Agenda item

(Councillor Hilary Cole declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that she was a member of Chieveley Parish Council but had not been present when the planning application was discussed. As her interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, she determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.)

1.          The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 19/02092/FULD in respect of the conversation of an agricultural barn into one x four bedroom dwelling with associated parking, turning, landscaping, private amenity space and access arrangements.

2.          In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Charles Williams, supporter, Jacqueline Percy, applicant, Mark Pettitt, applicant and Councillor Hilary Cole addressed the Committee on this application.

3.          Derek Carnegie introduced the report to Members, which had been called in by the local Ward Member.  The report took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material considerations and in conclusion it detailed that the proposal was acceptable and a conditional approval was justifiable.  Paul Goddard also confirmed that as the existing access would remain unchanged, the proposal was acceptable from a highways perspective. 

4.          Charles Williams in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·     He was one of the nearest neighbours to the application and was supportive of it.

·     He lived approximately 300 yards away from the application site and currently looked at the side of an industrial building so it would provide a more pleasant outlook and improve the view across the fields.

·     It was a remote location so the introduction of another house would further add to the social positives and he hoped planning permission would be granted.

5.          Jacqueline Percy and Mark Pettitt in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·     Mr Pettitt said the development involved the sympathetic conversion of a barn that had been on the site since the 1990s.

·     Policy C4 did not include the conversion of this type of building and the Government had introduced a policy in 2014 permitting such a conversion without planning permission.

·     It would bring a redundant barn back into use and met all the requirements of Policy C4.

·     The applicant was intending to live in the converted barn and he requested that planning permission was granted.

·     Mrs Percy said she was committed to making the conversation as sympathetic as possible and as environmentally sustainable as possible too.  In addition, it would improve the area.

6.          Councillor Claire Rowles enquired what would take the place of the demolished grain store and Mr Pettitt replied that it would form part of the garden.

7.          Councillor Hilary Cole in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·     It was an interesting application and she had called it in to test Policies C1 and C4.

·     These policies stated planning permission should be refused where a proposal would have a detrimental effect on the relationship of the existing settlement within the open countryside and the rural character of the site.

·     She wanted to draw the Members’ attention to the supporting text in these policies and particularly points 4.30 and 4.33 in Policy C4, which stated that not all buildings were suitable for conversion.

·     She therefore thought Members should consider the building itself and also look at other possible interpretations of the Council’s policies, as it was a modern steel-framed barn with one side completely open.

·     Consequently, she contended that that the building was not suitable for conversion, in view of the major works entailed and the large number of windows proposed.

·     Removal of the mature trees on the south elevation would expose the building, which until now had been hidden from view across the open landscape to the south.

·     It would have a detrimental impact on the AONB and contravened the principles in policy C1.

·     However, if the application was approved she asked if a condition could be added stating that there would be no expansion of the southern boundary and curtilage into the adjoining agricultural land and requiring the submission of a landscaping plan.

·     She was also concerned that if the application was approved it would set a precedent for similar applications, which would be harmful if they were situated within the AONB.

8.          Councillor Rowles acknowledged that conversions usually related to old buildings but asked if policies C1 and C4 stated that they did not relate to modern buildings.  Councillor Cole confirmed that the policies did not state this, but the barn was currently screened by trees that would be removed.

9.          There were no questions from Members regarding clarification.

10.       In considering the above application Councillor Tony Vickers noted that the application would provide an enhancement to the social aspect, which he felt was an advantage and should be recognised as adding value to small settlements.  Consequently he felt that some weight should be put on this aspect of the application as it was missing in larger developments.  He was also concerned about the removal of the trees but noted that a landscape condition could be added to rectify.

11.       Councillor Rowles felt the application would enhance the appearance of the barn so she could not see a problem with removing some of the trees and she was in favour of not having a screen.

12.       Councillor Adrian Abbs considered that the application would not set a precedent and noted that when the screening was removed, the dwelling would look onto the A339.  Consequently he did not think the Committee should be overly concerned about it.

13.       Councillor Garth Simpson stated he was mindful of the social aspect and reluctantly felt the application should be approved but the landscaping should be revisited as he did not find it a very attractive building.

14.       Councillor Phil Barnett noted that the application site was situated in a hamlet and not in an isolated area in the AONB, so it was in an area with services and road networks and was quite acceptable.  He further added that he did not have a concern regarding the screening as following the removal of the trees it would be possible to see across the fields and there be a lovely view from the barn.  However he added that the original barn had been built in the 1990s and therefore might include asbestos, which he hoped would be disposed of appropriately.  Consequently he was happy to propose that the application was approved and this was seconded by Councillor Rowles.

15.       Councillor Cole confirmed that she was relaxed about the application but thought it was an interesting one and had brought it to Committee in order to test the Council’s policies.

16.       Councillor Clive Hooker considered that as one of the advantages of this location was the view, he asked if it would be feasible for the Committee to approve the application but deny it a view.

17.       Councillor Cole responded that she had no problem with the trees being removed but had just wanted to ensure that the curtilage did not creep into the agricultural land.

18.       Councillor Rowles thanked Councillor Cole for bringing the application to the Committee’s attention and said it was refreshing to receive one that included environmentally friendly measures.

19.       The Chairman invited the Committee to vote on the proposal of Councillor Barnett as seconded by Councillor Rowles to grant planning permission.  At the vote eight Members voted in favour of the application and Councillor Cole abstained.

RESOLVED that the Head of Development and Planning be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions:

Conditions

Informatives