COMMITTEE REPORT
Application Ref. / 16/00058/FULApplicant / Mr Mark McCann
Reason for Referral to Committee / Discretion of the Head of Planning
Case Officer / Erin Weatherstone
Presenting Officer / Erin Weatherstone
Ward Member(s) / Councillor J Kerridge
Parish Council / Studley
Site Address / Clarkes Green Farm, Hardwick Lane, Clarkes Green, Studley
Description of Development / Erection of a swimming pool building with gym above and first floor link to dwelling and the change of use of land from agricultural to garden land (part retrospective).
Description of Site Constraints / § Green Belt
§ PROW opposite site and to east
§ Tree Preservation Order to front of the site
Summary of Recommendation / § REFUSE
Description of site and surroundings
The site lies to the north east of Studley set back from Hardwick Lane. The application site forms part of a scattering of development along Hardwick Lane within the West Midlands Green Belt. To the north of the site lie two Tree Preservation Orders.
The application site comprises of two areas including business buildings and a dwelling with garden both which share an vehicular entrance. The dwelling is two storey and has parking to the front with a garden that wraps around the rear abutting a pond.
Planning permission is sought for the erection of a pool building connected by a first floor link to the existing dwelling and the change of use of agricultural land to garden. This application is part retrospective with most of the development having been completed at the time of the site visit.
Development Plan
Paragraph 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) advises that “due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with this framework”.
Relevant Policies in the Development Plan for this application are
· PR.1, DEV.1, DEV.4, COM.12 part b – consistent with Framework
· EF.1 – some consistency but Framework is more restrictive
· PR.2, CTY.1,EF.6,EF.7, EF.11 – some consistency but Framework is less restrictive
· DEV.5 – inconsistent with Framework/out-of-date
Other Material Considerations
Central government guidance
· NPPF 2012 & PPG 2014
· Circular 06/05: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation
Supplementary Planning Documents & Guidance
· Stratford on Avon District Design Guide
Other Documents
· Core Strategy: Proposed Submission with Modifications June 2015
Following a full Council meeting on 22.06.2015, Members resolved to adopt some of the policies in the emerging ‘Core Strategy (As submitted September 2014 showing subsequent proposed modifications) June 2015’ for development management purposes. Those policies have some weight in decision taking.
The policies relevant to this application and which have some weight are:
•CS.1 Sustainable Development;
•CS.5 Landscape, CS.6 Natural Environment, CS.8 Historic Environment, CS.9 Design and Distinctiveness and CS.10 Green Belt (District Resources policies);
Other key policies which continue to have limited weight are:-
•AS.10 – Countryside and villages and CS.19 Existing Housing Stock and Buildings
Paragraph 216 of the NPPF allows for weight to be given to relevant policies in emerging plans, unless other material considerations indicate otherwise, and only subject to the stage of preparation of the plan, the extent of unresolved objections and the degree of consistency of the relevant emerging policies to the NPPF policies.
· Other Evidence base documents etc
Other Legislation
· Human Rights Act 1998
· Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006
· The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010
· Localism Act
Summary of Relevant History
The history relating to the dwellinghouse has been set in bold text.
Reference Number / Proposal / Decision and date16/00079/FUL / Retrospective application for the erection of a detached outbuilding for garages and cart shed to front / Pending Consideration
15/04086/FUL / Change of use of part of existing Dutch barn to mixed use purposes for agriculture and storage (use class B8) (retrospective) (resubmission of application 15/02018/FUL) / Approved 7.3.2016
15/02496/FUL / Extension of domestic garden (retrospective) / Withdrawn 28.5.2015
15/02078/AMD / Non material amendment to planning application 02/03677/FUL for the erection of replacement dwelling. Enlargement of pool to marginally increase the residential curtilage. / Withdrawn 30.9.2015
15/02018/FUL / Change of use of part of existing Dutch barn to mixed use purposes for agriculture and storage (use class B8) (retrospective) / Withdrawn 19.8.2015
13/02758/LDP / Proposed erection of detached pool building / Approved 11.12.2013
13/02015/FUL / Single storey pool and cartshed extensions / Withdrawn 12.9.2013
07/00440/PDEV / Proposed detached 3 car garage / PD 16.2.2007
05/02384/FUL / Erection of earth bunding to north east boundary (retrospective). / Refused 20.10.2005
05/02252/FUL / Change of use of redundant barn to offices. / Approved 15.11.2005
05/00884/AGNOT / Agricultural portal frame building for storage of hay and straw / Application required 10.5.2005
05/01117/FUL / Change of use of redundant barn and cowsheds to offices, workshops and storage. / Withdrawn 27.6.2005
02/03677/FUL / Erection of replacement dwelling. Enlargement of pond. / Approved 13.8.2003
02/01344/AGNOT / Erection of livestock building / Withdrawn 15.10.2002
02/00826/FUL and02/00827/LBC / Conversion of part barn into one dwelling and reinstate original listed barn together with all ancillary works. / Withdrawn 3.5.2002
00/03231/AGNOT / Erection of new steel framed barn / Approved 22.12.2000
96/01079/FUL / Barn conversion to dwelling / Approved 10.10.1996
A replacement dwelling was granted in 2002 in addition to the enlargement of the pond. This permission did not remove permitted development rights.
In 2007 an informal enquiry was received by the Local Planning Authority in relation to a detached garage building. In 2013 a Lawful Development Certificate was approved for a detached pool building.
Since the dwelling was built a number of other extensions have been erected on the dwelling which the applicant’s agents believe to be permitted development. These extensions include the following:
· A single storey side extension providing a garden room;
· A two storey rear extension to the drawing room open to the ridge;
· A single storey rear extension to the dining room;
· A two storey rear extension to the kitchen open to the ridge;
· A single storey side extension to the kitchen.
Under this application the pool building with first floor link is being considered and the change of use of land. There is a building to the rear of the pool building which the agent has confirmed would be demolished.
At the time of this application another application is being considered for the erection of a detached garage and carport (16/00079/FUL). In addition, some decking has recently been erected but this will be dealt with as a separate manner.
Applicant’s Supporting Documents
List of documents:
· None received
Ward Member
(These comments have been summarised by the case officer)
Cllr Kerridge- Support – I am not in a position to support or object to this application. I believe there is a need for this application to be heard at committee (16.3.2016).
[These comments were received outside of the consultation period. Discussions have occurred between the Case Officer and Cllr Kerridge]
Parish Council
(These comments have been summarised by the case officer)
Object for the following planning reasons:
· Overdevelopment of the site;
· Encroachment into agricultural land;
· Plans do not show all construction on site;
· Impact on streetscene; and
· Inappropriate development (19.2.2016 and 17.2.2016)
Third Party Responses
The comments made by third parties have been summarised by the case officer.
1 letters of comment has been received from CPRE. Comments relate to the retrospective nature of the development, archaeological impact and that the application is retrospective.
Consultations
The full responses are available in the application file.
WCC Ecology- No representation (2.2.2016)
WCC Archaeology –The site is archeologically sensitive however as the works are retrospective any archaeological harm is likely to have occurred already. A condition is therefore not appropriate (16.2.2016)
ASSESSMENT OF THE KEY ISSUES
Principle of Development
The Council is required to make a decision in line with the Development Plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. (Section 38(6) PCPA 2004 and Section 70(2) TCPA 1990). The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is a key material planning consideration. The emerging Core Strategy is also a material consideration.
The Council is required to make a decision in line with the Development Plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. (Section 38(6) PCPA 2004 and Section 70(2) TCPA 1990). The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is a key material planning consideration. The emerging Core Strategy is also a material consideration.
CTY.1 of the saved local plan relates to development in the countryside. The proposed development seeks permission for the change of use of agricultural land to residential garden. CTY.1 states that where development within the countryside is not covered elsewhere in the plan the development will have to be fully justified and demonstrate that it would not be contrary to overall plan strategy. In addition the development will have to demonstrate that it would not have a harmful impact on the character of the area. Paragraph 17 of the NPPF also recognises the intrinsic beauty of the countryside. The principle of the change of use of the land is supported subject to no adverse environmental impacts being raised by the development.
The proposed development seeks to extend the existing dwelling on the application site. Policy COM.12 part B supports any extension to an existing dwelling, providing that there is no unacceptable harm caused to neighbouring properties’ amenity or the character of the area. CS.19 of the Emerging Core Strategy also supports the alteration and modifications of existing dwellings where they are an appropriate scale and subservient to the existing building.
Having regard to the above, I am satisfied that the principle of the development is supported subject to no adverse environmental impacts being caused as a result of the proposed development.
Green Belt
This site lies within the Green Belt, where very strict control is exercised over all forms of development, in accordance with national guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and in accordance with Saved Local Plan Review policy PR2. Emerging Core Strategy Policy CS.10 states that the purposes of the Green Belt will be upheld.
Green Belt policy seeks to preserve the open character of the Green Belt. Tow of the five purposes of the Green Belt include prevention of urban sprawl and safeguarding the countryside from encroachment as set out under paragraph 80 of the NPPF.
As such, all forms of development are defined as “inappropriate” development within the Green Belt unless they are specifically referred to as an exception within paragraph 89 and 90 of the NPPF.
The application comprises of two elements the change of use of land and the extension to the dwelling. Each element will be assessed separately then together in the conclusion.
With respect to the proposed extension paragraph 89 of the NPPF states that ‘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’ would not be inappropriate development.
In this case the ‘original building’ would be the approved replacement dwelling granted in 2002. All other extensions to the dwelling (which include any outbuildings set within 5m of the dwelling) would need to be considered cumulatively with the proposed pool and link extension. The proposed detached garage and carport which is the subject of planning application 16/00079/FUL would not lie within 5m of the dwelling and therefore I do not view this as an extension to the ‘original building’. Similarly the outbuilding east of the dwelling is not considered to be an extension.
In order to establish whether the proposed pool building extension would result in a disproportionate addition to the dwelling numerical comparisons (including heights, floor area and volume) were considered. Visual assessments were also carried out taking into account the bulk, mass and visual impact of the development.
The original dwelling has a floor area of approximately 345.6 square metres. The proposed extension when calculated cumulatively with the other extensions (excluding the timber building to be demolished) to the dwelling would represent a 67% increase in floor area. The original dwelling has a volume of approximately 1078.6 metres cubed. The proposed extension when cumulatively added to the previous extensions (excluding the timber building to be demolished) would represent a 91% increase over and above the original dwelling.
The proposal would result in the original dwelling having an extension which is largely commensurate with the original dwelling width (approximately 20m). The proposed extension by reason of its height, footprint and design is considered to add substantial mass to the original dwelling extending the previous built form and therefore the spread of the development across the application site.
When viewed cumulatively with the previous extensions to the dwelling which include a single storey side extension, which projects 10m from the other gable end, and other extensions I consider the extension would have a significant impact on the openness of the Green Belt and cause encroachment into the countryside and harm the visual amenities of the Green Belt.
Having regard to the above, I consider that the proposed development would represent a disproportionate addition to the original dwelling. The proposal is therefore considered to represent ‘inappropriate development’ in the Green Belt.
The change of use of the land is considered to represent ‘inappropriate development’ within the Green Belt. I consider that the change of use of land would have limited harm on the openness of the Green Belt due to the extent of land proposed to change use and the location in between the existing dwelling and outbuilding to the east. When viewed cumulatively the overall development is considered to cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt.
Very Special Circumstances
Where a proposal is considered to be “inappropriate” development in the Green Belt, it will only be supported where there are ‘very special circumstances’ which outweigh the harm to the Green Belt.
There are a number of circumstances which can be considered in this instance. The applicant considers that a number of the extensions on the dwelling are permitted development. Without prejudice to a formal determination, informally, based on the drawings only I consider that the all the extensions apart from the single storey side extension from the drawing room fall within the parameters of permitted development legislation. This assessment is based on the drawings submitted and not by physical measurements taken on the site.