7
The Committee considered report ES/1206 which related to planning application DC/22/0891/FUL. The application sought planning permission for the conversion of three redundant barns to one dwelling. The application was referred to the Committee by the referral panel in order that a detailed discussion and debate could take place.
The Committee received a presentation from the Planner, who was the case officer for the application. The site location was outlined, an aerial photograph was displayed, and photographs of the proposed buildings for conversion were viewed by the Committee. The Committee also viewed the existing and proposed elevations, layout and floorplans and the landscaping plan.
The Planner advised that the application was recommended for refusal due to non-compliance with Policy. The site was situated in the countryside outside of the boundary of any sustainable settlements. In the absence of conformity, the principle of residential development on the site was contrary to the Local Development Plan, including policies SCLP 3.1, SCLP 3.3, SCLP 5.3 and Policy SCLP 5.5 that dealt with the conversion of buildings in the countryside and which sought to allow limited development opportunities within areas that did not benefit from settlement boundaries. The proposal was not considered to comply with the requirements of Policy SCLP 5.5 as the principal criteria would not be satisfied: SCLP 5.5 (b) required that the building would provide a positive contribution to the landscape and (c) that the conversion would not require significant alteration to the building. The site was in an unsustainable location where access to everyday services and facilities would only be possible by car, contrary to Policy SCLP 7.1.
The Planner explained that case law in the form of the Hibbitt judgment explored the term ‘conversion’ and identified the extent of works that would go beyond what could ‘reasonably be described as being a conversion’. Officers were of the view that the works would be significant and would amount to the rebuilding of the structures. The Planner additionally explained that the proposal did not meet the criteria for conversion to residential use under Class Q of the General Permitted Development Order. The Planner cautioned that approval of such an application could allow other similarly unsuitable structures to be converted across the district.
At the invitation of the Chairman, Members asked questions relating to:
- The alternative apparent acceptability of the site once converted on Policy grounds, for holiday let, rather than residential use
- Whether any of the existing concrete floors and materials would be suitable for the proposed conversion
The Planning Manager responded that Policy would potentially support conversion or repurposing of redundant buildings such as a garage for holiday lets, due to the tourism benefit that would be generated, in an area where there was a deficit. However, the application before Members was for a residential conversion only. Officers considered that the concrete floors appeared insubstantial, and that the proposed construction appeared to be a rebuild in nature, rather than a conversion as proposed.
At the invitation of the Chairman, Huntingfield Parish Councillor D Blackmore spoke in support of the application. Parish Councillor Blackmore said that the Parish Council had supported the application, as the village needed residential accommodation, rather than additional second homes or holiday lets. The application was the first residential development proposal for more than a decade and would be a sustainable and beneficial development. Without the development, the plot would continue to fall into disrepair or could become holiday accommodation instead, which would not benefit the community. Parish Councillor Blackmore emphasised that residents viewed the structures as agricultural buildings, that had previously been put to an agricultural use, and that the conversion would make a positive contribution to the landscape.
In response to Members’ questions, Parish Councillor Blackmore clarified that much of the previously residential housing in the village had been turned into holiday lets and urged that residential development would instead benefit the community, including the church, pub and community hub.
The Chairman invited Mr Parker, agent for the applicant, to address the Committee. Mr Parker drew Members attention to the recent Badingham appeal decision which had found that a similar development had satisfied Policy SCLP5.5, as the extant building was redundant, the proposed building would provide a positive contribution to the landscape and would not require significant alteration. The design would maintain or enhance the structure, form and character of the rural building. Mr Parker explained that the proposal was so similar in nature that the Badingham appeal decision provided a precedent.
In response to Members’ questions, Mr Parker said that the development would be a conversion, as the extant buildings would not be demolished, and the structure, frame and cladding would be retained where possible. The conversion would still be a single storey and the footings and floors would be made suitable during the conversion. The Badingham appeal had clarified that the redundant building need not be within the settlement boundary to be considered sustainable and did not have to have been of architectural merit.
The Chairman invited the Committee to debate the application before it.
Councillor Burroughes had noted the support of the Parish Council, along with the reasoning of the Badingham appeal decision, and considered that the application before the Committee was similar in nature. Councillor Burroughes set out how the proposal appeared to satisfy Policies SCLP 5.5, 7.1 and 7.2; in addition to NPPF paragraphs 80 and 111, insofar as:
- The site had historically been in semi-agricultural use, and it was clear that Policy referred to buildings, rather than being limited to barns.
- The proposed conversion of the redundant building would provide a positive contribution to the landscape.
- The structural engineer’s report highlighted that the building was capable of being converted.
- Any effect on the natural environment would be adequately mitigated, and the primary ecological appraisals had been satisfied
- The site was served by an appropriate existing access and would not be isolated as it was next to Old Mill House.
- A residential conversion would satisfy SCLP 7.1 moreso than any alternative holiday let conversion, as holiday makers would have to use their cars to access the site and visit other parts of the district.
Councillors Coulam and Gee were concerned that if the proposal was refused then the site would become dilapidated; and regarded the community support for the proposal as significant. Councillor Brooks was concerned about any future application for a holiday let conversion, in the event of refusal. Councillor Pitchers was not convinced that it would be a conversion at all.
The Planning Manager reminded Members that the Committee could only consider the application before it, and not speculate about any future alternative proposals. Furthermore, each appeal decision related to a specific case, with specific circumstances, and there were other appeal decisions that concluded differently to the Badingham case, and upheld the Councils concerns that the building could not be converted in accordance with the requirements of the Local Plan. An extract from a appeal decision at Bawdsey was read to Members as an example.
Councillor Burroughes was persuaded by the similarities to the Badingham case and was content that the application satisfied policy. Councillor Burroughes proposed that the application be approved. Councillor Brooks seconded the proposal to approve the application. Having been duly proposed and seconded, the Chairman moved to the vote on the proposal to approve the application and it was by a majority
RESOLVED
That the application be APPROVED
Reason: That the application demonstrated accordance with Policy SCLP 5.5; specifically i) the conversion of the redundant building would provide a positive contribution to the landscape, ii) the design maintained or enhanced the structure, form and character of the rural building, iii) the impact on the natural and ecological environment would be adequately mitigated; and iv) the site is served by an appropriate existing access.