintenance of formal and casual open space and facilities in a timely manner to meet the needs generated by the development or alternatively a commuted sum (£7,480) secured through a planning obligation under Section 106 (S106) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

PRESUMPTION IN FAVOUR OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

The purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. Sustainability, which is multi-faceted, encompasses three overarching objectives - economic, social and environmental, which are interdependent and need to be pursued in mutually supportive ways. Decisions should play an active role in guiding development towards sustainable solutions, but in doing so should consider local circumstances, to reflect the character, needs and opportunities of each area.

Notwithstanding concern that the site cannot be regarded as being in a particularly accessible location, given the persistent under delivery of housing, para.11(d) of the NPPF (‘the tilted balance’) is engaged, which requires that where Local Plan policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, granting permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies of the NPPF taken as a whole.

Opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions vary between urban and rural areas, whilst the site is not located in close proximity to many services or to a public transport network, this needs to be considered in the planning balance against the important contribution of developing a previously developed windfall site to the overall supply of housing at a time of continued and significant under supply where there is a requirement to identify sites for new housing development. In addition the provision of additional housing, alongside the regeneration benefit of bringing an under-utilised non-designated heritage asset back into viable use which would also help to preserve and enhance the immediate setting of the adjacent Grade II Listed Building, should also be taken into account.

When the range of considerations are weighed in the overall planning balance against the NPPF as a whole, the benefits of the proposal including the government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes would significantly and demonstrably outweigh any adverse impacts identified arising from the Highway Engineers concerns, accordingly it is considered that withholding permission on accessibility grounds would be difficult to justify.

CONCLUSION

Section 38(6) and para.11 of the NPPF, concerning the presumption in favour of sustainable development requires that that the grant of permission subject to appropriate conditions be deferred and delegated to satisfy the requirements of Policy SIE-2 through either a suitably worded condition or alternatively a commuted sum (£7,480) secured through a planning obligation under S106. Given the conflict with criteria (i) of Policy GBA1.6 the proposal remains a Departure from the Development Plan, accordingly should Marple Area Committee be minded to grant permission, the application will be required to be referred to the Planning & Highways Regulation Committee

RECOMMENDATION

Defer & Delegate the Grant of Planning Permission.

MARPLE AREA COMMITTEE (11/12/19)

The Planning Officer outlined that whilst Policy GBA1.6 is broadly consistent with the NPPF criteria precluding wholly residential uses is in conflict with the NPPF, which makes no distinction between types of uses, accordingly Committee accepted that the proposal represents a Green Belt exception. The Planning Officer answered Members questions and Committee recognised the planning benefits associated with conversion including the important contribution of developing a brownfield site to the overall supply of housing at a time of significant under supply, alongside the benefit of bringing an under-utilised non- designated heritage asset back into viable use. Committee resolved to recommend that subject to the removal of permitted development permission be deferred and delegated pending appropriate arrangements to secure open space contributions in accordance with the requirements of Policy SIE-2.