Agenda item

Proposal:	Change of Use from redundant Methodist Church to residential dwelling (Use Class C3). Proposals will retain the front elevation onto Inkpen Road unchanged, with the introduction of patio doors to the rear elevation in the location of the existing kitchen window. Internally, the works will involve the creation of a living, kitchen dining area, separate living room, 2no. bedrooms and bathroom.
Location:	Kintbury Methodist Church, Inkpen Road, Kintbury, Hungerford, RG17 9TU.
Applicant:	Mr Tim Cork.
Recommendation:	To DELEGATE to the Head of Development & Planning to REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION

 

1.      The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(4)) concerning Planning Application 21/01012/FUL in respect of Kintbury Methodist Church, Inkpen Road, Kintbury, Hungerford, RG17 9TU. Approval was sought for Change of Use from redundant Methodist Church to residential dwelling (Use Class C3). Proposals will retain the front elevation onto Inkpen Road unchanged, with the introduction of patio doors to the rear elevation in the location of the existing kitchen window. Internally, the works will involve the creation of a living, kitchen dining area, separate living room, 2no. bedrooms and bathroom.

2.      Mr Simon Till, Team Leader (Western Area Planning), introduced the report to Members, which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material planning considerations. In conclusion the report detailed that the proposal was unsatisfactory in planning terms and officers recommended that the Head of Development and Planning be authorised to refuse planning permission for the reasons listed in the main and update reports.

3.      The Chairman asked Mr Paul Goddard, Team Leader (Highways Development Control), if he had any observations relating to the application. Mr Goddard confirmed that he had no further comments beyond those made in Mr Till’s presentation.

4.      In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Tim Cork, applicant, addressed the Committee on this application.

Applicant Representation

5.      Mr Cork, in addressing the Committee, raised the following points:

·       The Officer’s report contained inaccuracies which he had previously highlighted, but which had not corrected in the report.

·       His son and his son’s partner, who had lived in the area all her life, intended to make the building their home.

·       They were very enthusiastic about saving the building by creating a home in the village.

·       Planning policy P1 was aimed at ‘new development’ and did not cater for a Change of Use application for an existing building.

·       The Committee report argued that under policy P1 the proposal required two parking spaces, which could only be found on the street. This was not entirely accurate and missed the important point that it did not adequately explain the context.

·       By granting approval to the application, the current D1 Use Class which the building currently enjoyed would be extinguished forever. This currently permitted the building to be used as a place of worship, a teaching establishment, a crèche, day nursery and clinic amongst other uses. All of these uses would have significantly greater car parking and associated traffic movements than the two car parking spaces needed by the change of use to a residential dwelling. The application would result in a net reduction in the current parking demand, not an increase.

·       As part of the application, a parking survey was undertaken in Inkpen Road, Church Road, Station Road and High Street. These areas were visited and photographed at various times of the day, including 10.30pm, during the week and weekend. Photographic evidence showed that at all times visited, two car parking spaces were available within a short walk of the site.

·       In terms of amenity space, the Committee report stated that under the SPG the building should have 70sqm for a two bedroom house. Mr Cork suggested this policy should only related to new development and was not appropriate for a Change of Use.

·       The proposal had just under 30sqm amenity space and not 15sqm as stated in the report.

·       To the rear, the orientation enjoyed really good sunshine and a high level of privacy and the area would provide for a garden shed, outdoor seating and eating area, a bench and plenty of planting. This level of provision would be considered generous for a flat.

·       There would be no loss to privacy, as the proposal retained the existing obscured glazed windows to the side looking into the garden.

·       The roof lights would be placed higher up the roof pitch to avoid any overlooking.

·       One of the most environmentally sustainable approaches to creating a new home was to refurbish an existing building. This was an existing building so carbon generated in the manufacture of the building materials and construction of the building had already taken place. Therefore there was a large element of embedded carbon already in the existing building. This meant that the harmful greenhouse gases in the refurbishment process would be significantly lower than for a new build alternative.

·       Modern standards of insulation would be sought for the roof and external walls and high performance windows, roof lights and doors would be installed to significantly improve the thermal insulation of the property.

·       The intention was to remove the existing oil-fired boiler and tank. An ultra-high efficiency electric boiler system was being investigated which performed at 99.8% efficiency and would be linked to a green energy tariff.

·       These installations would be intended to give the building a new lease of life as a modest home performing to high sustainability standards.

·       By granting approval to this application the current vacant building would become a home for a young couple with strong, local links. The future of the building, which was in a state of disrepair, would be saved, and as a home would be loved again to be maintained now and into the future.

·       The proposal represented an excellent opportunity to create a new home in the centre of the Village which, as a refurbishment, would have excellent ecological credentials.

·       Removal if the D1 Use classification of the existing building would result in the permanent decrease in real terms of the parking and traffic demands that the building currently generated. Approval of the application would be the right thing for the building and the village.

Member Questions to the Applicant/Agent

6.      In relation to the removal of D1 Use classification, Councillor Garth Simpson asked how long the building had not been in use. Mr. Cork indicated that it had been approximately 2 years and that towards the end of its use as a church, the congregation reduced to only 6 people, which had led to the building becoming vacant.

7.      Councillor Howard Woollaston asked what errors had been made in the Planning report. The Chairman requested this was not answered as Mr Cork had referred to the inaccuracies before his allotted representation time.

Ward Member Representation

8.      Councillor James Cole in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·       The application had been called in on the basis that the parking question had not been adequately dealt with. It had not been called in against any re-use of the building.

·       Most of the objections related to parking and the Ward Members had met with the Applicant outside of the building. Following this meeting, they had agreed that the call in should become one that was irrespective of Officer’s decision, so the decision could be made in public.

·       It was also a matter of policy. The Planning Officer objected to the amenity space which, whilst a bit more than originally thought, was still small. If the proposal were for a two or three bedroom flat, there would be less concern around amenity space. He accepted that it could not be enlarged without knocking part of the building down. The Policy was ‘one-size fits all’ and did not fit in the particular circumstances of this building.

·       From the point of view of parking, there were photographs on the website and the site visit demonstrated the parking situation, which was why he had attempted to get a parking scheme for Kintbury in previous years and may have to try again.

·       The Council could hope that some other non-residential use could be found, but as the Applicant had already indicated, if the building became bookable for small meetings, it would revert to its old usage. It did vary from nothing to many cars parking whenever the incumbents had a coffee morning to raise funds.

·       The parking issue as seen at the site visit could become an everyday issue so contrary to objectors’ concerns, the option of change to residential use may actually be better. As Heritage Champ, he had to consider the heritage aspect and felt that what was proposed was a sympathetic conversion that did not harm the Conservation Area whereas harm would be done if the building was allowed to rot.

·       The proposal appeared to be very sustainable – taking the existing building, insulate it to make it acceptable in heating plans without using masses of new concrete, brick and stone and heat it with electricity. There was not really the space for air or ground source heating but the building would be one where, later in its life, solar slates could make sense. The impression from the Planning Officer had been that policy issues were borderline and he felt the Committee should make a practical decision.

9.      Councillor Rowles in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·       She agreed with the points made by Councillor James Cole.

·       She considered it right that it came to committee and welcomed the Committee's views on the current D1 usage versus residential usage.

·       She also urged Members to ask Officers about the discrepancies in the planning report to which the Applicant had referred.

Member Questions to the Ward Member

10.   Councillor Carolyne Culver asked whether there was any potential for the building to be used by the community. Councillor James Cole indicated that the building had been derelict for two years and the community was already well served by other buildings in terms of providing space for meetings and activities. The Coronation Hall was quite large and there was another building nearby which also provided community space as well as Kintbury Church which had a parish hall. As such, the vendor had not found a buyer for the building for such a purpose, and whilst that might change in the future if the building reverted to community use it was likely to be at least in part commercial, which would mean extra traffic. Councillor James Cole had advised the Applicant that if a parking scheme was introduced he could expect there to be double yellow lines outside of the building, but the Applicant had not been deterred by this.

11.   Councillor Adrian Abbs questioned whether when the building had been in use as a Church, the associated parking problems been confined to a Sunday? He suggested that residential issues would be confined to evenings. Councillor Rowles indicated that residential properties may have deliveries. Regarding the existing use, she gave the example of Kintbury Church, which was active on all days of the week, with coffee mornings and other community activities outside of Sunday services. She indicated that this building could revert to a place of worship or it could potentially become more commercial, and attract more cars and traffic.

12.   Councillor Abbs suggested that if the application were approved, there would be some certainty around traffic and parking issues, but outcomes were less certain if it were refused. He asked if the Ward Members supported the application. Councillor Rowles acknowledged that it was a difficult decision due to the parking issues in the area and she welcomed the views of the Committee. Councillor James Cole indicated that he had called in the application on the basis of parking. A parking scheme had been developed previously, which would have banned parking outside the property. He stated that the Parish Council has supported it and then had withdrawn their support.

Member Questions to Officers

13.   Councillor Culver referred to point 2.1 of the report which referred to a previous planning application, and asked what the date for this application was. Mr Till was unable to provide the date, but Mr Cork was able to confirm that it was from 1994.

14.   Councillor Simpson asked what approved new builds applications for Kintbury were outstanding, and also what the target that Kintbury had in the Forward LRP. The Chairman did not think this was a relevant question as this application only referred to a single dwelling.

15.   Councillor Woollaston asked Officers to indicate where the inaccuracies in the report were. Mr Till replied that, he was not clear from his correspondence with Mr Cork and the Planning file what these inaccuracies were. From the outcome of the Committee site visit, Mr Till thought Mr Cork may be referring to the fact that he did not accept that the study bedroom should be considered as a third bedroom, which Officers would dispute because the plans indicated the room met the minimum size requirement for a bedroom. In addition, there was a concern that the Officer’s measurement of the rear garden and space may be incorrect and he confirmed that it was approximately 30sqm and not 15sqm as stated in the Case Officer’s report, albeit 30sqm was still far below the recommended standard of 75sqm for a two bedroom house. Also, the Applicant felt that Officers had not correctly represented his plans for sustainable energy and fuel efficiency for the site. Mr Cork had submitted a sustainable energy statement, but this was too late for consideration by Officers or Members. However, if Members were minded to approve the application and wanted some form of commitment from the Applicant of sustainable energy solutions, there was always the option of applying a condition.

16.   Councillor Lynne Doherty sought clarification on Officers’ highway safety concerns. Mr Goddard stated that the objection was on the basis that the proposal did not comply with the Council’s parking standards and the Housing Site Allocations DPD for a 3 bedroom dwelling, which required 3 parking spaces. There was no objection on traffic grounds as, over the course of a week, a single dwelling would generate much less traffic during the day than a Church or similar uses. The concern was parking during the evening when other residents would also be at home and this additional parking would cause additional congestion on the streets in the centre of Kintbury, particularly Inkpen Road. This would lead to a safety issue by making the streets narrower, with one-way working in many instances and increased congestion. As evidenced by the letters of objection, residents believed there to be an issue with parking in the area and the Kintbury Parish Council had also raised an objection. Mr Goddard therefore advised Members to support Officer’s recommendation, and the Highways’ reason, for refusal.

17.   Councillor Abbs asked, if members were minded to approve the application, what impact would this have on policy and could this decision be referenced by other potential Applicants to leverage approval? Mr Till stated that this proposal was unique in that there were public benefits potentially to retaining the building to be evaluated against the failure to comply with parking policy. He indicated that members may choose to give a different weighting to those public benefits in terms of retaining the Methodist Church building within the Conservation Area in a viable use and that weighting may be considered to overwhelm the concerns in respect of parking policy. As such, Mr Till confirmed that Officers would not be concerned that the circumstances as such could be generally replicated across the District eroding the policy.

Debate

18.   Councillor Hilary Cole opened the debate. She suggested that the two issues were amenity space and parking. In respect of amenity space, commercial buildings that were converted to dwellings under permitted development rights had little or no amenity space, so the fact there was a limited amount at the site was, in her view, probably acceptable. With regard to parking, she indicated that there were many houses in Kintbury without any parking and the situation had to be accepted as it was. Whilst accepting Mr Goddard’s comments about parking standards, she felt this referred more to new build rather than conversions. Councillor Cole considered the proposals to be a nice use of a redundant building and that whatever the use of the building, there would be a parking problem. On this basis, she would be content to go against Officer’s recommendations in this instance.

19.   Councillor Jeff Cant supported Councillor Hilary Cole’s comments. In other places, he had seen attractive buildings left to deteriorate over long periods of time due to indecision about allowing other uses. He felt the proposal was an ideal opportunity to preserve the building and was satisfied with the parking issues that had been raised, as well as the amenity issue, and saw no reason not to grant consent.

20.   Councillor Phil Barnett indicated that he supported the general theme of bringing back into use old buildings such as churches into residential use. His concern was the traffic issue which he had experienced himself when he had arrived on site in Inkpen Road. Members had been able to go to the next door neighbour’s garden to see how close to the back door this building was, and what the effect may be on their quality of life. He asked what sort of insulation would be used in the alteration to the building to mitigate the impact on this neighbour. Not only was there a window which would be obscured, but the neighbour made it clear that when services were held, they could easily hear what was being said in the sermon and the singing. For these reasons, he was inclined to agree with Officer’s recommendation to refuse planning permission.

21.   Councillor Woollaston noted that the building was a non-designated heritage asset, but he could not foresee any use other than residential and felt that the alternative would be to see it fall into disrepair, which he considered to be unacceptable.

22.   Councillor Hilary Cole proposed that Members went against Officer’s recommendation and recommended acceptance of the application. This was seconded by Councillor Woollaston.

23.   The Chairman asked for reasons and conditions.

24.   Following suggestions by various Members, Mr Till confirmed the conditions and reasons for refusal as set out below.

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

Conditions:

1.    The development hereby permitted shall begin no later than three years from the date of this decision.

Reason:   To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004). The development must be in accordance with the approved drawings;

2.    The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the following drawings:

2021/100/001, 2021/100/002, 2021/100/009, 2021/100/010, 2021/100/012, 2021/100/007A, 2021/100/008

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

The external materials used in the exterior of the building hereby approved shall match those used in the existing building.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity in accordance with Policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Local Plan Core Strategy 2012 and the NPPF. No development shall take place until a Construction Method Statement (CMS) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  Thereafter the demolition and construction works shall incorporate and be undertaken in accordance with the approved CMS.  The CMS shall include measures for:

a)    A site set-up plan during the works;

b)    Parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors;

c)    Loading and unloading of plant and materials;

d)    Storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development;

e)    Erection and maintenance of security hoarding

f)      A scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition and construction works;

g)    Hours of construction and demolition work;

h)    Hours of deliveries and preferred haulage routes.

 

Reason: To safeguard the amenity of adjoining land uses and occupiers, and in the interests of highway safety.  This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies CS13 and CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026, and Policies OVS.5, OVS.6 and TRANS.1 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007).  A pre-commencement condition is required because the CMS must be adhered to during all demolition and construction operations.

3.    The dwelling hereby approved shall not be occupied until a sustainable energy statement has been submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority under a formal discharge of conditions application. The statement shall set out the improvements to energy provision and construction that are to be made to the building in order to improve its energy sustainability credentials including a schedule for implementation of those measures. The approved sustainable energy measures shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved schedule.

Reason: In order to seek the improvement of the sustainability credentials of the building in the interests of addressing climate change and improving quality of life in West Berkshire in accordance with the objectives of the NPPF and Policies CS14 and CS15 of the West Berkshire Local Plan Core Strategy 2012. Irrespective of the provisions of the Town and Country (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 or any subsequent version thereof no additional windows shall be installed on the southern elevation or roof of the dwelling hereby approved without planning permission having first been granted on an application made for this purpose. Any new or existing roof lights in the dwelling hereby approved shall be obscure glazed and non-opening except where more than 1.7 metres above the floor level of the room which they serve. The dwelling shall not be occupied until all windows in the ground floor southern elevation have been obscure glazed, and these windows and any replacements shall remain obscure glazed thereafter.

Reason: In the interests of neighbouring amenity in accordance with the NPPF and Policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Local Plan Core Strategy 2012. The dwelling hereby approved shall not be occupied until a report confirming that the building complies with Part E1 of the Building Regulations (Protection against sound from other parts of the building and adjoining buildings) has been submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority under a formal discharge of conditions application.

Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the future occupant and neighbouring occupant. This condition is applied in accordance with the objectives of the NPPF and Policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Local Plan Core Strategy 2012.

4.    Irrespective of the provisions of the Town and Country (General Permitted Development) Order 2015, or any subsequent version thereof, no extensions or outbuildings shall be erected or additions or alterations to the roof of the dwelling hereby approved shall be made without planning permission having been granted on a planning application made for this purpose.

Reason: In the interests of amenity of the occupant and to prevent the overdevelopment of the site in accordance with the NPPF and Policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Local Plan Core Strategy 2012.

Reasons:

The benefits of retaining the heritage asset weighed favourably against potential concerns regarding highway safety and amenity.

The fact that Kintbury was well-served by rail as an alternative means of sustainable transport.