APPLICATION NUMBER: WD/D/17/001958
APPLICATION SITE: THE READING ROOM, VILLAGE STREET, STOKE ABBOTT
PROPOSAL: Use of the building as a dwelling house
APPLICANT: Mr De Vere Cole
CASE OFFICER: Rachel Noke
WARD MEMBER(S): Cllr Mark Roberts
RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY: Refuse
1. DESCRIPTION OF SITE
1.1 The application site is located in the village of Stoke Abbot which is not identified in the adopted local plan as being a sustainable village suitable for development by virtue of not being included in the list of identified villages of a 200+ population or by having a Defined Development Boundary (DDB). The site is within the Stoke Abbot Conservation Area and is specifically identified as being of local importance although it is not listed. The site is also within the Dorset Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and is within a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).
2. DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT
2.1 This is an application that seeks to permit a new unrestricted dwelling house use. The approved permission allows it be used for holiday accommodation only.
3. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
App. No Type Proposal Decision Date Officer 1/W/05/000167 FUL Convert store into unit of holiday A 22 March DJR accommodation. Upgrade rear 2005 extension, construct 2 dormer windows. Modify existing vehicular access. 1/W/06/000559 FUL Convert building into holiday A 23 May GH accommodation and construct 2006 vehicular access
4. RELEVANT PLANNING POLICIES:
4.1 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2012
As far as this application is concerned the following sections of the NPPF are considered to be relevant:
3. Supporting a prosperous rural economy 4. Promoting sustainable transport 6. Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes 7. Requiring good design 8. Promoting healthy communities 11. Conserving and enhancing the natural environment 12. Conserving and enhancing the historic environment
Decision taking: Para 186 - Local planning authorities should approach decision-taking in a positive way to foster the delivery of sustainable development. The relationship between decision-taking and plan-making should be seamless, translating plans into high quality development on the ground.>
Para 187 - Local planning authorities should look for solutions rather than problems, and decision-takers at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable development where possible. Local planning authorities should work proactively with applicants to secure developments that improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area.>
4.2 Adopted West Dorset and Weymouth & Portland Local Plan (2015)>
As far as this application is concerned the following policies are considered to be relevant. ENV1. LANDSCAPE, SEASCAPE AND SITES OF GEOLOGICAL INTEREST
ENV2. WILDLIFE AND HABITATS
ENV4. HERITAGE ASSETS
ENV10. THE LANDSCAPE AND TOWNSCAPE SETTING
ENV11. THE PATTERN OF STREETS AND SPACES
ENV12. THE DESIGN AND POSITIONING OF BUILDINGS
ENV15. EFFICIENT AND APPROPRIATE USE OF LAND
ENV16. AMENITY SUS2. DISTRIBUTION OF DEVELOPMENT
HOUS6. OTHER RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OUTSIDE DEFINED DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARIES
COM7. CREATING A SAFE AND EFFICIENT TRANSPORT NETWORK
COM9. PARKING STANDARDS IN NEW DEVELOPMENT
5. OTHER MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
Stoke Abbot Conservation Area Appraisal Dorset Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty: A Framework for the Future AONB Management Plan 2014 - 2019 West Dorset Landscape Character Assessment 2009 Weymouth and Portland Landscape Character Assessment 2013 Design and Sustainable Development Planning Guidelines (2009).
6. HUMAN RIGHTS:
Article 6 - Right to a fair trial. Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life and home. The first protocol of Article 1 Protection of property
6.1 This Recommendation is based on adopted Development Plan policies, the application of which does not prejudice the Human Rights of the applicant or any third party.
7. PUBLIC SECTOR EQUALITIES DUTY:
7.1 As set out in the Equalities Act 2010, all public bodies, in discharging their functions must have “due regard” to this duty. There are 3 main aims:- • Removing or minimising disadvantages suffered by people due to their protected characteristics • Taking steps to meet the needs of people with certain protected characteristics where these are different from the needs of other people • Encouraging people with certain protected characteristics to participate in public life or in other activities where participation is disproportionately low.
7.2 Whilst there is no absolute requirement to fully remove any disadvantage the Duty is to have “regard to” and remove OR minimise disadvantage and in considering the merits of this planning application the planning authority has taken into consideration the requirements of the PSED
8. CONSULTATIONS:
8.1 Town / Parish Council Support.
8.2 Local Highway Authority (Dorset County Council) No highway comment.
9. REPRESENTATIONS:
At the time of writing there have been 33 representations raising the following material issues: Support (32 representations) policy is wrong will support local economy should be allowed to inhabit property that they own other holiday lets in the village believe development is sustainable community benefit Objection (1 representation) should be holiday let only as per original consent All representations can be viewed in full on www.dorsetforyou.com.
10. PLANNING ISSUES:
Principle of development AONB Design Neighbouring amenities Highways safety Conservation area CIL
11. PLANNING ASSESSMENT:
11.1 Principle of development
11.2 West Dorset District Council and Weymouth & Portland Borough Council cannot currently demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. The most recent five-year housing land supply report indicates that the councils have 4.94 years of supply across the local plan area. As a result, relevant policies for the supply of housing in the adopted local plan, including Policy SUS2: Distribution of Development, should not be considered up-to-date and the engagement of paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (i.e. the presumption in favour of sustainable development) has been triggered in relation to this application. 11.3 Although paragraph 14 has been triggered, the policies in the NPPF do not displace the statutory authority given to the ‘development plan’ so the starting point for decision-taking in relation to this application remains the adopted local plan. Whether the harm from the proposal would be outweighed by other material considerations (including the provisions of the NPPF and paragraph 14 in particular) then needs to be considered. 11.4 In the decision on the recent appeal at Ryme Road, Yetminster, the Inspector provided some commentary on the weight to be attached to Policy SUS2 in decision-taking. She considered that Policy SUS2 could not be afforded full weight because criterion iii) “restricts development outside of the DDB” thus limiting the supply of housing. However, she afforded significant weight to the spatial strategy within the policy, as set out in Criterion i). Since the land supply situation has improved since then (from 4.63 to 4.94 years), it is considered reasonable to afford weight to the different parts of Policy SUS2 in a similar way in determining this application.
11.5 The application needs to be determined under the general provisions in the second part of Paragraph 14, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or meaning that permission should be granted unless the presumption can be displaced on either or both of the grounds set out in the second part of that paragraph.
11.6 The first main issue is whether the proposed development would contribute to achieving a sustainable pattern of development and in particular whether it would accord with the Local Plan’s spatial strategy set out in Policy SUS2 and the more detailed considerations in Policy SUS3: Adaptation and Re-use of Buildings outside Defined Development Boundaries (DDBs).
11.7 Criterion i) of Policy SUS2 seeks to direct development in rural areas to settlements with DDBs and criterion iii) seeks to ‘strictly control’ development outside DDBs, ‘having particular regard to the need for the protection of the countryside and environmental constraints’. Criterion iii) allows open market housing outside DDBs through the re-use of existing rural buildings, subject to more detailed criteria.
11.8 Policy SUS3 details specific circumstances through the conversion of a building where dwellings can be supported. It states in part
’i) The adaptation and re-use of rural buildings will be permitted where: • the existing building is of permanent and substantial construction, makes a positive contribution to the local character, and would not need to be substantially rebuilt or extended; and • their proposed form, bulk and design will make a positive contribution to the local character; ii) ….open market housing or built tourist accommodation adjoining a settlement with a defined development boundary, or within or adjoining an established settlement of more than 200 population. In all cases only where the building/s was in existence in 2011; • open market housing or built tourist accommodation where the building adjoins an existing serviced residential building, and will be tied to the wider holding / main property and where the building/s was in existence in 2011;…’
11.9 As such the two circumstances where open market housing may be permitted under Policy SUS3 are: 1. where the proposed development adjoins a settlement with a DDB or adjoins, or is within, an established settlement of more than 200 population; and 2. exceptionally, where the building to be re-used adjoins an existing serviced residential building and will be tied to the wider holding / main property to secure an exceptional benefit to the local family / community. Examples of the benefits that could be secured as exceptions are listed in paragraph 3.4.2 of the local plan as: housing for relatives; local rented accommodation; and tourist accommodation but this list is not exhaustive or exclusive.
In terms of criteria i) the proposal meets this criteria. Section ii) The proposal is not within a village of 200+ as identified in the local plan and it cannot be tied to an adjoining residence nor does it have any exceptional circumstance to warrant the removal of the occupancy condition.
11.10 The balance of consideration is therefore mainly around the location of the development outside a settlement of 200 + or a DDB within the local plans settlement hierarchy and whether the proposal can be considered as an exception. The proposal is however to have an unfettered dwelling so it can not be considered as an exteption. However as stated by the Inspector at the recent Supreme Court judgement criterion iii) of SUS2 could not be afforded full weight because it ‘restricts development outside of the DDB’ thus limiting the supply of housing. Given the lack of housing land supply these other locations can now be considered provided that they meet sustainability criteria as identified in national policy.
11.11 The three dimensions to sustainable development identified in paragraph 7 of the NPPF states the following
‘There are three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. These dimensions give rise to the need for the planning system to perform a number of roles: ●an economic role – contributing to building a strong, responsive and competitive economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right type is available in the right places and at the right time to support growth and innovation; and by identifying and coordinating development requirements, including the provision of infrastructure; ● a social role – supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by providing the supply of housing required to meet the needs of present and future generations; and by creating a high quality built environment, with accessible local services that reflect the community’s needs and support its health, social and cultural well-being; and ● an environmental role – contributing to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment; and, as part of this, helping to improve biodiversity, use natural resources prudently, minimise waste and pollution, and mitigate and adapt to climate change including moving to a low carbon economy.’
11.12 Each of these elements of economic, social and environmental shall therefore be addressed in turn starting with environmental.
11.13 With regard to economic considerations there may be some longer term benefits by supporting local services in Stoke Abbot.
11.14 In terms of social considerations this is an application for an unrestricted dwelling and is therefore not considered to make a significant contribution to increasing housing land supply. The dwelling would be an open market one and not affordable housing so there would be no benefit in this regard. There may be a limited social benefit in terms of the occupancy of the dwelling supporting the local services and vitalility in Stoke Abbott which include a public house. The location of the scheme, within the main village would allow sufficient integration however the village does not have a DDB and is not considered to be a village of 200+ as defined in the local plan. The reference to 200+ does not refer to the arbitrary figure of the population of the village but instead refers to the level of sustainability of the villages within the district based on facilities that the village has access to within walking distance. Also those villages listed on page 74 of the local plan as 200+ are so listed as the local facilities provision are less likely to place an additional burden on services such as school buses and healthcare out-reach services. In this case the nearest development with a DDB or village of 200+ is Beaminster at 2.3Km. Any unrestricted residential dwelling would conflict with policy INT1.
11.15 There are a number of environmental issues that need to be considered which are visual and landscape impact, and reducing car use. Some of these issues will be addressed in the remainder of this statement however the main discussion as part of this section is the reliance on the car and a move towards a low carbon economy. The site is located outside any village or town considered to be sustainable in the local plan by virtue of a Defined Development Boundary (DDB) town/village or a village of 200+ population.
11.16 The site is not served by public transport and the site is outside of a DDB and is sited over 2.3 Km from Beaminster which is the nearest settlement with a DDB or a village of 200+. The village of Stoke Abbot has not been identified as a village of 200+ population in accordance with the list of such villages as set out in the preamble to Policy SUS3 on page 74 of the local plan. Stoke Abbot has limited facilities for future occupants. As part of the settlement hierarchy criteria in Policy SUS3 the site is considered under 'rural location' policy criteria in accordance with the local plan, without suitable access to a sufficient supply of amenities that are within walking distance. Unfettered dwellings in such locations should be resisted unless there is considered to be an exceptional circumstance and that this can be secured through conditions or legal agreements. The proposal is considered to be an unsustainable location forming an unsustainable pattern of development on the point of environmental issues.
11.17 In summary, the proposal, if allowed would result in the addition of 1 dwelling to the supply of housing in the district which has been considered be inspectors on numerous occasions to not be a significant reason in isolation to the planning balance away from adopted plan policies. As has been mentioned above the site is located away from any settlement that could be considered suitable for an open market dwelling with the nearest settlement being Beaminster at 2.3Km. The proposal would not meet any of the criteria as set out in policy SUS3 of the preamble of exception dwellings. The current use meets this exception criteria as a holiday let due to the economic gains made from a holiday let. However the proposed unrestricted dwelling would not. The scheme therefore does not uphold the criteria for sustainability as set out in the NPPF and does not represent a sustainable pattern of development due the site’s location outside of any village that has been identified as being suitable within the settlement hierarchy of the local plan. The proposal is considered to fail all three tests of sustainability of economic, social and environmental criteria as identified in paragraph 7 of the NPPF. Therefore in accordance with paragraph 14 of the NPPF the proposal would have adverse impacts that would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole.
11.18 AONB The proposal seeks to utilise an approved building so the proposal has no wider adverse landscape impact than what has been approved previously and is considered acceptable in this regard.
11.19 Design There are no proposed changes to the approved design and therefore is considered acceptable in this regard.
11.20 Neighbouring amenity The proposal is sufficiently spaced from any neighbouring properties and the external appearance would not alter from what is approved. Therefore there are no concerns in this regard.
11.21 Highway Safety There are no highway safety or parking concerns.
11.22 Conservation Area The proposal is considered to preserve the character or appearance of the conservation area and the locally important building. This conclusion has been reached having regard to: (1) section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 that requires special regard to be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area; and (2) Local Plan policy.
11.23 Community Infrastructure Levy The adopted charging schedule only applies a levy on proposals that create a dwelling and/or a dwelling with restricted holiday use. All other development types are therefore set a £0 per square metre CIL rate.
The development proposal is not CIL liable as it has consent as a dwelling.
12. CONCLUSION/SUMMARY
12.1 The proposal is considered to be unacceptable on the basis that the proposal does not provide any exceptional benefit and the proposal is not considered to be within or adjoining a town identified as being suitable within the settlement hierarchy of the local plan.
13. RECOMMENDATION
13.1 Refuse
13.2 The development would result in the unrestricted residential use of the application site which lies outside of any settlement that is considered to be suitable in the settlement hierarchy of the adopted Local Plan. The proposal would result in an unsustainable pattern of development as the site lies some distance from any settlement that is considered suitable and does not have suitable access to a sufficient range of local facilities and services in the village of Stoke Abbot. The scheme fails the environmental, economic and social threads of sustainability as identified in the NPPF and does not represent sustainable pattern of development. The proposal is not a form of development listed in Policy SUS2 iii) and does not comply with the criteria for the re-use of rural buildings in Policy SUS3 due not being proposed as an exception. The proposal would set a highly undesirable precedent for similar proposals, leading to an unsustainable pattern of development contrary to the spatial strategy in the adopted Local Plan and the advice in Paragraph 55 of the NPPF. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies INT1, SUS2 and SUS3 of the West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan (2015) and the advice in the NPPF (2012).