Agenda item

PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing barn, byre and pig pens and replacement with single dwelling (revised application following withdrawal of 20/00540/FUL / following Approved 18/00568/FUL in terms of siting and design).

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Refuse.    

57.36        This was an application for demolition of existing barn, byre and pig pens and replacement with single dwelling (revised application following withdrawal of 20/00540/FUL / following Approved 18/00568/FUL in terms of siting and design).

57.37        Prior to her presentation the Planning Officer confirmed that she had received a copy of a letter that had been sent to all Members but that the content did not change her recommendation to refuse this application.

57.38        The Planning Officer advised that the site related to a parcel of land at Oak Farm which was located along Dog Lane, Witcombe. The site was north west of the existing farmhouse on level ground excavated into the hillside, occupied by three agricultural buildings which were in a poor state of repair and would be demolished as part of the proposal. Access was via the existing farm track to Dog Lane. The site was in the open countryside on the steeply sloping west facing Cotswold Escarpment and it lay within the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the Green Belt. The application was for the demolition of the existing agricultural buildings and the erection of a two storey detached dwelling with carport and workshop building. The proposal included significant engineering operations to stabilize the site. The site had extant permission for a single storey detached dwelling with the retention of the cattle byre building. A two storey dwelling on the site was refused and dismissed at appeal in 2007. The main considerations were the revised siting and design of the dwelling with regard to the Green Belt, landscape setting and Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, design and character of the area, biodiversity and highway safety. The proposed dwelling did not form part of the exceptions to development under Paragraph 145 of the National Planning Policy Framework and was defined as inappropriate and therefore harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Very special circumstances would not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of its inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, was clearly outweighed by other considerations. The proposal included engineering operations to stabilize the site through excavation and the erection of a gabion wall to the east. Engineering operations were not considered inappropriate in the Green Belt provided they preserved the openness of the Green Belt and did not conflict with the purpose of including land within it. The gabion wall would introduce additional built form into the landscape and therefore would impact openness. The engineering operations did not justify the increase in scale of the dwelling and the proposed dwelling would result in a taller and more prominent building at 8.5 metres. The current application included widening the access drive and significant lengths of stone walls and fencing along the boundaries of the site. The introduction of formal hard boundary treatments, the additional width of the access track and increased scale of the dwelling would materially affect the openness of the Green Belt compared to the existing agricultural use and the extant permission. The site lay within the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the application had been accompanied by a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment. The proposal would be greater in volume and more visually prominent with significant hard boundary treatments, than the extant permission which was in part screened by retaining the existing cattle byre. It was considered that the proposal would erode the natural rural landscape character by introducing a prominent residential dwelling with its associated curtilage that required substantive mitigation works outside the application site to screen the development in an area afforded one of the highest levels of protection. In terms of design and materials, the proposed dwelling would be considered appropriate to the character of the area. There was no substantial harm in terms of neighbour amenity, highway safety and drainage. The proposal would not add to housing supply as it would replace the approval for a previous dwelling on the site. The application included the demolition of the existing agricultural buildings and an Ecological Report was submitted with regard to protected species, and Sites of Special Scientific Interest and Special Area of Conservation in the wider area. The report identified the cattle byre building as having a high potential for roosting bats and the Council’s Ecological Advisor required additional surveys to be undertaken prior to determination to establish whether the building was used for roosting, the species, number of bats present and mitigation works required. Therefore, insufficient information had been submitted for the Council to fully assess the impact on bats resulting from the demolition of the former cattle byre building. In conclusion, it was not considered that the factors in favour of granting permission advised by the applicant, individually or cumulatively, clearly outweighed the clear and identified harm to the Green Belt. It was therefore not considered that very special circumstances existed in this case to justify inappropriate development in the Green Belt, and it was therefore recommended the application be refused.

57.39        The Chair invited the applicant to address the Committee. He explained that he had been born on Oakland Farm and had lived there for most of his life. The Committee had previously granted permission for a new dwelling in 2018 and therefore the principle of development had been established. Recent developments on Dog Lane, Bentham had required complicated civil engineering solutions for foundations and, following a geotechnical survey, the geotechnical and civil engineers had agreed that the approved dwelling would need to be moved forward and that extensive engineered retaining walls and landscaping would be required. To keep the proposed Cotswold vernacular, the dwelling was as far back on the site as possible and the current proposal reduced the footprint and proposed a one and a half storey dwelling which simplified foundations. Despite multiple enquiries to the Planning Officer regarding design changes, over eight months and two applications, no guidance or discussions over the design had been forthcoming. The Planning Officer had consulted with the Cotswold Conservation Board and the Conservation Officer and provided a summary of the Officer’s response; however, that summary had not been made available on the planning website and was not included in the Officer’s report. Following the receipt of the summary, several changes to the design were proposed but the Planning Officer informed the applicant that none were required; despite that, and following comments from the Parish Council, the proposed ridge height had been reduced and additional planting had been introduced to provide screening. Attention was drawn to Paragraph 10.1 of the Officer’s report which stated that “there are two storey detached properties of similar scale in the wider vicinity of the site and therefore the design would be considered appropriate in the character of the area”. In the application for Buckland Manor Farm (20/00107) the Development Manager had stressed that “each application must be considered on its own merits” and in respect of the Cotswold vernacular he indicated that “reflecting did not necessarily mean mimicking”. The current Cotswold vernacular proposal would result in a greater than 25% reduction in the current footprint area and the redevelopment would also see a significant reduction in hardstanding by more than 80% with a corresponding increase in soft landscaping that was considered more appropriate in the site’s Green Belt location. Due to the potential for bats in the cattle byre, a more comprehensive bat survey had been commissioned and would be undertaken at the appropriate time of year. The Planning Officer had been provided with additional information and a bat mitigation strategy would be developed with the cattle byre remaining until any bat mitigation had been completed. The Planning Officer had acknowledged being aware of the requirement for additional bat surveys but had not informed the applicant of that requirement in time for surveys to be undertaken in 2020 due to being out of season. There were no objections to the proposal and 11 letters had been written in support which highlighted that the proposals were an improvement to what was currently there; would improve the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty; that there would be no negative ecological or visual impact from the development; and that the proposal would be a visual improvement and would enhance the surrounding area. The proposal was an appropriate form of development in the Green Belt and would result in an improvement to the openness and visual amenity of the Green Belt as a result of the reduction in built form.

57.40        A Member proposed that the application should be permitted, he stated that, as outlined by the applicant, permission was granted for a dwelling on this site by the Planning Committee in September 2018. As stated the applicant was keen to get this built but following professional advice from a civil engineer it was considered that a safer option would be to move the building forward a few metres but still on some of the original footprint; similar applications had come before the Committee, usually in the Cleeve Hill area, where there could be possible ground movement on the hillside. The applicant had been hoping that this could be dealt with by amended plans but was told a new application would be required, on this basis the applicant decided that a 1.5 storey house would be better suited to the area as it would result in a smaller footprint. As could be seen on Page No. 137 there had been letters in support of the application which in summary commented that by replacing the existing dilapidated agricultural buildings the proposal would visually enhance an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty; the proposed dwelling would be in keeping with the environment and character of the area; as the applicant was born at Oaklands Farm it would seem sensible that he should be allowed the opportunity to stay which was achieved by the previous permission. At Paragraph 7.1 of the Officer’s report it was recognised that the principle of a dwelling was established but the report then went on to almost argue against the previous decision; the Local Highways Authority considered that the proposal would be located in an unsustainable location and the occupiers would be reliant on a private car to meet their needs but the permission granted in 2018 would make that statement irrelevant as if that permission had been implemented then these traffic movements would take place in any event. The Member was of the view that it seemed as if this application for a single dwelling was being viewed differently from the site, just below this one, for 49 dwellings that was shown in photographs that had been sent to Committee Members yesterday and on the ariel photograph shown by the Planning Officer. The 49 dwellings were developed over and across  the original testing beds where the principle of Jet Propulsion had been developed by Sir Frank Whittle and his team but there had been no recognition of this historic story written or retained on this site which local residents still felt was an act of pure vandalism; a major historic site built on with 49 dwellings for people to move into the area as opposed to one dwelling just above this site that would replace dilapidated old buildings and provide accommodation for someone who was born on the site. He reminded Members of the permission that had been granted at the last meeting which was in the Cotswold AONB and referred to by the applicant as a replacement dwelling; this had been accepted and he felt that the same attitude should be applied in respect of this application. Whilst he was aware of the need for each application to be taken on its own merits, that application had been for an enormous 7 bedroom home whilst the application before the Committee today was for a modest 3 bedroom house next door to Uplands in Dog Lane which again could be clearly seen in the photographs that had been sent to Members yesterday. The application that had been approved at the last meeting had come to the Committee on a number of occasions before gaining approval to build a very imposing building which he felt would surely have a far greater impact on the character of the area than the application now being considered by the Committee. He maintained that the three reasons for refusal were not realistic; reason one, the applicant had not demonstrated very special circumstances in the Green Belt, surely that was the crux of the previous permission granted two years ago. Reference was made to the application considered earlier in the meeting and specifically Page No. 40, Paragraph 8.7 of the Officer’s report which stated that what constituted very special circumstances to justify inappropriate development in the Green Belt was a matter for the decision maker; the Member stressed that the decision maker was the Planning Committee. The Member questioned whether the fact that; a dwelling had already been permitted on this site and was now being slightly modified for safety reasons, the applicant had been born on the site over 50 years ago and 49 houses had been permitted on an historic site immediately below constituted very special circumstances as he felt was the case. Case law provided that a number of factors that appeared ordinary in themselves could combine to create something special, it also provided that factors ordinary in themselves could equate to very special circumstances and did not need to be rare by definition. The second reason for refusal was that the development would cause significant harm to the Cotswold AONB but when the permission in 2018 had been granted the view had been taken that the area would be enhanced which was also recognised in the letters of support. The third reason related to the potential harm to the bat population but according to the applicant in a letter sent to Members the Planning Officer had been given additional information in relation to a bat migration strategy which indicated that the cattle byre would remain until migration and bat mitigation had been completed. In conclusion the Member indicated that the Council had a duty of care to its residents and by permitting this application it would show that the Council did care; taking a stand by insisting that the dwelling should be on a less sound footing built further up the hillside was not the right direction to take and therefore he urged Members to support this application being permitted. The motion to permit the application was seconded.

57.41        From the discussion that ensued it was apparent that other Members of the Committee were in favour of the application being permitted and agreed with the comments of the proposer in relation to the reasons as to why it should be permitted. A Member sought clarification as to whether the footprint of the building would be reduced by 25% and that 80% of the buildings on the site would be demolished which, if this was the case, would enhance the Green Belt in that area. The Chair indicated that clarification was required in respect of the need for a bat survey as he had understood the applicant to state that whilst he accepted the need for a survey one could not be done at this time of the year but he believed that this was not the case and such a survey could be obtained at any time of the year. The Development Manager stated that, in terms of the bat survey, it was possible to do a visual assessment at any time of the year but it was between May and September, when the assessment that was required before granting permission, must be undertaken. In this case the visual assessment had identified the bats but in terms of the usage etc of the building by the bats that did need to be done between May and September. He also indicated that he had noted the criticism of Officers by the applicant but the applicant did have professional advisors who should have been able to advise him on what was required and this was also made very clear by Officers when the application was submitted in October although this was still outside the required assessment period. As the assessment could not be done currently it was the advice of the Development Manager it would be required before planning consent was granted and if Members felt for other reasons that the application should be permitted then he suggested that it should be a delegated permit subject to this matter being resolved. In terms of some of the other comments that had been made, the Development Manager indicated that it may be a question of semantics but calling the proposed dwelling a 1.5 storey building was quite a stretch when looking at the plans on Page No.150.  In respect of the points made by the proposer in terms of what he considered constituted very special circumstances, Officers recognised the fact that a permission had been granted in 2018 and therefore the principle was established but what that permission did not establish was the creation of a much bigger house that would have a greater impact on the AONB and the Green Belt; the fact that the applicant was born on the site could not in any way be considered as a very special circumstance and the reliance on the scheme for 49 houses on the Bentham International site was extraordinary given the buildings which were on that site previously - which were not in any way comparable to what was now before Members which were low lying unassuming buildings - although it was accepted that they were in a state of disrepair. The Development Manager could not understand why moving the proposed dwelling to a new location required it to be so substantially greater notwithstanding the reduction in floor space; obviously there was a reduction in terms of hardstanding and the existing built form but the Officers’ judgement was very clearly that there would be a greater impact. He referred to a previous application for refusal on this site which was subsequently upheld on appeal and highlighted the comparison between what was refused and dismissed on appeal as set out on Page No. 159 of the Officer report with what was now being proposed; in terms of the bulk, scale and mass of what was being proposed it was considerably different to what had previously been approved and more in line with that which had been refused. In terms of the scale of the property permitted in 2018, very special circumstances had been established but this application because of its scale would have a far greater impact and nothing had been put forward, in terms of very special circumstances,  as far as he could see, that justified such a large dwelling on this site in the context of the previous appeal which was dismissed. In terms of the AONB, bringing the property forward, adding the gabion walls and increasing the size of the dwelling from that permitted which was very much a single storey dwelling, as shown in the presentation, all heightened the impact on the setting. The Planning Officer confirmed that there was a reduction in ground floor space but, in terms of Green Belt policy, agricultural dwellings were treated differently to dwellings in terms of appropriate development and a residential property of this scale was considered inappropriate development and the significant alterations to the curtilage and boundary were all considered to impact on openness in terms of the Green Belt; so there was a reduction in floor area from the existing dilapidated low lying agricultural buildings on the site rather than from the previously permitted scheme. The previously permitted scheme had a floor area of 121 square metres and, although there was a slight reduction to 115 square metres at ground floor, there was a total increase because it was double the height therefore the total floor area would be greater.

57.42        Other Members spoke in support of the application and the Legal Advisor sought clarification as to whether, in the light of the advice from the Development Manager in relation to the bat survey, this would be a delegated permit or just a straight permit and also advised that some indicative conditions would be necessary. The proposer of the motion to permit the application indicated that, as far as the bats were concerned, the applicant had advised the Planning Officer that a mitigation strategy would be coming forward which would identify additional bat roosts and that the cattle byre would not be removed until any bat migration had been completed. The Development Manager referred to Paragraph 12.2 of the Officer’s report and the Government Circular it referred to which stated that “It is essential that the presence or otherwise of protected species, and the extent by which they may be affected by the proposed development, is established before the planning permission is granted.” Paragraph 12.3 set out some case law on this point which was very clear and the Council had a statutory duty in respect of the Habitats Regulations and the Natural Environment & Rural Communities Act in relation to biodiversity and therefore it was the strong advice of the Development Manager that if the Committee was minded to permit this application then it should be a delegated permit to ensure that the Council’s statutory duties had been met. In terms of conditions, the Planning Officer advised the normal conditions in respect of timescale and approval of plans and documents, submission of materials for the external surfaces of the building, submission of floor levels and grade levels, proposals for the hard landscaping and soft landscaping schemes to be submitted and agreed, planting and hard boundary treatments to be agreed in full, development to be carried out in accordance with the ecological survey submitted in September 2020, construction methods statement to be submitted, external lighting – no external lighting to be installed without the consent of the Local Planning Authority and an appropriately worded condition to comply with the visual landscape assessment which indicated additional planting to be carried out external to the site to provide screening. On the basis of the advice given in respect of the Council’s statutory duties, the proposer of the motion indicated that he would amend the motion to a delegated permit and, upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED           That authority be DELEGATED to the Development Manager to PERMIT the application subject to the bat issues being resolved and the indicative conditions as outlined above.