Jennifer Mincher: Senior Planning Officer - Planning Committee 28 January 2020 19/00715/FUL Mrs Helen Griffiths BREWOOD & COVEN NON MAJOR Cllr Wendy Sutton Cllr Joyce Bolton Cllr Diane Holmes Port Lane Cottage Port Lane Coven WOLVERHAMPTON WV9 5BH Replacement dwelling 1.SITE DESCRIPTION AND PLANNING HISTORY 1.1 Site Description 1.1.1 The application site is located off Port Lane and comprises of a circa 18th century detached cottage, a single storey brick outbuilding and a timber workshop. The cottage is two storeys in height and is constructed of coursed sandstone with red brick above, with a pitched roof and chimneys on either side. The site is currently overgrown and there is no existing parking provision or obvious vehicular access onto the site. The site is located in an isolated position and is surrounded by open fields. Chillington Hall is approximately 1 mile away to the south-west. 1.2 Planning History 2017, Two storey and single storey rear extensions, basement living accommodation and timber car port, approved (17/00534/FUL) 2017, Discharge of conditions relating to 17/00534/FUL, approved (17/00534/COND) 2. APPLICATION DETAILS 2.1 Proposal 2.1.1 It is proposed to demolish the existing dwelling and outbuildings and replace them with a new dwelling with basement accommodation. 2.1.2 The living accommodation would be spread over three floors, providing a master bedroom suite at basement level and 3 further bedrooms at first floor level. The dwelling would be designed in a traditional style with plain clay tile roof, stone window cills, casement windows and central door to match existing, with reclaimed stone blockwork at ground floor level. 2.1.3 A new vehicular access of the main road is proposed, to be finished with granite setts leading onto a rolled stone chipping drive. A side/rear lawned area would extend around the dwelling, and a timber vehicular entrance gate is proposed as well as a hedge around the perimeter of the development. Jennifer Mincher: Senior Planning Officer - Planning Committee 28 January 2020 2.3 Agents Submissions A Structural Report, Heritage Impact Assessment, Design & Access Statement, and Bat Roost Characterisation have been submitted. Key points are summarised as follows: 2.3.1. Heritage Impact Assessment -The Chillington estate forms an important group of heritage assets surviving in the open rolling countryside. The cottage, whilst a non-designated heritage asset, makes a contribution to the Chillington Conservation Area due to its age and location. -The dwelling was likely a squatter's cottage, the downside being its size and poor- quality building methods. The link between the modest cottage and the high-status accommodation at Chillington Hall is unclear. -The replacement of the existing cottage with a larger, albeit modest, cottage would preserve the existing relationship between the hall and cottage, thereby having little impact on the conservation area. The replacement of the cottage with in similar materials and design would preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area. 2.3.2. Design & Access Statement -The applicant bought the site with the intention to implement extant planning permission 17/00543 FUL however was unable to engage a reputable builder who would carry out the work. -The building is in poor structural repair and is beyond economic refurbishment. Taking this into consideration the construction of the basement (as previously approved) would be impossible. -It is proposed to replicate the cottage by rebuilding in similar materials and reusing materials from site where possible. 2.3.3 Structural Report -Since the submission of the previous structural report (2017) the building has deteriorated further due to increasing exposure to weather. There also appears to have been some removal of materials. -The building is in a structurally precarious condition and it is considered that it would need to be rebuilt to bring it up to modern standards including underpinning of the substandard foundations. Jennifer Mincher: Senior Planning Officer - Planning Committee 28 January 2020 -The cost of the underpinning works as well as the disproportionately high cost of safely rebuilding the dwelling (exacerbated by the proximity to the highway) would be substantially higher than demolition and rebuild. 2.3.4 Bat Roost Characterisation -An existing roost would be destroyed albeit bat activity levels on site were low. Due to the presence of the roost, any increased lighting levels would have the potential to disrupt these bats. 3. POLICY CONTEXT Within the Green Belt and the Chillington Conservation Area and a Historic Landscape Area. Core Strategy Policy GB1: Development in the Green Belt Policy EQ1: Protecting, Enhancing and Expanding Natural Assets Policy EQ3: Conservation, Preservation and Protection of Heritage Assets Policy EQ4: Protecting and Enhancing the Character and Appearance of the Landscape Policy EQ9: Protecting Residential Amenity Policy EQ11: Wider Design Considerations Policy EV12: Parking Provision Appendix 6: Space About Dwellings Standards National Planning Policy Framework [NPPF] Chapter 7: Requiring Good Design Chapter 9: Protecting Green Belt land Chapter 12: Conserving and enhancing the Historic Environment Supplementary Planning Documents Green Belt and Open Countryside SPD 4. CONSULTATION RESPONSES Councillors [expired 23/10/19] No comments received Parish Council [comments received 17/10/19] No objection. The Parish Council would be keen for developers to re-use as much original material as possible. Arboricultural Officer [comments received 03/10/19] No objections subject to conditions. Conservation Officer [comments received 07/01/20] The property is a non- designated heritage asset, located within a conservation area. Whilst it would be preferred to see the retention of the original building details have been submitted with regard to the structure of the building. Since the previous application, the Jennifer Mincher: Senior Planning Officer - Planning Committee 28 January 2020 condition of the building which is vacant has deteriorated further. It is now concluded that the building would require virtual wholesale re-building in order to make it safe. This will result in a building that would neither seem old or new. As the condition of the building has deteriorated since the last application, this will continue unless something is done with the building. In this case, based upon the condition and the potential for total loss it is felt that the careful demolition and salvage of the materials in order to be re-used on the new property would be the best way forward. There are therefore no conservation objections to the proposals subject to the agreement of the retention of materials and details of how this is to be done. This could be covered by conditions at the time of determination. Recommended conditions supplied. County Ecologist [comments received 24/10/19] Conditions are required including the provision of a bat mitigation strategy, bird boxes and external lighting scheme. County Highways [comments received 18/10/19] No objections subject to conditions. Brewood Civic Society [comments received 20/10/19] No objection. Site Notice [expired 02/11/19] No comments received Advertisement [expired 29/10/19] No comments received 5. APPRAISAL 5.1 The application is to be heard at Planning Committee as the proposal is inappropriate development in the Green Belt, contrary to GB1 of the Core Strategy. 5.2 Key Issues: - Principle of development - Case for Very Special Circumstances - Impact upon the openness of the Green Belt - Impact upon the character of the Heritage Asset - Impact upon Protected Species/Ecology and Trees - Impact on residential amenity - Occupier amenity - Highways/Parking 5.3 Principle of Development 5.3.1 The site is located within the Green Belt where Policy GB1 of the Core Strategy and paragraph 145 apply, both of which seek to restrict inappropriate forms of development within the Green Belt. Inappropriate development is, by definition harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special Jennifer Mincher: Senior Planning Officer - Planning Committee 28 January 2020 circumstances. Local Planning Authorities are expected to regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in Green Belt. 5.3.2 However there are a number of exceptions to this, including replacement buildings provided they are not materially larger than the building being replaced and are in the same use. In order to judge whether a building is materially larger, the Councils adopted Green Belt and Open Countryside SPD provides that a range of floor area increases between 10-20% should be used. 5.3.3 The proposed dwelling incorporates three floors (including a basement). The above ground elements equate to 136.3 sq.m, constituting an increase of just under 83% over that of the existing dwelling, which has a modest floor area of 74.49 sq.m. 5.3.4 The replacement dwelling is clearly materially larger and above the 10-20% guidance contained within the SPD. The proposal would constitute inappropriate development which is harmful to the Green belt by definition and cannot be approved except in very special circumstances. When considering any planning application, substantial weight is afforded to this harm. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. 5.4 Case for Very Special Circumstances 5.4.1 The NPPF provides opportunity for applicants to pursue development in the Green Belt based on the Very Special Circumstances case if proposals are considered contrary to Green Belt Policy. Paragraph 144 of the NPPF advises that 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. 5.4.2 There are two elements to this case for VSC: a) Off-setting floor area from existing structures. b) Extant approval They are considered as follows: 5.4.3 Off-setting floor area from existing structures.