Agenda item

1.       The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 23/02603/FUL in respect of Internal and external alterations to allow change of use of listed barn to dwelling, including erection of vehicular access, gate, car port and diversion of the definitive footpath.

2.       Alice Attwood (Senior Planning Officer) 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 acceptable in planning terms and officers recommended that the Head of Planning and Development be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the conditions outlined in the main and update reports.

3.       Mr Gareth Dowding confirmed that he had no further comments in relation to Highways Matters.

4.       In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr David Southgate, Parish Council representative, Russel Meadows and Christine Dunn, objectors, Kate Russell, supporter, Richard Beasley and Lisa Jackson, applicant/agent and Councillor Chris Read, Ward Member, addressed the Committee on this application.

Parish Council Representation

·       Mr Southgate addressed the Committee (Bucklebury Parish Council). This representation can be viewed on the recording: Eastern Area Planning Committee - 10th July 2024 (YouTube Link)

Member Questions to the Parish/Town Council

5.       Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Objector Representation

6.       Mr Russel Meadows and Ms Christine Dunn addressed the Committee. This representation can be viewed on the recording: Eastern Area Planning Committee - 10th July 2024 (YouTube Link)

Member Questions to the Objector

7.       Members asked questions of clarification and were given the following responses:

·       Mr Meadows confirmed that his property (Owl House, Hawkridge Farm) owned its own septic tank on the other side of Chapel Lane. Hawkridge Farm were also able to use this septic tank under a covenant. It was confirmed that the septic tank would not be available for use by the proposed barn conversion and would not be capable of coping with the extra four bedrooms.

·       The septic tank owned by the Owl House at Hawkridge Farm was emptied every few years. The proposal would require a sealed cesspool because it would not have access to a septic tank and did not have the grounds available to accommodate one.

·       Mr Meadows confirmed that the figures he had provided on cesspool capacity were based on the guidelines that one person equated to 150 litres per day and he further clarified how he had calculated the figures provided as part of his representation, relating to how often the cesspool would need to be emptied.

·       The pond was fed into by water drainage from all the rooves and guttering of dwellings within Hawkridge Farm. The pond was the lowest point in the area and was therefore also fed into by water drainage from the road. The pond flooded each year during the winter and Mr Meadows had included pictures of this with his objection.

Supporter Representation

8.       Ms Kate Russell addressed the Committee. This representation can be viewed on the recording: Eastern Area Planning Committee - 10th July 2024 (YouTube Link)

Member Questions to the Supporter

9.       Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Applicant/Agent Representation

10.   Mr Beasley (Applicant) and Ms Jackson (Agent) addressed the Committee. This representation can be viewed on the recording: Eastern Area Planning Committee - 10th July 2024 (YouTube Link)

Member Questions to the Applicant/Agent

11.   Members asked questions of clarification and the following responses were given:

·       Ms Jackson was unable to clarify the heights of the bedrooms as the architect had drawn the plans. It was hoped that Officers would be able to clarify this point.

·       In terms of the impact of light from the proposed dwelling on inhabitants in the close surrounding area, Ms Jackson reported that Officers had clearly considered this and felt that a planning condition would deal with external lighting issues. It was noted that internal lighting was a concern and Ms Jackson reminded members of the site visit and the existing large opening to the north of the barn. The barn also had high bay florescent lights that could be used at night and significantly in the winter. Mr Jackson suggested that domestic lighting would be much more sympathetic and curtains were often used. Ms Jackson did not agree that harm from the dwelling would be greater but felt it would improve the situation.

·       Regarding the Conservation Officers comments concerning the impact of the obscured glazing and if an alternative had been considered, Ms Jackson acknowledged there was tension on this point. The front to front distance was within the standard required and obscured glazing had likely been suggested due to the strength of objection. The views were oblique and not direct due to the considerable distance of 12.5 metres. Obscured glazing did not need to be used if it was not felt to be necessary but it was likely Officer’s would advise that it was.

·       Regarding the tiles and whether they would all be reused, Ms Jackson confirmed that not all the tiles were original as the building was only listed in 1983. Tiles would be reused where possible. Most of the tiles were nailed and many of the rafters had been replaced.

·       The barn had a gutter leading to down pipes and this would not change as part of the new proposal.

Ward Member Representation

12.   Councillor Chris Read addressed the Committee. This representation can be viewed on the recording: Eastern Area Planning Committee - 10th July 2024 (YouTube Link)

Member Questions to the Ward Member

13.   Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Member Questions to Officers

14.   Members asked questions of clarification and were given the following responses:

·       In response to a question on the impact of internal and external lighting from the proposal, it was confirmed that the barn was currently in domestic use and had large opening, which caused light spill. Although plans had not been submitted comparing current lighting to the proposal there was a condition proposed ensuring a lighting scheme that was sensitive to biodiversity. The ecologist had been satisfied with the condition and did not believe that there would be any harm caused to protected species from light spill. 

·       It was confirmed that the barns current use was ancillary residential, which involved lighting intermittently. The Ward Member had referred to a possible future agricultural use of the barn and although Officers felt this was unlikely given the location and lack of viable farm land, if it were to be put to agricultural use (which would not require planning permission) then there could be a significant level of lighting with no way to control this, which could result in a large amount of light overspill.  Compared to the level of lighting associated with agricultural use, a residential use in the Officer’s view would result in considerably less light overspill, particularly with the conditions recommended. Members were reminded that it was also important to consider reasonableness when putting conditions place. Members were strongly to advised to consider residential use in comparison to a more intensified agricultural use. Members were also reminded that the recommendation was on balance where Officers were minded to support the ongoing viable use of the building and accept some undue impact. This was deemed favourable compared to the building falling into a state of disrepair. (Councillor Jeremy Cottam disagreed that there would be increased light spillage with agricultural use as there would likely be motion detectors. He highlighted that they were supposed to enhance the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and looking after dark skies)

·       The building was a listed building and therefore any additional light fixtures would require listed building consent. Members attention was drawn to condition 16, which dealt with a lighting strategy and external lighting within the AONB. This meant that the applicant would have to submit a lighting strategy in line with guidance and therefore dark skies would be protected by this condition.  

·       Condition 16 did not apply to internal lighting however, it had to be considered that there was existing internal lighting and by granting permission there would be more control over the existing lighting situation. Internal lighting of building could not be controlled.

Debate

15.   Councillor Richard Somner understood the concerns and also the desire to develop. Lighting seemed to be the primary issue however, questioned if it was. He commented that there were 21 conditions, which for a single dwelling was considerable and showed the level of concern by Officers in ensuring that development was conducted in the right way.  Councillor Somner stated that he was concerned about the size of the lane however, it was a rural area and if it the site was a working farm there would be sizable vehicles using it. Councillor Somner wished to listen to the views of other Members.

16.   Councillor Geoff Mayes stated that he had looked in detail at the drawings and was impressed with the architectural changes. He raised concerned about the use of cork for the insultation and suspected that the barn would lose many of its existing tiles. Generally, he was in favour of the proposed building however was concerned about effluent removal and drainage aspects. He was concerned about the level of the pond and flooding of the subterranean car park.

17.   Councillor Clive Taylor stated that like Councillor Somner and Mayes he also had mixed feelings about the proposal. He noted that there were more people in support of the application than objecting to it. Councillor Taylor was minded to support the application on balance. He noted concerns about glazed windows and the amount of visits required to empty water tanks however, is inclination was towards supporting the Officer recommendation.

18.   Councillor Cottam stated that he was leaning towards rejecting the application. He was concerned about the impact of light pollution on surroundings. He felt it was a red herring to say that agricultural use would generate more lighting than that proposed. In his view, having visited many farms where motion detectors were used, this would not be the case. He queried if back lighting could be used within the bedrooms or if this would be unreasonable. If this could not be implemented or controlled then he did not feel planning permission should be granted due to the importance of the dark skies policy within the AONB. Councillor Cottam was also concerned about the sunken car port and this becoming flooded given increased rainfall, which he felt was unlikely to improve. He acknowledged on balance that there were positive elements to the application and he admired the architecture however, due to the concerns he had raised he would not be able to support the application.

19.   Councillor Justin Pemberton acknowledged that the Committee was having to balance the competing priorities in deciding where its judgment should land. He felt the lighting issue was red herring and based on what he had heard could be controlled by planning conditions. He was aware that the area was already an established residential area to a point and there were already dwellings nearby. In his view Members needed to balance the risks associated with creating a new dwelling at the location with the existing structure falling into disrepair, if planning permission was refused. The long term viability of the area needed to be considered and what it was being used for currently. Councillor Pemberton felt that the application should be commended when there were not enough homes in the country although he appreciated the argument around affordable homes. He had listed to concerns, which he felt were valid however, he did not feel these were enough for him to object to the proposal and on balance he felt it should be supported.

20.   Mr Till referred to points raised regarding internal lighting and advised that there would be a justified case for a condition on grounds of severe concerns on lighting overspill. If minded to approve the application, the condition would require detail of internal lighting to be provided and approved prior to occupation of the proposed dwelling.

21.   Councillor Somner referred to comments about lighting and agricultural use. His understanding was that if the site was under agricultural use there would be no control over lighting whereas the proposal included two conditions on lighting with a potential of a third condition. Councillor Somner noted that the main reason raised for possible refusal of the application was associated with the lighting however, felt that with the conditions discussed there would be better control. On this basis Councillor Somner proposed with the proposed conditions and additional condition on lighting, that the Officer’s recommendation to grant planning permission be approved.  This was seconded by Councillor Pemberton.

22.   The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Somner seconded by Councillor Pemberton to grant planning permission. At the vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that the Service Director for Development and Regulation be authorised to grant refuse planning permission subject to the conditions in the report and update sheet and additional condition as follows:

Internal lighting condition

The approved dwelling shall not be occupied until a scheme for internal lighting to minimise lighting overspill, including details of lighting types and specifications to be used, and details of levels of overspill, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the internal lighting for the dwelling shall be implemented and retained in accordance with the approved scheme. No other internal lighting shall be installed except for in accordance with the scheme.

Reason: The site is located in a tranquil location of the North Wessex Downs National Landscape. This condition is imposed in order to preserve the character and dark night skies of this part of the National Landscape in accordance with Policies CS14 and CS19 and the NPPF, and the North Wessex Downs National Landscape Board's guidance on Dark Night Skies.