Download 1 - Craven District Council Online Planning

Note: A previous application (reference 45/2002/2309) for form a dwelling and garden from
an existing vacant stone barn and builders yard on this site was submitted on the 10 th July
2002 and was refused planning permission on the 19th September 2002 under the Council’s
Scheme of Delegation to Officers. The reasons for refusal of that application are set out at
section 4 of the report below. This application is a re-submission of this refused application;
that is, the application is exactly the same as previously submitted and no additional
information has been supplied or amendments undertaken to the submitted plans in an
attempt to address the reasons for refusal, nor have the applicants exercised their rights of
appeal. The application has therefore been resubmitted in order to be considered by the
Planning Sub- Committee.
1.
Site Description
1.1
An existing storage barn and large open yard, previously used as a builders yard and
associated storage building, now vacant. The north, west and eastern elevations of
the barn are clad in natural stone, and the southern elevation is rendered. The
northern roof pitch has concrete tiles and the southern pitch is covered with profiled
sheeting.
1.2
The site is adjacent to and forms part of a complex of residential units resulting from
the conversion of a number of farm buildings in the late 1980’s. There are, therefore,
four residential units which form this group of buildings, which are located across
from the Park Foot caravan site on the Bentham to Ingleton road. The site is in the
open countryside.
2.
Proposal
2.1
The proposal is to convert the building into a single dwelling. This includes raising
the ridge of the existing building by approximately 1.7 metres to accommodate two
floors of living accommodation. Two new windows would be inserted in the northern
elevation, with the western elevation facing the adjacent properties left blank. In the
eastern side gable to insert three new windows together with a central glazed
feature. The southern elevation would be altered to include four new window
openings at first floor, would be faced in natural stone, with a barn style glazed
entrance feature. The roof would include a large dormer type window with patio
doors onto a balcony behind a parapet wall. The building would be re-roofed using
natural slate.
3.
Planning History
3.1
5/45/342: Change of use of farm buildings to sale and repair of agricultural
machinery refused in October 1984.
3.2
5/45/342/A: Outline planning permission for the conversion of stone buildings to
holiday cottages approved July 1985.
3.3
5/45/342/B: Partial demolition of redundant farm buildings and some rebuilding onto
barn number 2 to form dwelling granted July 1986.
3.4
5/45/342/C: Conversion of existing redundant farm building to form dwelling refused
August 1986.
3.5
5/45/342/D: Partial demolition and conversion of existing barn and associated
buildings to form extension for existing dwelling approved June 1986.
3.6
5/45/342/E: Conversion of existing former milking parlour to form dwelling granted
November 1986.
3.7
5/45/342/F: Partial demolition and conversion of existing barn to form dwelling
granted November 1986.
3.8
5/45/342/G: Conversion of 2 number barns to two dwellings with garages
(amendments to previous approvals) granted December 1987.
3.9
5/45/342/H: Proposed extension to living room of Hope Cottage refused June 1990.
3.10
5/45/342/J: erection of wall at Hope Cottage granted September 1990.
3.11
5/45/342/K: Continuation of use as a builders yard and retention of associated
storage and equipment building granted April 1996.
3.12
45/2002/2309: Planning permission to form a dwelling and garden from existing
vacant stone barn and builders yard refused on the 19th September 2002. The
reasons for refusal were:
“The District Council considers that the proposal would be contrary to policies ENV1
ENV2, ENV4 and H8 of the Craven District (Outside of the Yorkshire Dales National
Park) Local Plan. In particular, the Council considers that:
The applicant has not made every reasonable attempt to secure suitable business
reuse of the premises and no statement has been submitted of the efforts which have
been made to achieve this.
The character and appearance of the existing building does not make a particularly
positive contribution to the landscape and is not worthy of retention for further use
and conversion for residential purposes.
The existing building is not large enough to provide sufficient accommodation for the
reasonable requirements of a normal household without the need for substantial
extension or alteration.
The proposed domestic curtilage would be obtrusive in this open landscape setting
and would have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the area.”
4.
Planning Policy Background
4.1
PPG3 Housing; PPG7 The Countryside etc
4.2
Local Plan policies: ENV1, ENV2, ENV4, H8, T2, T3
5.
Parish/Town Council Comments
5.1
Ingleton Parish Council: When the original application was submitted the Parish
Council expressed some concerns regarding access. In view of the rejection of this
application the Parish Council would like to know what differences if any have been
made to the subsequent application to merit its further consideration.
6.
Consultations
6.1
Environment Agency: Suggest a condition requiring a detailed site investigation into
potential contaminants, and also requiring a scheme for the disposal of foul and
surface waters to be approved.
6.2
United Utilities: no objection.
6.3
Highway Authority: That permission be granted subject to a condition requiring
parking and turning facilities for two vehicles.
7.
Representations
7.1
Three letters is support of the application have been received from the residents of
Hope Cottage, Park Foot Farmhouse and Tawny Cottage (the three other dwellings
in addition to the applicants own house Deer Park Lodge, which comprise this
grouping of four existing dwellings). The issues raised:
7.2
The previous use of the site generated a lot of noise through the daily traffic of
wagons, tractors, employees coming to work, but since their departure it has been
noticeably quieter and more in keeping with the countryside environment.
7.3
It would be inappropriate for the barn to be returned to commercial use with the risk
of spoiling the tranquil setting through noise pollution. We do not want another
business to start here and we feel that everyone would benefit from the continued
surroundings as they exist keeping us all free from noise and pollution for the future.
8.
Summary of Principal Planning Issues
8.1
Whether the proposal meets the policies of the Local Plan for the conversion of rural
buildings for residential use.
8.2
The effect of the proposal on highway safety.
9.
Analysis
9.1
This building was probably built in the early 1990’s and the planning history set
above indicates that an application was made, and granted in 1996, for its retention
as a storage building in association with the use of the site as a builders yard. As set
out at section one above, this existing storage building is of block work construction,
clad in natural stone to three elevations with the southern elevation rendered. The
northern roof pitch has concrete tiles and the southern pitch is covered with profiled
sheeting.
9.2
The proposal is, therefore to change the use of this building and convert it with
alterations into a dwelling. In this regard, Local Plan policies (see EMP7) seek to
retain as wide and varied a range of premises for employment generating use as
possible and seek to prevent changes of use to residential unless they are especially
justified. In addition, Local Plan policy H8 facilitates the conversion of traditional rural
buildings to residential use subject to various criteria. The first of these is that the
applicant must demonstrate that every reasonable attempt has been made to secure
a suitable business reuse of the premises. In this regard, the applicant’s agent has
submitted a short supporting statement which outlines a case as to why this
particular building is not well suited to an employment generating use, and why a
change of use to residential is justified.
9.3
In this regard, the applicant contends that the building is within a small cluster of
private dwellings and that the previous use as a builders yard had an adverse effect
on the amenities of these residents. The applicant contends that the proposed reuse of the building as private residence would maintain the quiet nature and
character of the area and, because few external alterations to the building would be
required, would have little impact on the character of the area. The applicant also
contends that the traffic generated by a private dwelling would be significantly less
than the previous use of the site as a builders yard, and that the previous use
generated traffic (including heavy goods vehicles) which had an adverse effect on
neighbouring amenities.
9.4
This particular building is located in a very rural position but close to an existing small
complex of residences and, given the tranquil nature of this setting, the resumption of
an industrial use on this site (a use falling within the B2 Use Class of the Use
Classes Order) would potentially have an adverse effect on the amenities of nearby
residents and on the character of the area; primarily from potential traffic movements
of heavy goods vehicles but also from potential noise and disturbance problems
associated with such an industrial use.
9.5
However, less intensive business uses, such as those falling within the B1 Use
Class, could potentially utilise this industrial building without causing such potential
problems. This might comprise, for example, an office based use for a rural
enterprise. It is considered, therefore, that the applicant has not adequately
demonstrated that every reasonable attempt has been made to secure a suitable
business reuse of the premises as a change of use to a B1 Use Class has not been
sought, and the property has not been marketed for such a purpose.
9.6
Policy H8 of the Local Plan also sets out several other criteria against which
proposals for residential conversions need to be assessed. These criteria include
whether the character and appearance of the building make it worthy of retention for
further use and also whether it is structurally sound and capable of conversion
without major rebuilding.
9.7
In this regard, the existing building is not an example of a vernacular stone built field
barn. The building is of recent construction, and has been constructed of block work
with natural stone facing to three of the elevations and render to the southern
elevation, in a barn style. The building does not have any particular vernacular
features and is roofed in a mixture of hardrow concrete tiles and metal profiled
sheeting. As an individual structure, the building does not make a particularly
positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area, and is not
particularly worthy of retention for conversion to a residential use.
9.8
In considering this particular issue, members also need to bear in mind the Council’s
policy for the conversion of buildings is aimed specifically at traditional rural buildings.
Although this building is clad in stone to three elevations it is not a traditional building
and there is little difference in policy terms between this building and a modern
agricultural building. If Members are minded to grant approval, this would represent
a dangerous precedent which could result in further applications for the conversion of
non traditional buildings to residential use.
9.9
With regard to other criteria within policy H8 the building appears substantially
structurally sound and is probably substantially capable of conversion without being
re-built due to its recent construction. The proposal does, however, include raising
the ridge line of the building by approximately 1.7 meters to incorporate two floors of
living accommodation. The front (southern) elevation would also be raised by 1.5
metres and clad in natural stone. It is clear, therefore, that relatively significant
alterations to the roof line and the southern elevation are necessary to incorporate an
adequate level of living accommodation. In addition it is not possible, without a
detailed structural survey, to ascertain whether the existing foundations are capable
of accommodating an increased load from these proposed alterations.
9.10
Criterion five of policy H8 states that the building should be large enough to provide
sufficient accommodation for the reasonable requirements of a normal household
without the need for substantial extension or alteration. As set out above, the
proposal includes significant alterations to the ridge line of the building in order to
achieve sufficient accommodation. It follows that the building is not large enough to
provide the level of accommodation which is being sought and that the application
therefore fails to meet criterion 5 of policy H8.
9.11
With regard to criterion 6, the proposed scheme of alterations are relatively
sympathetic to the character of the building, and are unlikely to have any significant
adverse effect on the character of the area. There would be no direct overlooking of
adjacent properties and it is considered, therefore, that the amenities of adjacent
properties will not be unduly affected.
9.12
The proposal includes the creation of a significantly large domestic curtilage to the
south of the building. The area immediately to the south of the building is well
defined by existing tall boundary walls and this area would presumably have formed
the builders yard of the previous use of the site. This area is well contained and
screened by the existing boundary treatments and is more than large enough to
incorporate adequate parking and turning areas and private amenity space if
necessary. The submitted plans, however, include the field to the south of this yard,
and this curtilage would be excessive and obtrusive in the open landscape beyond.
The proposal would therefore be contrary to criterion 7 of policy H8.
9.13
With regard to highway safety, the Highway Authority have not raised any objections
to the proposed access arrangements subject to suitable conditions being imposed.
On this basis, the proposal is unlikely to have any significant adverse effect on
highway safety.
9.14
In summary, it is considered that the applicant has not made every reasonable
attempt to secure a suitable business reuse for the site, and no statement has been
submitted of the efforts that have been made to achieve this. This particular building
is not a traditional rural building which displays vernacular characteristics and is not
particularly worthy of retention for residential use. Significant alterations are also
proposed and it is unlikely, therefore, that the building is large enough in its present
form to provide sufficient accommodation for the reasonable requirements of a
normal household. In addition, the proposed curtilage is excessive and would have
an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the countryside. The proposal
would, therefore, fail to meet criteria one, three, five and seven of policy H8. Refusal
of the application is recommended.
10.
10.1
11.
11.1
Recommendation
Refusal
Reasons for Refusal
The District Council considers that the proposal would be contrary to policies ENV1
ENV2, ENV4 and H8 of the Craven District (Outside of the Yorkshire Dales National
Park) Local Plan. In particular, the Council considers that:

The applicant has not made every reasonable attempt to secure suitable
business reuse of the premises and no statement has been submitted of the
efforts which have been made to achieve this.

The character and appearance of the existing building does not make a
particularly positive contribution to the landscape and is not worthy of retention
for further use and conversion for residential purposes.

The existing building is not large enough to provide sufficient accommodation
for the reasonable requirements of a normal household without the need for
substantial extension or alteration.

The proposed domestic curtilage would be obtrusive in this open landscape
setting and would have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of
the area.