Agenda item

 Councillor Graham Pask noted that the remaining members of the audience had attended to hear/ speak in respect of 17/01189/OUTD. Therefore, he suggested that Standing Orders were suspended in order that Agenda Item 4(3) could be considered prior to Agenda Item 4(2).

Members voted in favour of the proposal to suspend Standing Orders and proceeded to consider Agenda Item 4(3).

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(3)) concerning Planning Application 17/01889/OUTD in respect of outline planning permission for the redevelopment and change of use of the site to residential (C3) to provide a single storey detached dwellinghouse with rooms in the roof space. Matters to be considered: Access and Layout.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Thomas Wright, supporter, Mrs Kim Cohen, agent, and Mr Malcolm Hatton, applicant, addressed the Committee on this application.

Mr Wright in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         He had lived near Larch House since 1970 and much of the surroundings had changed in that time. The land had previously been used for grazing and storage which were integral parts of the farm.

·         Over time the buildings had been converted into residential properties and the two outbuildings, referred to in the current planning application, were the last remaining.

·         The proposed site was within an agricultural footprint and recent additions, such as a wall, provided a degree of privacy.

·         The proposed development would enhance the appearance of the area and turn the current eye-sore into a purposeful building.

·         This type of application had been a topic of conversation many times within the hamlet area - there had been numerous requests to convert outbuildings into a dwellinghouse.

In response to questions asked by Members, Mr Wright advised that the nature reserve was a very popular place to walk but the section of road alongside the application site was rarely used and was quite dangerous to walk. Therefore, the footpath was not heavily used and views into the proposed development would be limited.

Mr Hatton in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         He had owned Larch House for over thirty years and he appreciated that the current application was not necessarily straight forward but he intended to explain the reasons for his application.

·         He had lived in the area for many years and fully intended on staying for years to come. The proposed dwellinghouse would provide a more modest and manageable space to live in.

·         The development would enhance the immediate area with minimal impact on neighbouring properties and amenities.

·         The application had not received any letters of objection and he fought hard to get the application to be considered by the Committee.

·         He owned the development site which offered limited benefits in its current state. He empathised that he wanted a more modest home in the same area so the proposal in front of Members appeared to make perfect sense.

Mrs Cohen in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         The surrounding area had been introduced progressively over time and not all hedge lines/ walls were in place originally.

·         The barn had not practical use and the proposal sought to enhance the area and its use.

·         Fundamentally, the proposal hadn’t drawn any objections

·         Local properties had undergone various extensions.

Councillor Alan Law highlighted that the current planning policy stated that developments, such as this, were not permitted due to concerns that they could set a precedent. Councillor Law noted that the policy allowed exception cases and asked whether they considered that their proposal was an exception to policy. Mrs Cohen stated that the application could be considered an exception because it was set within an area where similar developments had taken place already. She stated that the two outbuildings in the application were the only remaining farm buildings within the hamlet and so there would not be any future pressure to develop in this way. .

Councillor Tim Metcalfe stated that other developments in the area had been conversions of an existing farm building but the current proposal was to remove the farm building altogether and replace with a dwellinghouse. Mrs Cohen advised that there had also been a series of extensions in the area.

Councillor Graham Bridgman noted that on page 61, point 7.2, it referred to the dwellings situated within Hose Hill Farm and asked how they compared to the proposed plans in terms of scope and size. Members heard that the current proposal tried to emulate the style and size of nearby properties and that those within Hose Hill Farm were approximately 1.5 storeys tall.

In response to a question asked, Mrs Cohen confirmed that the application did not entail Tree Protection Orders.

Councillor Ian Morrin, speaking as Ward Member, in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         He reflected on the reasons for the application being put forward by Mr Wright and noted that there were no known objectors.

·         The application could be considered an exceptional case for development based on its location in a unique site – part of a settlement/ hamlet.

·         Mr Wright had lived in the area for over thirty years and the application site served a limited purpose in its current state. This was a pragmatic approach which enabled longstanding residents to remain in the area.

·         Redevelopment of the site would deter vandalism which had been a problem in/ around disused barns.

Councillor Webster asked if he knew what the value of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) contribution would be if the development was approved. Councillor Morrin stated that he was not completely certain but it could be a significant contribution towards local amenities.

Councillor Bridgman asked whether a planning application would be required if the applicant repositioned the existing structure. David Pearson stated that he was not prepared to provide an answer on the basis that he preferred to check against legislation and case law before he could provide a definitive response. Following this, Councillor Pamela Bale asked what the policy would be if the applicant proposed to redevelop the existing barn. David Pearson advised that conversions in a rural setting would need to be assessed, according to the Development Planning Document (DPD). However, it should be noted that the original property must be considered structurally sound in order that it can be ‘converted’.

Councillor Law highlighted that the application was against planning policy and reminded the Committee that Full Council had voted in favour of the recent changes to the Housing Sites Allocation DPD (HSADPD) policies which stated that applications, such as that in front of the Committee this evening, should be permitted by exception only. He asked Members to consider whether the current application could be considered an exception.

Councillor Law stated that the current application was not acceptable and proposed acceptance of the Officer’s recommendation to refuse planning permission. The proposal was seconded by Councillor Crumly.

Councillor Webster asked whether planning officers had statistics relating to the number of ‘self –build’ properties in West Berkshire. David Pearson explained that he did not have the figures readily available but suggested that policies were not intended to be interpreted as it had been for self-build properties. Sharon Armour advised that CIL was not applicable if an applicant met the exemption criteria set out in the CIL regulations.

Councillor Keith Chopping stated that each application should be considered on its own merits and acknowledged Mr Wright’s reasons for supporting the application – notably that there were no local objections. Councillor Chopping stated that, in light of CS1 of the newly appointed HSADPD, the application could be considered an infill. Therefore, he supported the application. In response, David Pearson explained that infill policies clearly indicated that the current application would not fit the criteria.

Councillor Bridgman supported the comments made by Councillor Law. He recognised that the development would be welcomed in the area but noted, beyond this, that it contradicted local planning policy. 

Councillor Alan Macro also agreed with Councillor Law’s comments, that the application was against planning policy, and could not find a reason for approval. He did not believe that reasons surrounding CIL contribution should factor into considering reasons for approval.

Councillor Webster was in a quandary regarding heart felt reasons for approval versus refusal based on her knowledge of planning policy. She concluded that the application did not comply with policy and so, it was with a heavy heart, that she could not support the application.

Councillor Tim Metcalfe concurred with previous comments regarding suitability of the application against planning policy.

In considering the above application Members voted in favour of the proposal to accept the Officer’s recommendation for refusal.

RESOLVED that the Head of Development and Planning be authorised to refuse planning permission for the following reasons:

1.    Outline planning permission is sought for the redevelopment and change of use of the site to residential use to provide a single storey detached dwellinghouse on land adjacent to Larch House, Sulhamstead. The site is situated within open countryside outside of any defined settlement boundary. According to Core Strategy Policy CS1, new homes will be primarily developed on land within settlement boundaries and allocated sites, in accordance with the settlement hierarchy outlined in the Spatial Strategy and Area Delivery Plan Policies (Policies ADPP1 and ADPP6). According to Policy ADPP1, only appropriate limited development will be allowed in the open countryside. According to Policy ADPP6, development in the open countryside of the East Kennet Valley will be strictly controlled. Policy C1 of the House Site Allocations DPD (2006-2026) provides a presumption against new residential development outside the settlement boundaries, with a few prescribed exceptions.

The application site is located outside of any defined settlement boundary, and does not fall within any of the specified exceptions to the presumption against new residential development. Moreover, the site is in a remote, unsustainable location that would not facilitate sustainable travel to key services and facilities. The application is therefore contrary to the NPPF, Policies ADPP1, ADPP6, CS1 and CS13 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), and Policy C1 of the House Site Allocations DPD (2006-2026).

2. Core Strategy Policies CS14 and CS19 seek to ensure that new development demonstrates high quality and sustainable design that respects and enhances the character and appearance of the area, and should be appropriate in terms of location, scale, and design in the context of the existing settlement form, pattern and character. According to Policy C3 of the Housing Site Allocations DPD, the design of new housing in the countryside must have regard to the impact individually and collectively on the landscape character and its sensitivity to change.

The existing buildings are low key, utilitarian in character and inconspicuous. The proposed building represents a significant increase in built form on the site; it has a greater footprint, floor space, number of storeys, and height that the existing buildings. According to the illustrative elevations, despite a simple form, the building would have a residential character. The conversion of the existing paddock to create a substantial residential curtilage would also have an urbanising effect on the character and appearance of the area.

Overall, the replacement of the existing low key utilitarian buildings with a substantial residential dwelling and associated residential curtilage would have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the area. As such, the proposed development is contrary to the NPPF, Policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), Policy C3 of the Housing Site Allocations DPD (2006-2026), and the West Berkshire Quality Design SPD.