Installation of a Satellite Antenna to a Listed Building- Resubmission

Subject: Submitted Planning Applications Status: For Publication

Report to: Date: 5th July 2012 Pennines Township Planning Sub-Committee

Report of: Chief Planning Officer Email: mark.robinson@rochdale.gov.uk

Tel: 01706 924308

1. PURPOSE OF REPORT

1.1 To provide recommendations to the Committee on planning applications or related consents submitted to the Council and requiring the consideration and/or determination of the Committee in accordance with the Council’s approved Scheme of Delegation.

1.2 To provide information on any other planning or development related matters which may affect the work of the Committee.

2. RECOMMENDATIONS

2.1 Recommendations in respect of individual planning applications are as detailed in the following papers.

3. STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS

3.1 The submitted applications on this agenda are to be determined in accordance with the provisions of relevant legislation, including the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, Planning and Compensation Act 1991, Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, Planning Act 2008, Localism Act 2012 and the Town and Country Planning (Development Management) Procedure Order 2010 together with any Circulars and Regulations which support that legislation.

3.2 Planning law requires that applications be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Where relevant, any such material considerations will be referred to in the report.

The Development Plan

3.3 All planning applications referred to in this report have been assessed against the relevant policies and proposals of the development plan for the Borough (currently the adopted Rochdale Unitary Development Plan 2006) and any Supplementary Planning Documents or Guidance adopted by the Council.

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

3.4 In addition, in assessing the submitted planning applications, there is a requirement to have regard to relevant national policies as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) the policies of which are a material consideration. Where relevant, the provisions of the NPPF and any other relevant national guidance will be referred to in the report.

4. RISK ASSESSMENT IMPLICATIONS

4.1 The Council has adopted a Code of Conduct for Members and Officers dealing with Planning Matters. Members and Officers are required to have full regard to the Code in discharging their responsibilities and duties in relation to planning matters on behalf of the Council. The Code seeks to ensure that all decision making is governed by an open and transparent process and represents a standard against which the conduct of Officers and Member sitting on the Committee will be judged.

4.2 A Declaration of Member Interests Register is taken prior to the commencement of the Committee meeting. Advice on whether any Member sitting on the Committee ought to declare any interest on any item on the submitted agenda should be obtained from the Head of Legal and Democratic Services or the Chief Planning Officer.

4.3 The Council’s Standards Committee will monitor the operation of this Code of Conduct.

5. EQUALITIES IMPACTS

5.1 The above Acts require Local Planning Authorities to consider planning applications on their individual merits having regard to the development plan and other material planning considerations.

5.2 The Equality Act 2010 protects people from discrimination on the basis of certain characteristics which are known as protected characteristics. These protected characteristics are Age, Disability, Gender Reassignment, Marriage or Civil Partnership, Pregnancy and Maternity, Race, Religion or Belief, Sex (Gender), Sexual Orientation, socio-economic status and Carer.

5.3 In applying the Equality Act 2010, the Council is required to consider the effects of its decisions on different groups protected from discrimination, including a duty to make reasonable adjustments. In taking account of all material planning considerations, including Council policy as set out in the Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework, the Service Director (Planning and Regulation Services) has concluded all opportunities to promote equality through the planning process have been taken, or where adjustments cannot be made, these are justified on the basis of the planning merits of the development proposal.

5.4 The Rochdale and District Disabled Access Working Group comments on relevant planning applications. Where comments are received, these will be included within the reported to Committee. Consideration is given in designing access when dealing with the planning applications. Where applicable, any issues relating to these matters or other equal opportunity matters will be referred to in individual planning application reports.

6. Human Rights Act 1998 considerations

6.1 The submitted applications need to be considered against the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998. Under Article 6, the applications (and those third parties, including local residents, who have made representations) have the right to a fair hearing and to this end the Committee must give full consideration to their comments.

6.2 Article 8 and Protocol 1 Article 1 confer(s) a right of respect or a person’s home, other land and business assets. In taking account of all material considerations, including Council policy as set out in the Unitary Development Plan, the Service Director (Planning and Regulation Services) has concluded that some rights conferred by these Articles on the applicant(s)/objectors/residents and other occupiers and owners of nearby land that might be affected may be interfered with but that that interference is in accordance with the law and justified by being in the public interest and on the basis of the planning merits of the development proposal. He believes that any restriction on these rights posed by approval of the application is proportionate to the wider benefits of approval and that such a decision falls within the margin of discretion afforded to the Council under the Town and Country Planning Acts.

Background Papers

The background papers relevant to the planning applications to be considered on this agenda will include:-

1. The Planning application file and its contents which will include:

i) The planning application form and supporting information, together with scaled drawings/plans and relevant statutory certificates. ii) Letters of response from statutory and other consultees who may have been consulted or commented on the planning application iii) Letters and documents received from interested parties. iv) Notes of telephone conversations, meetings and any information received and of relevance to the submitted proposal

2. For any previous planning application referred to in the agenda report or in the application file, the planning application forms and the decision on that proposal

3. Such other papers (if any) received after the preparation of individual reports on planning applications on this agenda (to be reported verbally at the meeting).

4. Any other guidance or procedural documents adopted by the Council and of relevance to the recommendation and/or determination of any submitted planning applications or related consents

For further information about this report, or if you wish to see any background papers please contact: Sharon Hill, Senior Business Support Officer, in Planning and Regulation Services, Floor 1 Telegraph House, Baillie Street, Rochdale, OL16 1JH. Telephone (01706) 924305 or via the online planning services at: http://www.rochdale.gov.uk/planning Application Number Application Type Ward 12/D55474 Listed Building Consent Littleborough Lakeside, Milnrow and Newhey

INSTALLATION OF A SATELLITE ANTENNA TO A LISTED BUILDING- RESUBMISSION

7, CANALSIDE WAREHOUSE, CLEGG HALL ROAD, LITTLEBOROUGH, OL15 0BE

For:- MR JAMES WATERFALL Received 03-May-2012

RECOMMENDATION Grant Permission subject to conditions

Condition(s) and Reason(s): 1. The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with the requirements of section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. The existing satellite antenna on this building and its associated wiring/cabling shalll be removed from the building within 56 days of the date of this permission.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt, to remove the antenna apparatus from its currently unacceptable position on the building in the interest of the architectural and historic interest of this listed building and to satisfy policies CF/6, BE/2, BE/14 and BE/17 of the Council's Unitary Development Plan.

3. This permission relates to the following plans:-

The 1:500 scale site location plan The 1:100 scale site plan The A4-sized photograph of the building, (showing the position of the antenna in red) and the development shall not be carried out other than in complete accordance with these drawings hereby approved.

Reason: For the avoidance of any doubt and to ensure a satisfactory standard of development in accordance with policies of the Rochdale Unitary Development Plan as listed below on this decision notice.

4. Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved plans and photographs, no development shall take place (other than the removal of the existing antenna as required by Condition 2) unless and until a scheme to demonstrate the precise position of the antenna on the roof and its associated wiring and cabling and the means of its fixing to the side first floor wall or the roof plane has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The antenna and its wiring/cabling shall then be installed in full accordance with those agreed details and shall be kept in that position thereafter, so long as there is a need for the apparatus on the building.

Reason: Inadequate information about these details was submitted as part of the application. The condition is therefore required for the avoidance of doubt, to protect the architectural and historic interest of the listed buiilding and to satisfy policies CF/6, BE/2, BE/14 and BE/17 of the Council's Unitary Development Plan.

______

Report This application has attracted a total of five objections and therefore, under the terms of the Council’s Delegation Scheme for Development Management, the application must be determined by the planning committee.

Delegation Scheme: Members have delegated powers to determine this application either way using reasonable planning grounds.

Site: The application relates to the canal-side warehouse building of the former Clegg Hall Mill complex at Clegg Hall. This is a Grade II listed building, which also lies within the Clegg Hall Conservation Area.

The Grade II* listed building of Clegg Hall lies a short distance away on the opposite side of Clegg Hall Road.

This listed building had previously been significantly been damaged by fire and has been re-built to its original size and appearance and converted into 8 dwellings.

The building has its front elevation facing onto the lane and backs onto the Rochdale Canal. Because of the change in ground level between Clegg Hall Road and the canal, the building has its taller, and therefore most impressive, elevation facing the canal. The majority of the building is two-storey in height facing the road with only entrance doors at ground floor level. A smaller portion of the building, at its southern end, is lower in height, being only two-storey facing the canal and single-storey facing the road.

This application relates to No.7 Canalside Warehouse, which is within the part with the lower roof height, towards the western end of the building.

Description of Proposal: This application is a resubmission of the previously refused application D55253 for the installation of this satellite antenna, (satellite ‘dish’), on this building.

The previous application, which was submitted retrospectively, was seeking listed building consent to retain the antenna on the front wall of the building facing onto the road.

In that previous proposal, the antenna, (which measures 0.6m in diameter, is black in colour and has a feed element that projects out some 30cm), was affixed just below the eaves level of the roof and so it was some 2.2m above the carriageway of the lane. The wires serving the antenna run externally down the stone wall to a point one layer of stone coursing above the ground.

The antenna is still currently affixed in that unauthorised position.

The current, revised, proposal is to re-position the antenna onto the roof slope still facing the lane but close to the upper-storey side gable wall of the adjoining dwelling unit, No.6 Canalside Warehouse. It would be affixed just above the eaves/guttering of the single-storey part of the roof here but would be positioned below and clear of the side first floor window in the side wall of No.6 here. There would be no wiring running down any part of the stone wall of the building, (as there is at the present time).

This is an application for listed building consent, so the only issue to consider is whether the harm to the architectural and historic interest of the listed building would be so significant that a refusal of consent would be justified.

Relevant Planning Policy:

National Guidance

National Planning Policy Framework

The Department for Communities and Local Government published the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) on 27 March 2012. The NPPF sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. With immediate effect the NPPF replaces 44 documents including Planning Policy Statements; Planning Policy Guidance; Minerals Policy Statements; Minerals Policy Guidance; Circular 05/2005: Planning Obligations; and various letters to Chief Planning Officers. The NPPF will be referred to as appropriate in the report.

Unitary Development Plan (UDP) relevant UDP Part Two policies:

CF/6 - Telecommunications BE/14- Alterations and extensions to listed buildings BE/17 - New development affecting conservation areas

National Planning Policy Framework, (NPPF).

Relevant Planning History:

Most relevant previous applications:-

D55253 - installation of a satellite antenna to a listed building. Refused for the following reason:-

‘The satellite dish leads to harm to the special architectural and historic interest of this Grade II listed building, a designated heritage asset, as it is an uncompromisingly modern addition which has been insensitively sited on a prominent elevation of the building. No clear and convincing justification for the harm to the heritage asset has been provided and there would be no substantial public benefits which would outweigh this harm. As such the proposal would be contrary to Policies BE/14, CF/6 and BE/2 of the Council's adopted Unitary Development Plan and government guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.’

Consultation Responses:

Head of Highways & Engineering :- no objections.

Representations:

The application was advertised by means of a formal press notice and by a site notice that the application is seeking listed building consent and that the proposal would affect the setting of various adjacent listed buildings, (including the nearby Grade II* listed building of Clegg Hall), and also the setting of the Clegg Hall Conservation Area.

A total of 16 neighbouring and nearby dwellings were also notified of the application.

Five written objections have been received to the application, which are based on the following summarised grounds:-

1. The re-positioning of the antenna onto the roof would still be clearly inappropriate and unsightly. There is a similar type of antenna serving Nos.9&10 Clegg Hall Textile Mills, (on the other side of the lane). That dish is positioned in the valley of the two sloping roofs of that building and so is largely concealed from general public view. 2. The antenna is an ugly, modern feature that looks totally out of keeping on this old and attractive listed building. 3. If the Council is to permit a satellite dish for this property, then it should be affixed to the opposite slope of the roof, facing the canal, where there are already two other ugly TV aerials. 4. The current satellite antenna and its wiring were installed without the required listed building consent. 5. If the Council were to allow this proposal, then it would set a clear and very unwelcome precedent for the installation of further similar apparatus on this building. There are 8 dwellings in total in the canalside building and so its appearance could be made even worse in the future.

Analysis:

This satellite antenna and its associated wiring currently occupy a very prominent position on this building. This part of the overall building is only single storey in height, (where it faces the road), and the building directly abuts the lane. The apparatus is therefore inevitably very close to eye level from those passing this building along the lane.

The antenna is an uncompromisingly modern feature that spoils the appearance and character of this listed building. There are no public benefits or other justification for the proposal which would outweigh this harm.

Following the refusal of the previous application D55253, the applicant has asked planning officers how the grounds of objection for his original proposal might be overcome. He has also made the following summarised explanation as to why he chose to affix the antenna in its current position:

He has been advised by the antenna provider that it must be positioned on the building, so as to face south , in order to receive an adequate signal. His property is only single-storey in height and so he would only be to place the dish either on the front wall or the front roof plane of his dwelling, facing the lane. The only other possible alternative position for the antenna would be affixed to the ground to the west of the building, in-between the lane and the canal. He believes that such a ‘detached’ position for the antenna would be even more conspicuous however. It would also probably be very prone to vandalism and theft etc, (being sited in an open and insecure, communal landscaped area).

The proposed alternative position of the antenna has been discussed with the Council’s planning officers and the current application is the outcome of that discussion.

The revised position of the antenna would still inevitably be visible on this attractive listed building. A satellite antenna would still inevitably constitute an ‘uncompromisingly modern feature’ that generally spoils the appearance and character of a listed building.

However, if the antenna were to be re-positioned onto the slope of the roof, as proposed, then it is not considered that it would be as conspicuous in general public view. It should therefore not be quite so harmful to the appearance or character of the building or that of the conservation area. In coming to this opinion, the following points are relevant:

• The antenna, being positioned at a higher level and slightly further back from the front wall, would not be quite so conspicuous from eye level along the lane; • On the sloping roof, the antenna would not stand out as much against the building as it does in its current lower position. When viewed along the lane from the direction of Branch Road and Smithybridge, (to the east), it would be completely concealed from view by the wall of the building itself. At present however, (in its unauthorised position), the antenna projects out from the front wall, (just below the single-storey eaves level). It is therefore much more noticeable to anyone passing along the lane in either direction. It should be noted that all vehicular and a possibly also a good proportion of pedestrian traffic approaches the hamlet of Clegg Hall from the easterly direction. • The black colour of the antenna would be somewhat less prominent when viewed against the backdrop of the dark grey slate roof. At present, the black antenna, (and also its associated wiring etc), stands out much more sharply against the light buff-coloured stone wall. Although the antenna, in its current position, has been affixed as close as possible to the top of the wall and as close to the black-painted eaves and gutter as possible, in order to avoid the gutter itself, a large part of the dish is still seen against the buff stone work. The projecting feed element, (which projects out some 30cm), also makes it more conspicuous. • Affixing the dish onto the slope of the roof however, would make it possible to affix all the associated black wiring against either the dark grey slate or the black eaves/gutter work etc, where it should be scarcely visible.

It is obviously necessary to assess this revised proposal very carefully. This is a Grade II listed building within the Clegg Hall conservation area and which also stands close by to the even more important Grade II* listed building of Clegg Hall itself. All these are designated ‘heritage assets’, as designated in the NPPF.

However, there are some other factors that should also be borne in mind in considering the application; the restoration of Canalside Warehouse building was a fairly substantial building operation. The larger part of the building had been destroyed by the fire at the site in 2003 and a far larger amount of actual re-build of the structure was necessary than was for the textile mill portion of Clegg Hall Mill, on the opposite side of the lane. Although the design and external appearance of this canal side building, (on this side of the lane), was carefully controlled when the planning/listed building applications were approved and its character is attractive and befitting of its situation and its surroundings, it inevitably has ‘cleaner lines’ and a ‘newer’ appearance than the textile mill part of the complex on the other side of the lane. In these circumstances, there is an argument that this building is less significant, in heritage terms , than the textile mill on the other side of the lane to this type of proposal.

In accordance with the NPPF, therefore the sensitivity of a heritage asset is directly related to its significance. It is not considered that this listed building is so sensitive that it could not accommodate a satellite antenna, provided that is affixed in the least conspicuous position on the building.

Some of the objectors have argued that the approval of this application would set an undesirable precedent being set for further similar antenna on this building in the future. Each application is determined on its merits however and it is considered that installing the antenna in the proposed new position on the roof would not set such a precedent.

Some objectors have argued that if an antenna is to be permitted on this building at all, then it should be positioned on the other side of the building facing across the canal. This is presumably to conceal it from view from the dwellings/apartments in the textile mill on the opposite side of the lane. Aside from the practicalities about whether or not the antenna would operate effectively facing that direction, it is considered that installing an antenna on the elevation facing the canal would be much more conspicuous and therefore much more harmful to the character of this listed building and that of the Conservation Area. The elevation of this building facing the canal is the most important and it is much more visible; from the canal, both from any water traffic and from users of the towpath on the opposite side. It would also be visible over greater distances, including the railway line.

Summary: Given all these circumstances, it is not considered that the proposed alternative position of the antenna would now be so unacceptable, as to justify the refusal of listed building consent. Its proposed alternative position would be the least conspicuous position on the building that would be possible.

It is therefore considered that the proposed alternative position for the satellite antenna would, on balance, be acceptable, provided that the existing antenna is actually removed from its current position and is actually re-positioned. The recommendation includes an appropriate planning condition to address that point however.

______

Application Number Application Type Ward 12/D55519 Full Planning Application Milnrow and Newhey

ERECTION OF A TEMPORARY SINGLE STOREY MODULAR CLASSROOM UNIT WITH LINK EXTENSION TO REAR OF MAIN SCHOOL BUILDING, SINGLE STOREY EXTENSION TO FRONT OF MAIN BUILDING AND FORMATION OF NEW HARD SURFACED PLAY AREA

CROSSGATES PRIMARY SCHOOL, KILN LANE, MILNROW, OL16 3HB

For:- Jane Norton, Crossgates Primary School Received 14-May-2012

RECOMMENDATION Grant Permission subject to conditions

Condition(s) and Reason(s): 1. The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with the requirements of section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. The use of the modular classroom extension and link corridor extension hereby permitted shall cease on or before 19th July 2019 unless a further planning permission is granted by the Local Planning Authority and, within 3 months of the ceasing of the use, the buildings shall be removed and the site shall be restored, so far as is practically possible, to its condition prior to the siting of the temporary modular classroom unit and link corridor extension hereby permitted. or in accordance with a scheme which has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: The proposal is only required for a temporary period of time in order to provide additional classroom space at the school until funding is made available for a more permanent type of accomodation. The condition is also required to ensure that the temporary nature of the external building materials used in the construction of the classrooms do not deteriorate over any longer period of time which may be detrimental to the visual amenities of the area. The removal of the temporary modular unit and link corridor would also restore the existing openness and visual amenity of the Green Belt in accordance with Unitary Development Plan Policies BE/2 and D/4.

3. This permission relates to the following plans:-

Dwg no. P17 (site location plan) Dwg no. P12 (modular classroom block proposed plan) Dwg no. P14 (modular classroom block proposed elevations) Dwg no. P15 (modular classroom block proposed floorplan) Dwg no. P11 (modular classroom block proposed plan)

The development shall not be carried out other than in complete accordance with these drawings hereby approved.

4. Notwithstanding any description of materials in the application, no development shall take place until samples or full details of materials to be used externally on the modular classroom unit, link extension and staff room / office extension have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall include the type, colour and texture of the materials. Only the materials so approved shall be used, in accordance with any terms of such approval.

Reason: In order to ensure a satisfactory appearance in the interests of visual amenity in accordance with Policy BE/2 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan.

5. The external storage of goods, materials, containers, buildings, plant machinery and vehicles required during the construction period shall be confined to an area within the site which has first been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To protect the playing fields from damage, loss or unavailability in accordance with paragraph 74 of the NPPF.

Reason for Recommendation: 1. The National Planning Policy Framework attaches great importance to ensuring that a sufficient choice of school places is available and it advises that Local Planning Authorities take a proactive, positive and collaborative approach to meeting this requirement and to development which will widen choice in education. The development demonstrates very special circumstances required to outweigh the harm from inappropriate development and from a reduction in openness to the Green Belt. The proposed single storey temporary teaching unit together with the proposed play area, link extension and office / staff room extension would be compatible with the school in terms of scale, size and design. The development would be in keeping with the surrounding area and would not unduly affect the amenities of the neighbouring properties or the quality of the local environment. The development would improve the range and distribution of community facilities within the Borough and the development proposed is therefore in compliance with the provisions of the following relevant policies of the Rochdale Unitary Development Plan:

Adopted Unitary Development Plan:

G/D/2 Green Belt D/4 Control of Development in Green Belt- General

G/BE/1 Design Quality BE/2 Design of New Development.

G/CF/1 Community Facilities and Public Services CF/2 General Criteria for the Development of Local Community and Health Facilities.

G/EM/1 Environmental Protection and Pollution Control EM/4 Contamination

G/G/1 Greenspace G/3 Protection of Existing Recreational Open Space

G/A/1 Accessibility A/3 New Development – Access for Pedestrians and Disabled People A/9 New Development – Access for General Traffic

National: National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

______

Report

Delegation Scheme: The development proposes the erection of a temporary modular classroom unit with link extension, a single storey extension to the front of the school and the formation of a new play area. The development does not therefore fall into any of the categories of appropriate development within the Green Belt defined by Policy D/4 (Control of the Development in the Green Belt – General) of the Rochdale Unitary development Plan and by the NPPF and as a result, represents a departure from this policy. Members may refuse planning permission if they wish though if they are minded to grant permission then the application will have to be referred to the Licensing and Regulatory Committee for their decision as the proposal does not accord with the development plan in force for the area (the Rochdale Unitary Development Plan).

Site: The application relates to Crossgates Primary School in Milnrow. The school is located on the northern side of Kiln Lane in a semi-rural location within the Greater Manchester Green Belt. The school lies on the periphery of the defined urban area with established pockets of semi-detached and detached housing adjoining the southern and western site boundaries respectively. The northern and eastern site boundaries of the school adjoin open green belt countryside and the outer perimeter of the site is demarcated by a combination of wrought iron fencing, mature hedges and trees. The building is single storey in profile and broadly rectangular in layout and it is externally faced in a combination of ‘light grey’ coloured brick and dark stained timber cladding. The school occupies a central position within the site and opens out onto an area of hardstanding to the south which serves as a car park and children drop off / pick up area. Formal and informal play areas including hard surfaced play grounds, raised playing fields and fixed play equipment / structures surround the school on the west, north and eastern sides.

Description of Proposal: This application seeks permission to erect a modest staffroom / office extension to the front elevation of the school, a temporary modular classroom extension (with a link extension to the main building) on the northern side of the school and to provide a further playground on the eastern side of the school.

Front extension The depth of the existing staffroom / office to the south-east corner of the school would be increased by a further 2.4 metres. The extension would measure 7.8 metres in length and 3.2 metres in height (to match the existing proportions of this section of the building).

Temporary modular extension and link extension The single storey modular classroom extension is required for a temporary period of 7 years and it will provide the school with a further three classrooms, three WCs, reception area and storage space. The extension would measure 12 metres in depth, 24 metres in length and 3.1 metres in height and it would be attached to the main school building via a ‘link’ corridor which would measure 2.9 metres in height. Several window and door openings would be inserted into the modular unit allowing plenty of natural light into the teaching rooms and three raised roof lights would be inserted into the ‘link corridor’. A retaining wall, measuring some 2 metres in height would wrap around the north east corner of the modular unit with a coated bow top fencing atop reaching a further 1.2 metres in height. The retaining wall is needed to support the adjacent playing field which is raised approximately 1.5 metres above the level playground on which the modular unit would be located. The bow top fencing would prevent trespassers / children from climbing onto the wall and gaining access onto the roof of the extension.

Playground extension The existing tarmac playground on the western side of the school would be increased by a further 360 m². Due to the topography of the site, the playground would be raised approximately 300 mm above the level of the existing playground. The playground would be accessed via steps with an approach gradient that would be no greater than 1:21 and a ramp for wheelchair users.

Relevant Planning Policy:

National Guidance

National Planning Policy Framework

Unitary Development Plan (UDP)

G/D/2 Green Belt D/4 Control of Development in Green Belt- General

G/BE/1 Design Quality BE/2 Design of New Development.

G/EM/1 Environmental Protection and Pollution Control EM/4 Contamination

G/CF/1 Community Facilities and Public Services CF/2 General Criteria for the Development of Local Community and Health Facilities.

G/A/1 Accessibility A/3 New Development – Access for Pedestrians and Disabled People A/9 New Development – Access for General Traffic

G/G/1 Greenspace G/3 Protection of Existing Recreational Open Space

Relevant Planning History: 93/D29931 Classroom extension - Approved 96/D33018 Single storey front extension – Approved 98/D35680 Single storey extension – Approved 01/D39150 Two single storey extensions – Approved 05/D45008 Single storey extension and covered shelter - Approved

Consultation Responses:

Head of Highways and Engineering:- No comments

United Utilities:- No objections

Sport England:- Raise no objections to the proposal but comment as follows:

The site forms a playing field as defined in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010 (Statutory Instrument 2010 No. 2184), in that it has been used as a play ground for at least five years and the field encompasses at least one playing pitch of 0.2 ha or more. Sport England has therefore considered the application in the light of its playing fields policy. The aim of this policy is to ensure that there is an adequate supply of quality pitches to satisfy the current and estimated future demand for pitch sports within the area. The policy seeks to protect all parts of the playing field from development and not just those which, for the time being, are laid out as pitches. The Policy states that:

‘Sport England will oppose the granting of planning permission for any development which would lead to the loss of, or would prejudice the use of, all or any part of a playing field, or land last used as a playing field or allocated for use as a playing field in an adopted or draft deposit local plan, unless, in the judgment of Sport England, one of the specific circumstances applies’

The modular classroom will be located for a temporary period of up to 7 years on the existing playground, and it will not affect the playing field. However it is not clear whether there will be a temporary loss of playing field during the construction period from machinery, compounds, materials etc. As there is a football pitch currently marked out that the Football Association confirm is used by a local team, Sport England recommend a condition is attached which protects the pitch during construction works.

The new playground will be constructed on the playing field to the west of the existing playground. However this area is not large enough to support a pitch. There are sports court markings on the existing playground which will be covered by the proposed modular unit. Sport England would therefore recommend replicating the sports markings on the new playground in order to support the PE curriculum.

Representations: The neighbouring properties were notified of the application by letter, a site notice was posted at the entrance into the school and the application was also advertised in the Rochdale Observer. No representations have been received.

Analysis

Principle

1. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is now the overarching Government guidance controlling development within the Green Belt. However the thrust of Government policy in respect of Green Belts remains unchanged and the revised guidance in the NPPF in respect of this application is still carried forward into the adopted Unitary Development Plan by Policy D/4. The NPPF states that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. The purposes of Green Belt are:

• to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; • to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another; • to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; • to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and • to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land 2. Paragraph 89 of the NPPF states that, except in very special circumstances, there will be a presumption against inappropriate development in the Green belt. The categories of development which are appropriate in the Green Belt are:

• buildings for agriculture and forestry; • provision of appropriate facilities for outdoor sport, outdoor recreation and for cemeteries, as long as it preserves the openness of the Green Belt and does not conflict with the purposes of including land within it; • 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; • the replacement of a building, provided the new building is in the same use and not materially larger than the one it replaces; • limited infilling in villages, and limited affordable housing for local community needs under policies set out in the Local Plan; or • limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed sites (brownfield land), whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the purpose of including land within it than the existing development [emphasis added] .

3. The development proposes the erection of a temporary modular classroom unit with link extension, a single storey extension to the front of the school and the formation of a new play area. The proposal must therefore be considered under the final bullet point within paragraph 89 of the NPPF. 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, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

Very Special Circumstances

4. Policy D/4 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan and the NPPF state that new development in the Green Belt will not be given except in very special circumstances, unless it is for a number of purposes including agriculture, forestry, outdoor recreation and limited extensions / alterations to dwellings.

5. The proposal is therefore considered to be inappropriate in principle within the Green Belt as defined in the NPPF and Unitary Development Plan policy D/4 and it is therefore necessary to demonstrate that there are very special circumstances that would outweigh this ‘in-principle harm’ the development would have on the openness of the Green Belt.

6. Paragraph 72 of the NPPF states that: 'The Government attaches great importance to ensuring that a sufficient choice of school places is available [...] Local Planning Authorities should take a proactive, positive and collaborative approach to meeting this requirement and to development which will widen choice in education. They should give great weight to the need to create, expand or alter schools...'

7. The proposed expansion of Crossgates Primary School would satisfy one of the Governments’ key objectives for education which should be given significant weight when considering the merits of the application. The Officer considers this objective demonstrates very special circumstances which outweighs the ‘in-principle harm’ the extensions would have on the openness of the Green Belt.

8. Furthermore, the modular unit and link extensions are only required for a temporary period and their removal from the site can be guaranteed by imposing a suitable condition. The front extension would be a modest addition to the school which would result in a continuation of the existing features at the same width and height. The new playground would be viewed in context with the existing character and use of the site and taking the above into consideration, the Planning Officer is satisfied that there are very special circumstances that would outweigh the impact the development would have on the openness of the Green Belt.

9. To permit the extensions and the new play ground would improve the teaching needs of the school and would benefit the pupils of Crossgates Primary School. This too represents very special circumstances required to overcome the presumption against development within the Green Belt. As such, the proposal accords with policy D/4 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan, as well as the advice as contained within the NPPF which permits inappropriate development in the green belt providing that very special circumstances can be demonstrated.

Design and appearance

10. Criterion (a) of Unitary Development Plan Policy BE/2 states that development proposals should demonstrate good design by: • Ensuring that they are compatible with or improve their surroundings by virtue of their scale, density, height massing, layout, materials, architectural style and detail and means of enclosure

11. The extensions would occupy a modest, rectangular footprint to the north and south facing elevations of the school respectively. The extensions would incorporate flat roofs which would follow the profile and height of the roof to the main building. The extensions would complement the materials, finish and design of the host building, and would be acceptably integrated into the school. The modular unit would be located at the rear of the school and as a result it would not be visible when approaching the main entrance from Kiln Lane to the south. The extensions and the playground would be compatible with the host building in terms of scale, size, materials and design, and, owing to their unobtrusive positions and the existing character of the site they would not be readily apparent within the public realm.

Impact on surrounding uses:

12. Criterion (i) of Unitary Development Plan Policy BE/2 requires development proposals to ensure adequate provision for natural light is made both within and between buildings.

Criterion (b) of Unitary Development Plan policy CF/2 states that the development of local community facilities will be permitted where: • The proposal will have no unacceptable impact on the amenity of surrounding land uses, particularly residential, by reason of visual appearance, scale, noise or other nuisance.

13. Surrounding uses are residential in character, with the closest dwellings being sited on the opposite side of Kiln Lane and Wildhouse Lane, a minimum of 41 metres and 103 metres to the south and west of the site respectively. The extensions would appear subordinate to the scale of the building and, in terms of their height, size, massing and design, would not have an oppressive or overbearing impact on surrounding occupiers by reason of their scale or visual appearance. Owing to the extensions separation and screening with surrounding dwellings, and when considering the proposed playground in the context of the site’s established character and use, the proposed development would not unduly affect the amenity of nearby occupiers through loss of outlook, loss of daylight noise generation or any other nuisance. The proposal is therefore in accordance with the requirements of Unitary Development Plan policies BE/2 and CF/2.

New and Improved Community Facilities

14. Proposals for new and improved local community facilities, such as schools, will be permitted provided that they provided that they meet several criteria as set out in Unitary Development Plan policy CF/2 (General Criteria for the Development of Local Community and Health Facilities). These criteria state that: a) The facility should be accessible to the community it is intended to serve and where practicable located within a district or local centre; b) The proposal should have no unacceptable impact on the amenity of surrounding land uses, particularly residential, by reason of visual appearance, scale, noise or other nuisance; c) The surrounding road network should be capable of accommodating any additional vehicular traffic flow likely to be generated by the proposal without detriment to the local environment or road safety.

In terms of criterion (a), the application relates to an existing school site with the facility clearly being located where it is easily accessible to the community it serves.

15. In terms of criterion (b), the school is located within relatively close proximity to the residential properties on Kiln Lane to the south. However the extensions would not exceed the height of the existing school building and they would not be visible from surrounding vantage points by virtue of the height and profile of the intervening boundary treatments. The extensions and the playground would be of a modest scale which would sit against the backdrop of the school and would be subordinate to the main school building.

16. Criterion (c) of Unitary Development Plan Policy CF/2 is covered separately under the Access, Highways and Car Parking section below.

17. Sport England will oppose the granting of planning permission for any development which would lead to the loss of, or would prejudice the use of, all or any part of a playing field. However no part of the development would encroach onto the schools’ playing fields and as such they have raised no objections to the proposal. However, it is not clear whether there will be a temporary loss of playing field during the construction period e.g. from machinery, compounds, materials etc. As there is a football pitch currently marked out that the Football Association confirm is used by a local team, a condition has been imposed which would protect the pitch during construction works (in accordance with the recommendation made by Sport England). The development therefore complies with paragraph 74 of the NPPF which states that playing fields should be protected from damage, loss or availability of use.

18. There are sports court markings on the existing playground which will be covered by the proposed modular unit. Sport England has therefore advised the applicant to replicate the sports markings on the proposed playground in order to support the PE curriculum. This advice will be passed on to the applicant by way of a covering letter.

Access, Highways and Car Parking

19. The proposal would not alter existing parking or access arrangements at the site and the Councils Head of Highways and Engineering has confirmed that they have no objection to the proposal. The proposal therefore satisfies the criterion of Unitary Development Plan Policies A/3 and A/9.

Summary: 20. The National Planning Policy Framework attaches great importance to ensuring that a sufficient choice of school places is available and it advises that Local Planning Authorities take a proactive, positive and collaborative approach to meeting this requirement and to development which will widen choice in education. The development demonstrates very special circumstances required to outweigh the harm from inappropriate development and from a reduction in openness to the Green Belt. The proposed single storey temporary teaching unit together with the proposed play area, link extension and office / staff room extension would be compatible with the school in terms of scale, size and design. The development would be in keeping with the surrounding area and would not unduly affect the amenities of the neighbouring properties or the quality of the local environment. The development would improve the range and distribution of community facilities within the Borough and the development proposed is therefore in compliance with the provisions of the following relevant policies of the Rochdale Unitary Development Plan:

Adopted Unitary Development Plan:

G/D/2 Green Belt D/4 Control of Development in Green Belt- General

G/BE/1 Design Quality BE/2 Design of New Development.

G/CF/1 Community Facilities and Public Services CF/2 General Criteria for the Development of Local Community and Health Facilities.

G/EM/1 Environmental Protection and Pollution Control EM/4 Contamination

G/G/1 Greenspace G/3 Protection of Existing Recreational Open Space

G/A/1 Accessibility A/3 New Development – Access for Pedestrians and Disabled People A/9 New Development – Access for General Traffic

National: National Planning Policy Framework

______

Application Number Application Type Ward 12/D55540 Full Planning Application Littleborough Lakeside

REFURBISHMENT AND TWO STOREY SIDE EXTENSION TO EXISTING FARMHOUSE TO PROVIDE B & B ACCOMMODATION AND ADDITIONAL LIVING ACCOMMODATION (PART RETROSPECTIVE). (RESUBMISSION OF D55205)

BREARLEY FARM, RAKEWOOD ROAD, LITTLEBOROUGH, OL15 0AG

For:- MR M WILKS Received 18-May-2012

RECOMMENDATION Grant Permission subject to conditions

Condition(s) and Reason(s): 1. Notwithstanding the provisions of Schedule 2, Part 1, Classes A - H of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 as amended by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (No. 2) (England) Order 2008, no development under Schedule 2, Part 1, Classes A, B, C, D, E and F shall be carried out unless a further planning permission in respect thereof has been granted on application to the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To enable the Council to exercise proper control over any future development on the site and to protect the openness of the Green Belt in accordance with Policies BE/2 and D/8 of the Rochdale Unitary Development Plan.

2. Notwithstanding the provisions of Schedule 2, Part 2, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, no development under Schedule 2, Part 2, Class A shall be carried out unless a further planning permission in respect thereof has been granted on application to the Local Planning Authority.

3. The curtilage to serve the development hereby approved shall not extend beyond the black dashed line on the approved plan numbered:- 5190/PR/00 submitted as part of planning application ref. 07/D50089.

Reason: To enable the Council to exercise proper control over any future development on the site in accordance with Policy D/9 and G/BE/9 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan.

Reason for Recommendation: 1. This application relates to Brearley Farm which formerly comprised a late 18th C farmhouse with an annexed barn occupying an isolated and rural location in the Green Belt. The historic barn has recently been demolished, and replaced with a like-for-like extension which will be used for B & B accommodation and additional residential accommodation for the attached farmhouse. The extension occupies the same footprint and is no higher than the barn it replaces and it is served by the same means of access. The curtilage would be the same as that of the existing farmhouse and the siting, materials and design of the extension complements the rural character and visual amenity of the surrounding area. Furthermore, the extension will provide B & B accommodation that will help increase the number and duration of visits to this semi-rural area of the Borough. The proposal would specifically cater for visitors to Hollingworth Lake and would promote and extend opportunities for recreation, help to sustain the rural economy and improve access to the countryside, having particular regard to the site’s rural location and proximity to Hollingworth Lake. The development would result in a benefit to leisure and tourism and would assist in the comprehensive regeneration of the area. It is considered that the replacement barn extension would have no greater impact than the former historic barn on the openness of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land in it and the applicant has demonstrated very special circumstances which would outweigh the harm to the Green Belt.

The proposal is therefore in compliance with the following policies and guidance:-

Unitary Development Plan

G/D/2 Green Belt D/4 Control of New Development in the Green Belt D/9 Re-Use and Adaptation of Buildings in Rural Areas

G/LT/1 Sport, Leisure and Tourism LT/3 Development for Tourism and Leisure LT/5 Overnight Accommodation for Tourists and Visitors

G/RE/1 Countryside and the Rural Economy RE/4 Diversification of the Rural Economy RE/5 Access to the Countryside RE/6 Recreational Rights of Way RE/8 Countryside Visitor Facilities

G/BE/1 Design Quality BE/2 Design Criteria for New Development

G/BE/9 Conservation of the Built Heritage BE/11 Protection of Locally Important Buildings and Features of Architectural and Historic Interest

G/EM/1 Environmental Protection and Pollution Control EM/3 Noise and New Development EM/4 Contamination

G/EM/12 Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation EM/13 Energy Efficiency and New Development

G/NE/1 Nature Conservation NE/4 Protected Species

National Planning Framework

Appropriate conditions have been imposed which would prevent any further harm taking place to the openness of the Green Belt or the purposes of including land within it.

______

Report

Site: This application relates to a locally important historic stone built farmhouse together with an annexed barn named Brearley Farm in Littleborough. Brearley Farm is a 14 ha agricultural smallholding in an isolated and rural location in the Green Belt within approximately 600 metres of the eastern side of Hollingworth Lake Country Park. The surrounding topography is varied, whilst the immediate area around the agricultural building is flat, the wider area is characterised by an undulating landscape which is part due to a natural variation in levels and the river valley (Brearley Brook) which meanders at a much lower level alongside the northern site boundary. A definitive public right of way (ref LitFp470) passes through the site along the front / western site boundary. The farmhouse is built in natural coursed stone and has traditional weaver cottage style windows (recently replaced with UPVC window frames) with a dual-pitch roof covered in natural slates.

The original attached barn was constructed from coursed stone and evidence of the original structure used to remain where the barn adjoined the farmhouse. In 2010, a new planning permission (to replace an extant permission) was approved for a single storey extension to the rear of the farmhouse and this has been substantially completed. This planning application also included the conversion and refurbishment of the historic barn to form additional living accommodation for the farmhouse. In previously granting planning permission, regard was given to the following factors (as detailed in the original report) in determining that the proposed development was acceptable:

- The principle of converting a building in the Green Belt is acceptable and the proposed development satisfies the relevant criteria of Unitary Development Plan Policy D/9 and PPG2: Green Belts; - The overall design of the scheme is appropriate and in accordance with the provisions of Unitary Development Plan Policies D/9 and BE/2; - The Council’s Head of Highways and Engineering has not objected to the proposals. It is considered there is adequate off-street parking provided within the site; - The proposal would not result in any overlooking or loss of privacy for neighbouring residents (there are no other houses nearby) and is in accordance with the Council’s residential guidelines and standards Supplementary Planning Guidance; - The building is of permanent and substantial construction and the proposed extensions and alterations are small scale and would not have a detrimental impact on the openness or visual amenity of the Green Belt; and - The barn is of a permanent and substantial construction and is capable of conversion to a dwelling without any significant reconstruction.

Planning permission was approved on the condition that:

The conversion works hereby approved shall be undertaken fully in accordance with a method statement to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of any development. The duly approved scheme shall be supervised by a suitably qualified professional, the identity of whom shall be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority before any development is commenced.

Reason : In order to ensure that the works do not result in major or complete reconstruction of the building in accordance with the requirement of Policies D/9 and G/BE/9 of the Rochdale Unitary Development Plan (ref D53697).

The barn was of substantial construction (albeit its roof needed replacing and some of the front façade would have needed to be replaced) and was capable of conversion without any significant reconstruction. However, the barn was demolished and replaced with a like-for-like two storey extension. The recently constructed extension and attached farmhouse are shown in the photograph below:

In contrast, the following late 19 th C photograph shows the front / west facing elevation of the original barn, before it was rebuilt, with the 1829 date stone seen above the oculus and keystone archway:

Source: Archaeological Building Survey commissioned by Dr Michael Nevell, Ivan Hrandil & Brian Grimsditch (University of Manchester Archaeological Unit) 2007.

Proposal: This application seeks retrospective permission for the newly constructed replacement extension which is attached to the northern elevation of the farmhouse. The extension measures 11.7 metres in width and 10.2 metres in depth and the walls and roof are externally faced in natural stone and slate respectively. The extension incorporates a dual-pitch roof reaching 5.2 metres in height to the eaves and 8.3 metres in height to the ridge and it contains cart-arch openings on the front and rear elevations and UPVC window frames. However, there are discrepancies between the submitted plans and the built development which can be summarised as follows:

• The cart-arch opening on the front / south-west facing elevation of the extension is much taller than the opening shown on the submitted plan. • The windows in the south-west facing elevation of the extension do not match the opening profile, style or position of the windows shown on the submitted plans, and there is an additional ground floor window which has not been shown on the plans. • The stone quoins have not been shown on the submitted plans • The cart-arch opening on the rear / north-east facing elevation of the extension is much taller than the opening shown on the submitted plan. • The number of windows in the north-east facing rear elevation of the extension does not match the number of windows which have been shown on the submitted plans and the opening profiles do not match. • The stone detailing around the ground floor and first floor windows on the north-west facing elevation of the extension as shown on the submitted plans has not been implemented.

Internally, the extension will comprise an element of Bed & Breakfast accommodation (3 units) and additional living accommodation for the attached farmhouse.

Policy Background: National Planning Guidance:

Unitary Development Plan: G/D/2 Green Belt D/4 Control of New Development in the Green Belt D/9 Re-Use and Adaptation of Buildings in Rural Areas

G/LT/1 Sport, Leisure and Tourism LT/3 Development for Tourism and Leisure LT/5 Overnight Accommodation for Tourists and Visitors

G/RE/1 Countryside and the Rural Economy RE/4 Diversification of the Rural Economy RE/5 Access to the Countryside RE/6 Recreational Rights of Way RE/8 Countryside Visitor Facilities

G/BE/1 Design Quality BE/2 Design Criteria for New Development

G/BE/9 Conservation of the Built Heritage BE/11 Protection of Locally Important Buildings and Features of Architectural and Historic Interest

G/EM/1 Environmental Protection and Pollution Control EM/3 Noise and New Development EM/4 Contamination

G/EM/12 Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation EM/13 Energy Efficiency and New Development

G/NE/1 Nature Conservation NE/4 Protected Species

Site History: • 07/D49073:- Change of Use and Alterations to barn to form extension to dwelling including single storey rear extension – Withdrawn • 07/D50089:- Change of Use and Alterations to barn to form extension to dwelling including single storey rear extension and detached double garage – Approved • 10/D53697:- Application for a new planning permission to replace an extant planning permission ref D50089 ‘Change of use and alterations to barn to provide additional accommodation including single storey rear extension and detached double garage – Approved • 12/D55205:- Refurbishment and two storey extension to existing farmhouse to provide B & B accommodation (Part Retrospective) - Refused

Publicity Responses: Direct Publicity: - The appropriate neighbouring properties were notified of the application by letter. In addition, a notice was posted on site as the development could be construed as affecting a definitive right of way. No representations have been received.

Consultation Responses: Head of Highways and Engineering – No comments

Environmental Health Officer (Contaminated Land) – No comments

South Lancashire Bat Group – Recommended a bat survey would be required as part of the previous application.

Rights of Way Officer (Julie Simpson) – The applicant should note that the site can bee seen from a public right of way (ref LitFp470). No works shall take place that would obstruct the footpath.

Views of Officer:

Principle of Development Unitary Development Plan Policy G/D/2 (Green Belt) states that the Green Belt will be protected from inappropriate development in order to satisfy the purposes and objectives for Green Belt set out in the NPPF 1, and in particular to maintain the framework of open land separating and surrounding the urban areas of the borough.

In addition, the NPPF states that certain other forms of development are also not inappropriate in Green Belt provided they preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land in Green Belt. These are: • mineral extraction; • engineering operations; • local transport infrastructure which can demonstrate a requirement for a Green Belt location; • the re-use of buildings provided that the buildings are of permanent and substantial construction; and • development brought forward under a Community Right to Build Order.

The historic barn has been demolished and replaced with a like-for-like extension which will be used as B & B accommodation and for additional living accommodation for the attached farmhouse. The proposal does not therefore fall into any of the categories of appropriate development within the Green Belt defined by Unitary Development Plan Policy G/D/2 or the guidance contained within the NPPF and, as a result, represents a departure from this policy.

The same proposal has previously been refused on the grounds that:

This application relates to Brearley Farm which formerly comprised a late 18th C farmhouse with an annexed barn occupying an isolated and rural location in the Green Belt. The historic barn has recently been demolished, and replaced with a large two storey extension for use as B & B accommodation and additional residential accommodation. The commercial element of the development does not fall into any of the categories of appropriate development within the Green Belt defined by Policy D/4 (Control of the Development in the Green Belt – General) of the Rochdale Unitary development Plan and by Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 (Green Belts). The principle of the development is therefore unacceptable. Development which is inappropriate is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and the purposes of including land in it. No very special circumstances have been demonstrated to justify this inappropriate development and it is therefore contrary to the objectives of Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 (Green Belts) and policies D/4 (Control of Development in the Green Belt), D/7 (Extensions to Residential Properties) and G/D/2 (Green Belt) of the Council’s adopted Unitary Development Plan.

1 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) replaces PPG2 which is referred to in Unitary Development Plan G/D/2. However it is reasonable to replace PPG2 with the NPPF as the objectives and principles are effectively the same. The historic barn has recently been demolished and replaced with a large two storey extension which would provide the attached farmhouse with additional living accommodation. Planning permission has previously been granted for a single storey extension at the rear of the farmhouse, and this extension has been substantially completed. Part of the two storey extension would also form a residential extension to the farmhouse and taken together with the single storey rear extension, would represent a 35% increase of the volume of the original dwelling. The newly constructed extension therefore constitutes a disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original building which would conflict with the openness of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land in it, contrary to the provisions of policy D/7 (Extensions to Residential Properties) of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan, the objectives of Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 (Green Belts) and the guidance contained within the Council’s adopted Guidelines and Standards for Residential Development, which states that within Green Belt locations, permission will not normally be granted for extensions in excess of 30% of the volume of the original dwelling.

However, the agent has resubmitted the application with a Statement of Significance which, in the Officer’s opinion, includes details that amount to very special circumstances as to why an alternative decision should now be reached.

The main issue for consideration with regard to this particular application is whether the harm the development would cause by reason of its inappropriateness is outweighed by other material considerations which amount to very special circumstances in favour of the development. In this respect, consideration must be given to the actual harm to the openness and the visual amenity of the Green Belt the proposal would have in real terms, having regard to the comparison between the overall volume of the former barn and the replacement extension and the need for tourist accommodation in this part of the borough.

Unitary Development Plan Policy LT/3 states that proposals for new or extended tourist attractions or facilities for visitors will be permitted provided that: • They are of a scale and nature appropriate to the area; and • there will be no harm to the character and appearance of the landscape;

The policy also states that the Council will promote and facilitate tourism development in appropriate locations which both consolidates the existing tourism base and broaden the range of attractions, activities and facilities, consistent with the Council's Tourism Strategy.

Unitary Development Plan Policy LT/5 states that proposals that would increase the provision of accommodation in hotels, guesthouses, bed and breakfasts establishments and self catering facilities whether through new build, extensions or changes of use will be permitted provided they are within the ‘Defined Urban Area’ and are not visually or environmentally intrusive.

Brearley Farm is located in a pleasant rural location overlooking Hollingworth Lake in the Pennines. Hollingworth Lake is a popular tourist and visitor destination providing various recreational and water based activities and good access into the surrounding countryside. Hollingworth Lake can often be very busy, especially during the summer months, and a number of businesses which front the Lake take advantage of the areas’ popularity. These businesses include a chip shop, overnight B & B and caravan accommodation, restaurants, cafes, public houses, gift shops and an amusement arcade.

However, there is currently an imbalance of overnight accommodation in the Borough in terms of quality, size and distribution. The Pennines have the least number of bed spaces and the Council wishes to encourage developments that address this imbalance, particularly small scale budget accommodation that support tourist and recreation values. The applicant proposes to provide 3 bedroom suites which would help achieve the Council’s objectives in accordance with Unitary Development Plan Policies LT/3 and LT/5.

Unitary Development Plan Policy LT/5 also states that changes of use to rural buildings for visitor accommodation will be permitted subject to the provisions of Policy D/9.

Criteria (a-d) of Unitary Development Plan Policy D/9 relate specifically to the re-use and adaptation of buildings in rural areas and generally reflect the requirements of the NPPF. The policy stipulates that the reuse and adaptation of buildings outside the defined urban area will only be permitted providing that:

a) Where the site is within the Green Belt, the re-use or adaptation does not have a materially greater impact than the previous use on the openness of the Green Belt and the purpose of including land within it; b) The application building is of a permanent and substantial construction and is capable of conversion to a new use without major or complete reconstruction; c) The building is large enough for the proposed use without the need for extensions of a size and design that would alter the basic character and appearance of the building or its contribution to the landscape; d) The building can be capable of being provided with satisfactory means of access, services and ancillary facilities, such as hardstandings, gardens, fences, walls etc., without a significant impact on landscape character, the setting of the building or, where it falls within the Green Belt, the openness and visual amenity of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land within it.

Planning permission for a change of use and alterations to the barn to form an extension to the attached farmhouse, and a single storey rear extension to the farmhouse (ref D50089) was approved in 2007. The application was accompanied by a structural survey, commissioned by Hall Needham Associates, which assessed the integrity of the barn and farmhouse and their capability for conversion to the new use without the need for complete or major reconstruction. The report identified the need for minor works of repair to the barn, including the replacement of the roof and the partial rebuild of the front / west facing facade. Paragraph 4.40 of the report concluded that the barn was of a substantial and permanent nature and was capable of conversion without the need for complete or major reconstruction. Photographs taken by Officers in 2007 and 2010 (when a new planning permission to replace the extant permission was approved) conclude that the condition of the barn had not deteriorated during this period and the officer’s site visit revealed no evidence to suggest that the conclusions of the original structural report were inaccurate or no longer applicable. However, the applicant has chosen to demolish the historic barn and replace it with a like-for-like extension which occupies a similar height and footprint to the former barn. The development is therefore contrary to the requirements of Unitary Development Plan Policy D/9.

The agent claims that it was always the applicants’ intention to demolish and re-build the barn and that they have used the existing stone facings and original stones which have been salvaged from around the site. However, the Officer would add that this in itself does not constitute very special circumstances which justify the ‘in- principle’ harm the development has on the openness and visual amenity of the Green Belt.

Unitary Development Plan Policy D/4 (Control of Development in the Green Belt – General) reflects the NPPF and states that, within the Green Belt, approval will not be given, except in very special circumstances, for the erection of new buildings unless it is for the following purposes:

a) agriculture and forestry; b) essential facilities for outdoor sport and outdoor recreation, for cemeteries and other uses which preserve the openness of the Green Belt and which do not conflict with the purposes of including land in it; c) the limited extension, alteration, or replacement of an existing dwelling in accordance with Policies D/7 and D/8; and d) Limited infilling or redevelopment of major, existing developed sites identified under, and in accordance with, Policy D/5.

In addition, the policy states that proposed development falling within these categories will only be acceptable where it can be shown that it would not prejudice, by reason of its scale, siting, or design, the primary purposes and visual amenity of the Green Belt.

The newly constructed extension matches the footprint, height, volume and profile of the barn it has replaced. Furthermore, the primary design features have been replicated, namely the cart-arch openings (albeit they are slightly narrower and taller than the original openings). The farmhouse is still served by the same means of access and the boundary of the residential curtilage would remain the same as that which has previously been approved. However, in the interests of certainty and to ensure that the open aspect of the Green Belt is retained, a condition has been imposed prohibiting the installation of boundary treatments as permitted development (as alternative forms of boundary treatments may otherwise detract from the exiting rural character of the site).

A condition has also been imposed which prohibits the dwelling to be extended or for detached outbuildings from being built within the curtilage as permitted development. Taking the above matters into consideration, it is considered that the replacement barn does not detract from the openness of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land within it, or the visual amenity of the area to the extent that refusal of planning permission would be justified. The applicant has used materials which suitably reflect the rural character of the surrounding area. The Officer is therefore satisfied that very special circumstances have been demonstrated that justify the ‘in- principle’ harm the development has on the openness and visual amenity of the Green Belt.

Residential Amenity As detailed above, the site is in a remote and rural location with the nearest farm being located over 280 metres away across Brearley Brook valley. It is not therefore considered that the development has an oppressive or overbearing impact on adjoining occupiers by virtue of its size, scale, layout, massing, height or design. The Planning Officer is satisfied that the extensive separation distances are more than sufficient to maintain adequate privacy between dwellings and prevent any unacceptable overshadowing or dominating impact. The development therefore complies with Policy BE/2 of the Council’s adopted Unitary Development Plan in this regard.

Design and Appearance Unitary Development Plan policy BE/2 sets out the criteria by which development proposals will be required to demonstrate good design. Of relevance to this development are criteria a), e), g) and h). The criteria require the developments to demonstrate good design by: a) Ensuring that they are compatible with or improve their surroundings by virtue of their scale, density, height, massing, layout, materials, architectural style and detail and means of enclosure; e) Appropriate treatment of open spaces between and around buildings, including the provision of landscaping as an integral part of the development layout; g) Providing for safe and convenient access and circulation; h) Minimising opportunities for crime against people or property;

The following assessment is made against the above policy requirements: a) The extension matches the footprint and volume of the barn it has replaced and the applicant has attempted to replicate its original design features including the use of natural stone, stone quoins and re-inserting cart-arch openings on the front and rear elevations. It is therefore considered that the scale, design and architectural detailing of the extension is acceptable and suitably comparable to the barn that it has replaced. The development is sufficiently sensitive to, and compatible with the rural character of the surrounding area and surrounding agricultural buildings. Having regard to the building’s impact on the site’s rural setting and the openness of the Green Belt, the new extension has been constructed using natural stone and slate and it occupies the same footprint as the original barn. e) The farmhouse would be served by the same residential curtilage as that which has previously been approved. The existing character of the area would therefore be retained; g) The farmhouse accommodates at least two off street parking spaces. The Head of Highways and Engineering is satisfied that the off road parking arrangements are satisfactory and the adjacent Bridleway would remain unaffected by the proposal. This point is expanded in the Access and Parking section below; h) The proposal would enable the applicants and overnight guests to re-occupy the farmhouse which in turn would increase surveillance of this area which in turn would minimise opportunities for crime against people or property;

For the above reasons the proposal is considered acceptable in terms of Unitary Development Plan Policy BE/2.

Access and Parking The replacement dwelling would be served by an existing access in the west of the site. The Head of Highways and Engineering has raised no objection to the access and parking provision. The proposed development would not impact upon existing access points or parking provision in the surrounding area, and as such the proposed arrangements are considered to be acceptable in accordance with Policies A/9, A/10 and RE/6 of the Rochdale Unitary Development Plan.

Summary This application relates to Brearley Farm which formerly comprised a late 18th C farmhouse with an annexed barn occupying an isolated and rural location in the Green Belt. The historic barn has recently been demolished, and replaced with a like-for-like extension which will be used for B & B accommodation and additional residential accommodation for the attached farmhouse. The extension occupies the same footprint and is no higher than the barn it replaces and it is served by the same means of access. The curtilage would be the same as that of the existing farmhouse and the siting, materials and design of the extension complements the rural character and visual amenity of the surrounding area.

Furthermore, the extension will provide B & B accommodation that will help increase the number and duration of visits to this semi-rural area of the Borough. The proposal would specifically cater for visitors to Hollingworth Lake and would promote and extend opportunities for recreation, help to sustain the rural economy and improve access to the countryside, having particular regard to the site’s rural location and proximity to Hollingworth Lake. The development would result in a benefit to leisure and tourism and would assist in the comprehensive regeneration of the area. It is therefore considered that the replacement barn extension would have no greater impact than the former historic barn on the openness of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land in it. The proposal demonstrates very special circumstances and means that a refusal of planning permission only on the basis that the site is in the Green Belt would not be justified.

Delegation Scheme : This retrospective application seeks permission to regularise the replacement barn extension which has been built on the north-west facing elevation of the farmhouse, and to allow the extension to be used as additional living accommodation and B & B accommodation. The proposal does not fall into any of the categories of appropriate development within the Green Belt defined by Unitary Development Plan Policy G/D/2 or the guidance contained within the NPPF and, as a result, represents a departure from this policy. Furthermore, the proposal conflicts with the previous decision of the Council with regard to planning application 12/D55205. Members may refuse or grant planning permission if they wish though if they are minded to grant permission then the application will have to be referred to Regulatory Committee for their decision as the proposal does not accord with the development plan in force for the area (the Rochdale Unitary Development Plan).

______