The Old Rick Yard, Pamber Green, RG26 3AF Appeal by Mr AD Fowler regarding the proposed erection of extension to the existing light industrial building to form a hobby shed ancillary to Rickyard Cottage; formation of first floor flat. Change of use from non-ferrous metal scrap recycling yard to ancillary residential. LPA reference 18/01170/FUL Site and surrounding area 1. Situated to the West of the A340 Aldermaston Road approximately 0.9km south of Tadley within the boundaries of Pamber Green. To the east there is a residential property known as Pond House, to the west is Ravenscot Farm. 2. To the north and south are open fields, although on the Aldermaston Road frontage on the south side of the access road there is a dwelling (Hawthorn Lodge) with planning permission for an additional dwelling in its garden together with the erection of a commercial workshop (application 17/02202/FUL refers) 3. Rickyard Cottage, which is owned by the applicant is within the southern part of the site. There is also a Grade II listed barn within the site. The use of the barn is restricted to B1c light industrial purposes. 4. There are two existing light industrial units on the northern part of the site together with a static caravan that has been occupied for residential purposes for many years. 5. The light industrial units are used by the applicant in connection with his business activities and his hobby of restoring steam and vintage vehicles. 6. In the northeast corner of the yard where the proposed building would be located there is also an area used as a non-ferrous scrap metal and recycling business. A Certificate of Lawfulness for that use was granted in 2015 (application 14/02951/LDEU) 7. Most of the yard is laid to concrete and other hardstanding materials and access to the yard is to the west of Rickyard Cottage through large metal gates. The proposal 8. The proposal 18/01170/FUL is for the “Erection of extension to the existing industrial building to form a hobby shed ancillary to Rickyard Cottage; formation of first floor flat. Change of use from non-ferrous metal scrap recycling yard to ancillary residential”. 9. The proposed structure would measure 12.5 m in width, 10m in depth and 7.8m in height and the building would be constructed to match the existing industrial buildings with profiled metal sheeting on the walls and roof. 10. The ground floor would be used to accommodate vehicles associated with the applicant’s hobby of restoring steam and vintage vehicles. Some vehicles including a traction engine and showman’s wagon are very large vehicles, hence the need for 4mx4m roller shutter doors for access. 1 11. The first floor would be laid out as a 2-bed flat for the applicant’s son who currently resides in the static caravan. 12. The erection of the extension would necessitate the removal of the static caravan and the cessation of the scrap yard business. The decision 13. The application was refused for six reasons that may be summarised: 1. Contrary to NPPF (2012) and policies SS1 and SS6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 2. Lack of provision of amenity space and lack of high quality living accommodation. 3. Impact on the setting of the Listed Barn 4. The impact on neighbouring properties 5. The site is upstream of a critical drainage area 6. Potential detrimental noise impact. 14. The reasons for refusal are set out in full in the accompanying decision notice Statement of Case Reason 1. 15. The appeal site is in the village of Pamber Green, but is outside any defined settlement. 16. The spatial strategy for new housing is set out in Policy SS1 of the Local Plan and is based on the allocation of large greenfield sites around the main settlements. Basingstoke has a five year supply of housing land but has consistently under-delivered in the last 7 years. However, policy SS6 ‘New Housing in the Countryside’ allows for exceptions to be approved under six categories. 17. The appeal site falls within the definition of ‘previously developed land’ so part a) of policy SS6 is relevant to this appeal. This is confirmed in the officer’s delegated report. 18. SS6a) states: Development proposals for new housing outside of Settlement Policy Boundaries will only be permitted where they are: a) On ‘previously developed land’, provided that: i) They do not result in an isolated form of development; and ii) The site is not of high environmental value; and iii) The proposed use and scale of development is appropriate to the site’s context; 19. In the officer’s report it is confirmed that the site is not considered isolated, so there is no conflict with criterion i). Indeed, since the adoption of the Local Plan a number of new houses have been approved in Pamber Green, including the neighbouring dwelling at Hawthorn Lodge, as referenced in paragraph 2 above (yet to be built). 20. In the officer’s report it is also confirmed that the appeal site is not considered to be of ’high environmental value’, so the LPA agrees with the appellant that there is no conflict with criterion ii) 2 i) So with regard to SS6, the LPA’s position is set out by the officer as follows: ‘The application would therefore comply with the definition of being ‘previously developed land’ and would accord with criterions i) and ii) of the Policy SS6a) but however would conflict with criterion iii) given the proposals impacts upon the setting of the nearby listed barn’. The LPA’s position therefore is that ‘the proposed use and scale of development is appropriate to the site’s context’. 21. The appellant does not agree with that assessment insofar as it relates to the setting of the listed barn and will address that allegation in response to Refusal reason No 3 below. 22. It follows that if the Inspector agrees that there would be no material harm to the setting of the barn, then there is no conflict with Policy SS6a). Reason 2 23. The second reason is in two parts and alleges an absence of amenity space and the lack of high quality living accommodation ‘due to the siting of the dwelling in an industrial area’. This reason overlaps with reason 6 (noise impacts), which is addressed below. 24. With regard to garden space, the appellant did not show an amenity area for the flat because it would be occupied by his son who would have access to the family garden. Nevertheless, there is ample space to provide a garden area adjacent to the family garden, if required. 25. A sketch plan of such an area was submitted to the LPA on 21 June 2018, to ask whether it would address the LPA’s concern, but no response was received. The area shown could be fenced and landscaped and it is considered that it would meet the reasonable needs of the occupants and comply with the LPA’s guidance (appendix 16 to the SPD). 26. The sketch plan accompanies this appeal and shows that an adequate amenity area could be provided to the rear of the appellant’s garden and adjacent to the boundary with the garden of Pond House. 27. With regard to the siting ‘within an industrial area’, the flat would be above a ‘hobby shed’ where the activity would typically be very limited. It would be similar to any householder restoring a car in his/her garage – a labour of love over a very long period, often many years. The only difference here being the size of the vehicles to be restored. 28. The floor between the hobby shed and the flat will be suitably insulated in accordance with Building Regs requirements (thermal and noise insulation). This will also ensure that there is no noise transmission between the ground floor and flat, although it should be emphasised that the hobby shed will not generate noise. 29. Windows to the flat would also need to satisfy the Building Regulations in terms of insulation and ventilation and it is considered that views from the windows over agricultural land to the north and towards the listed barn and Rickyard Cottage to the south will make the flat an attractive place to live, not only for the appellant’s son, but also for any future occupier who would be aware of the surroundings before taking up occupation. 3 30. The appellant carries out his ‘day job’ in the adjacent sheds, which are limited to B1c) use with restricted hours. It is a low-key use with very limited activity and/or vehicular movements. Whilst this might change with a future occupier, the premises will remain in B1c) use with restricted hours. 31. By definition a B1c) use is compatible with residential amenity, so it is considered there is no reason why the use of the existing premises will have an adverse impact on the quality of the proposed living accommodation, as alleged. Reason 3 32. Although third in the list of reasons, the appellant considers this is the main consideration in this appeal, particularly bearing in mind the overlap with reason 1. 33. Whether the proposed extension would adversely affect the setting of the listed barn is a very subjective consideration. The Inspector will note the relationship from the submitted plans and will assess it further at the appeal site visit. 34. Reference is made to scale, mass and materials. With regard to the latter, the appellant takes the view that the use of modern cladding to match the existing buildings is an entirely appropriate choice in this context, emphasising the contrast between traditional and modern construction – a relationship which the appellant suggests may be found on many farms and former farms where listed buildings are often found next to modern agricultural or commercial sheds.