Agenda item

PROPOSAL: Demolition of an existing agricultural workers dwelling, the erection of an open market replacement dwelling of exceptional quality design and the erection of a barn incorporating a bat roost.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Delegated Permit 

52.18        This was an application for the demolition of an existing agricultural workers dwelling, the erection of an open market replacement dwelling of exceptional quality design and the erection of a barn incorporating a bat roost.

52.19        The Planning Officer advised that due to the visual nature of this proposal, the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) context and the fact that it was not possible at the current time to conduct site visits, her presentation would be longer and more detailed to provide Members with a full appreciation of the site and the proposed development. The application related to an isolated farmstead in the open countryside of the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, it was located outside the village of Buckland and was accessed via a long driveway. The site was at the head of a localised valley and benefited from a good degree of visual containment due to local topography and vegetation. The dwelling dated from the 1970s and was subject to an agricultural tie. The Cotswold Way passed to the north and east of the site and the Winchcombe way to the south. The site and immediate residential curtilage comprised a farmhouse, converted ancillary accommodation, a swimming pool and a tennis court. Outside the residential curtilage, the landholding encompassed extensive formal and informal landscaped areas and fields beyond and included two large agricultural buildings. The application sought the demolition of the tied farmhouse and ancillary buildings and the erection of an open market replacement dwelling of exceptional quality and design; the existing agricultural barns would be retained and a new barn constructed adjacent which would incorporate a replacement bat roost. Integral to the scheme was an extensive landscape master plan which proposed landscape and biodiversity enhancements to integrate the site within the AONB setting. The applicant was proposing the new dwelling on the grounds that special circumstances existed to warrant the granting of planning permission under Paragraph 79(e) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which allowed for the development of isolated homes in the countryside. That policy required homes to be of exceptional quality in that they were truly outstanding or innovative, reflecting the highest standards of architecture and would help raise the standards of design more generally in rural areas and would significantly enhance the immediate setting and be sensitive to the defining characteristics of the area. The key material issues for consideration were the principle of the development, including the removal of the agricultural tie and erection of a replacement dwelling of exceptional quality and truly outstanding or innovative design, and the impact on the landscape of the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  The Planning Officer indicated that, in formulating a recommendation, the opinions of the Gloucestershire Design Review Panel and the Cotswolds Conservation Board had been sought and, on balance, Officers considered the proposed development was of exceptional quality and complied with the tests set out in Paragraph 79(e) of the National Planning Policy Framework in that it was truly outstanding, reflected the highest standards in architecture and would help raise the standards of design more generally in rural areas. It was also concluded that the proposal would not unduly impact the landscape character of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and that the proposed landscape enhancement measures would significantly enhance the immediate setting of the site and be sensitive to the defining characteristics of the local area. It was also concluded that it was not necessary to reimpose an agricultural tie on the dwelling as it would serve no agricultural purpose now or in the future. The late representations sheet referred to the receipt of a revised Ecological Appraisal Report which had been reviewed by the Council’s Ecological Adviser who had confirmed no objection subject to conditions. As a consequence, Conditions 2 and 8 in the Officer report needed to be updated with details of the revised Ecological Appraisal report. On this basis the Officer recommendation in the report of delegated permit subject to the receipt of an updated Ecological report and any consequential updating of conditions had been amended to permit subject to conditions.

52.20        The Chair invited the applicant to address the Committee. The applicant advised that he was delighted with the Officer’s report which he felt was both comprehensive and very concise. The applicant had lived at the site for 26 years and, prior to that, his parents had lived there for 14 years meaning the family had a long association with the site and the village. He intended that the development would be his final home and, once completed, he would live there with his wife, with family members visiting on a regular basis. It had always been his ambition to develop a beautiful and sustainable house at the location and he considered himself both lucky and privileged to be living in one of the most stunning locations in Britain. He believed that the proposal before the Committee was a befitting and deserving development of the site which brought with it landscape enhancements and what he considered to be an incredible design. He was of the view that, not only would the house slip seamlessly onto the site, but it would help reduce his carbon footprint and allow a shift away from fossil fuels. The applicant indicated that he had been on an exciting journey with the application and had used a professional team which had guided him through every step but, to provide additional help, he had taken the design to the Gloucestershire Design Panel on two occasions to refine the proposal and get endorsement that it was a proposal of outstanding and innovative design that reflected the highest standards in architecture and would help raise the standards of design more generally in rural areas. The applicant advised that the team had been assembled for the construction stage and he was excited about the development and delivery of the new house which it was anticipated would be completed in about 18 months.

52.21        One of the local Ward Member’s indicated that she would like the Committee to address the concerns raised by local residents and the Parish Council in relation to heavy construction traffic. From the proposal it looked like the construction traffic would access the site along the Winchcombe Way rather than the existing driveway to the property. She could see no reason why construction traffic could not use the existing driveway rather than use a route that would provide added danger to the public. The proposed route was used extensively by the public on a regular basis and she was of the view that construction traffic would pose a significant danger to the public and was unnecessary when there was a perfectly adequate driveway that could be used as an alternative route for construction vehicles. She referred to Condition No.13, on Page 76 of the Officer Report, and proposed that it be amended to ensure that the construction traffic route should be along the existing driveway, she was very keen for this to happen also to avoid a new temporary access being created. In addition, she asked that times for delivery and construction be stated in the condition to ensure that large lorries would not be coming through  very small villages with single lanes at all hours of the day and during weekends; there were lots of public visiting the beautiful Cotswold villages in this area and it was important to ensure their protection. The local Member proposed that the application be permitted in accordance with the Officer recommendation subject to the amendment of Condition 13 to include reference to hours of construction and delivery of construction materials and the use of the existing driveway for construction traffic, the precise wording of which to be specified by the Officers. This motion was seconded. Another Member spoke in support of the motion advising that the area was rife with walkers not only accessing the Winchcombe Way but also the Cotswold Way which included a bridle path which was used by horse riders and off road cycle riders; he was of the view that there was the need for a sound transport plan in order to protect residents and visitors to the area. He maintained that Buckland was a beautiful village that was one of the gems of the Cotswold Escarpment and he did not wish to see heavy construction traffic ripping up verges and destroying the tranquillity of the village; it was essential that controls were put in place and checks carried out if this proposal was permitted. The Member referred also to the fact that the proposal was subject to a substantial objection from the Cotswold Conservation Board and he questioned how the Officer recommendation to permit this application outweighed these concerns. Another Member questioned the reference in the papers to an “open market” replacement dwelling when the applicant had indicated that he intended to live in the property; this was not her understanding of an open market dwelling, she also questioned what the current property on the site would be used for. Another Member asked how the agricultural tie could be removed when previously a High Court Judge had indicated that it should remain; he queried whether this was simply overcome by demolishing the agricultural workers dwelling. This view was supported by another Member of the Committee who spoke about how difficult it was to get agricultural dwellings built for farmers children and in this instance it was being lost in favour of a very expensive new build. It was also queried as to what would happen to the bats during the 18 month construction period which had been mentioned by the applicant in his presentation.

52.22        The Planning Officer indicated that the AONB Board had raised objections which included the large scale of the proposed development, impact on the AONB, local distinctiveness and tranquillity, the latter relating to things like glint and glare from materials and light spill during the evening. These had been carefully considered by the applicant who had produced a robust note addressing the issues raised. In addition, the Council’s Landscape Advisor had been asked to review the landscape and visual impact assessment from which it was very clear that the dwelling was self-contained and there were very few views of it in the local landscape. Notwithstanding this the dwelling itself had been designed to a very high standard; it was a contemporary design and the AONB Board would much prefer to see something more traditional with traditional architectural features incorporated into it. This was not a requirement of the NPPF which in fact suggested that Planning Authorities should be looking for very good, high quality, innovative designs that take account of local setting and characteristics. Accordingly, the architectural practice that designed this dwelling did a very robust analysis of all the local characteristics of the AONB in terms of the form of the landscape the colours and the pallets of the landscape and local materials and whilst they had produced a contemporary design they felt the proposal before Members responded in a very localised way to the application site to the extent that it would not be a dwelling which could be built anywhere else in the Cotswolds. It had been designed specifically for this site taking into account and responding to the landscape characteristics. Officers considered very carefully the Applicant’s response to the concerns raised by the AONB Board and on balance it was felt that the quality of the design did respond to the landscape as required under Paragraph 79(e) of the NPPF and was of such high quality to override the concerns of the AONB Board in this instance. Members would be aware of other contemporary designs in the AONB and other protected landscapes with particular reference being made in the Officer Report to the Leaf House which the Committee had previously approved therefore contemporary designs in such locations were not unusual but clearly needed to be of a very high quality and respond to the landscape context in which they were set which the Planning Officer felt was the case in this instance. The Development Manager responded to some of the other questions that had been raised indicating that the existing property on the site would be demolished as part of the proposal and that the reference to “open market” was simply to demonstrate that the property would not be subject to an agricultural tie and whilst it was clearly the Applicant’s intention to live in the property there would be nothing to stop him selling it on the open market. In terms of the agricultural tie, the court case was about five or six years ago and followed the refusal of a Certificate of Lawfulness Application in 2013 as referenced in Section 2 on Page 59 of the Officer Report. Application 12/00915/CLE for the continued residential use of the dwelling without complying with an agricultural occupancy condition was refused and dismissed on appeal, the applicants had challenged the appeal decision based on a specific argument as to whether they met the terms of this condition. The applicants claimed that they had lived in the property for more than 10 years without meeting the condition but the Council and the Planning Inspector took the view that the condition had been met as one of the residents was a farmer; the Judge ruled that this specific argument did not hold legal sway and the applicants had lost the case. In respect of this application, the agricultural tie was being considered in the context of planning policy and in the general round of the proposal rather than that specific legal argument. A pragmatic view had been taken as to whether the property, as it currently stood, would be available to an agricultural worker on an agricultural wage and it was the opinion of the Planning Officer that an agricultural worker would not be able to afford to live in the property or to purchase it; on this basis the requirements of the Council’s Policy had been met. There was an argument to insist that the Applicant should go through the process of applying to remove the condition and proving that he had unsuccessfully marketed the property but Officers had taken the view that the outcome would be no different that no one who met the condition would be in a position to purchase the property and meet the requirements. The Development Manager then referred to the motion and amendments to Condition 13, he indicated that an addition could be made to point 6 to include a requirement to specify the intended hours of construction and deliveries. A new bullet point could be added to Condition 13 requiring construction vehicles to use the access that the local Member had mentioned but it would be necessary to consider carefully the wording and may require the addition of a plan to the Decision Notice to clarify exactly the route to be taken. However, he did think Members should be aware that this matter had been discussed with County Highways and Officers did not necessarily agree that this condition would be necessary or meet the required tests for planning conditions. Nevertheless, from the discussion that had taken place so far it was clear that Members thought it was necessary taking on board their local knowledge and the views of the residents who had commented on the application. At the end of the day it was a matter of judgement taking account of the fact that such a condition was not supported by County Highways as the Council’s specialist advisor in this area. The Planning Officer went on to address the question concerning the bats; she indicated that there were bats in the main house and other buildings on the site and this matter had been carefully considered by the Ecological Appraisal Report and the Council’s Ecological Adviser. The main issue related to the demolition of the main house and the proposal was for mitigation and compensation to overcome this. The proposal would be carried out under a licence from Natural England which would provide another level of protection over the process and involved the construction of a new bat barn adjacent to the existing barns on the site with a bat roost in the void above it; the timing of the construction of that roost, together with the timing of the demolition of the main house, was key and would be undertaken to ensure that there was no adverse impact on the bats.

52.23        A discussion ensued on the agricultural tie, the Council’s policy in this respect, the lack of reference to the impact on the Cotswold Vernacular, the size of the proposal and it being out of keeping with the area and future precedent. The local Member who had proposed the motion under discussion indicated that she was happy with the suggested amendments to Condition 13 by the Development Manager, she was sure that the Applicant would be happy to accept these taking into account the views of local residents and being a resident of the area himself for over 10 years. She felt that the additions were really important to avoid a conflict with the local residents, visitors, walkers and riders making use of the beautiful area surrounding the site of this application. In relation to the concerns expressed about precedent and size, the Development Manager stressed that each application must be considered on its own merits and in respect of the Cotswold vernacular he indicated that from a design point of view reflecting did not necessarily mean mimicking and sometimes the quality of design, the use of materials, the way it fitted into the landscape, as was the case with this proposal, reflected the vernacular rather than necessarily mimicking it.

52.24        Upon the motion being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED           That the application be PERMITTED with an addition to the conditions requiring construction traffic to use the existing driveway, the condition on specifying construction times being amended to include deliveries and the revision of Conditions 2 and 8 to reflect receipt and details of the revised Ecological Appraisal Report.