Agenda item

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding an application for part demolition and conversion of agricultural buildings to a single dwelling house.

·   

The report of the Chief Planning Officer presented an application for part demolition and conversion of agricultural buildings to a single dwelling house at Woodlands Farm, Woodlands Drive, Rawdon.

Members visited the site prior to the meeting and site plans and photographs were displayed and referred to throughout the discussion of the application.

Further issues highlighted in relation to the application included the following:

·  The application had been referred to Panel at the request of local Ward Councillors.

·  It was proposed to demolish extensions to the existing building and this area and other hard standing to the rear would form part of the garden area.

·  Members were shown a CGI image of the proposed conversion.  The main form of the building would be retained with new render and timber cladding.

·  The site is accessed by a private drive off Woodlands Drive.

·  The site is in the greenbelt and has been assessed on the basis it was an exception to inappropriate development; the re-use of the building which is of permanent and substantial construction; it preserved the openness of the greenbelt and does not conflict with the five purposes of the greenbelt.  It was concluded that both these tests had been met.

·  The site was in the Rawdon and Cragwood Conservation Area.  Although the materials to be used were not typical of the surrounding areas, this was an existing building and the proposals would enhance what was already there. 

·  Visibility from the drive was restricted to the right but traffic speeds on Woodlands Drive were slow due to speed restrictions. Under the previous use as a piggery there were frequent vehicle movements and it was not felt that there would be any detriment to highway safety.

·  There had been investigations to see if the access could be widened or modified but this had not proved possible due to trees. 

·  Representations received and concerns that not all issues posted on the planning portal were detailed in the report.

·  It was felt that the proposals would enhance and preserve the conservation area and the application was recommended for approval.

Local residents addressed the Panel with concerns and objections to the application.  These included the following:

·  There had been many local objections including objections from Rawdon Parish Council.

·  No local residents were supporting this application.

·  Local residents’ had consulted a barrister who recommended that the application be refused.

·  The report was deficient with regard to effects on the conservation area and no conservation assessment had been sought.

·  The significance of local heritage assets that were affected had not been considered.

·  Highways advice had changed shortly before the meeting.

·  A comparable conversion had been refused by the North and East Plans Panel.

·  The concept of openness had been disregarded

·  An independent engineers report had been disregarded

·  No consideration of highways safety during the construction phase.

·  The existing buildings are believed to be temporary buildings

·  Previous planning permission had conditions that the site remained for agricultural development.

·  The applicant had previously breached planning regulations which included the conversion of garages into a flat, felling of protected trees and the installation of a container to be used as a workshop.  This led to concern that conditions to the application would not be met.

·  Concern that residents had not had opportunity to participate in discussions regarding the application and that their voices had been ignored.

The applicant’s representative addressed the Panel.  The following was highlighted:

·  The applicant had worked closely with planning officers to develop the proposals.

·  There had been the following three main planning issues to consider:

o  Principle – impact on the greenbelt – the NPPF shows that developments such as this for the conversion of a permanent and sustainable building in the greenbelt are acceptable.  Building control officers had visited the site and concluded that the building was of a permanent structure and suitable for conversion

o  Design – this was an existing building which would be improved in a contemporary style.  Replacement with a more traditional style would be out of character.  The existing building was recognised within the character of the conservation area.

o  Access/Highways – There had been initial concerns expressed by Highways but no suitable alternative solution has been found.  On balance, access was considered to be suitable as it would not be used more intensively than in previous or existing uses of the site.

·  With regard to objections that had been received, concerns regarding the suitability of the building for conversion had been addressed.  Due to the demolition of the existing extensions there would be a smaller visual impact and no impact on the openness of the greenbelt. 

·  The proposal was for a good quality conversion that was compliant with policy and the NPPF.

·  In response to questions, the following was discussed:

o  Materials – A lightweight sheet roof would replace the existing corrugated roof.  There would be some additional rendering to the building.

o  Environmental improvements – there would be a requirement for a minimum of 10% renewable energy and hard standing areas would be converted to garden or grassed areas.

o  Views would be improved due to the smaller size of the building.

o  The proposed design was felt to be the correct approach.  To have replicated the Victorian style found elsewhere in the area would have appeared out of character.

o  The goose pen would be for the use of the occupiers of the property.

o  Building Control officers had considered the structural integrity of the building to be suitable for conversion.

o  There were constraints in what the applicant had been allowed to develop on site and an application for complete demolition and rebuilding was likely to have been refused.

In response to comments and questions from the Panel, the following was discussed:

·  The proposals were for a conversion so there was no requirement for demonstrating special circumstances for development in the greenbelt.

·  Samples of materials would be submitted prior to works commencing.

·  The application had been discussed with conservation officers who concurred with the conclusion that this application would enhance the conservation area.

·  The application referred to by objectors, that had been considered at North and East Plans Panel differed as that included extensions to a property.

·  Highways had initially advised on visibility levels from the access to the site.  These were based on a 30 miles per hour road.  Alternative access solutions had been investigated but it had not been possible to find an alternative.  On balance it was felt that the existing access was acceptable as it already generated a degree of traffic and would do if the site was used as a smallholding.

·  Concern that less radical applications within the greenbelt had been refused.

·  With regard to development in the green belt, the application was for re-use and did preserve the openness of the green belt.

·  The proposals did not appear to be substantially different to the existing building and removal of the extensions actually opened up the views.

·  Highways use could be more intensive if the site was still used as a pig farm.

·  The current building and materials were not of any quality.

RESOLVED – That the application be approved in accordance with the officer recommendation and conditions outlined in the report.