Agenda item

PROPOSAL: Erection of one dwelling following demolition of the existing agricultural building and associated works.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit

31.15        This application was for erection of one dwelling following demolition of the existing agricultural building and associated works.

31.16        The Development Management Team Leader advised that the application sought full planning permission for the demolition of an existing agricultural building and replacement with a two storey house with associated facilities.  The site presently comprised a concrete block-built agricultural building set to the northern side of the access drive which served Windyridge which was a detached dwelling.  The site lay within the Green Belt and outside of any defined settlement boundary; however, Coombe Hill was defined as a Service Village in the Joint Core Strategy and Tewkesbury Borough Plan.  Whilst the proposal would conflict with policies in respect of the location of new residential development, the site benefited from an extant prior approval for conversion of the existing agricultural building to residential use which was considered a fallback position in this instance.  Although the proposal would represent inappropriate development within the Green Belt which, by definition, would be harmful, it was considered that the extant prior approval for a dwelling at the site constituted very special circumstances.  Furthermore, the current proposal would be a significant improvement in design terms and would not impact the openness of the Green Belt when compared to the previously permitted scheme.  The proposal was therefore considered to be acceptable and was recommended for permission, subject to conditions as set out in the Committee report.

31.17        The Chair invited the applicant to address the Committee.  The applicant explained that his father had started building the existing barn for his livestock haulage and farming business which he had now taken over.  He had an agricultural holding number which he felt demonstrated that he was at one with the land, nature and the environment.  His architect had been in regular discussion with the Planning Officer who had guided and advised them, resulting in concerns being addressed and compromises and amendments made to produce the plans presented to the Committee today.  He felt that the length of time and care taken represented their desire to get this right.  The applicant confirmed that he owned all of the surrounding land and more evidence of his historical care and foresight was shown by his planting of 17 trees in 1993 which were now maturing nicely down the driveway and beyond.  In addition to the extra planting in the proposals, he intended to plant a small orchard in front of the house shielding further from the A38.  The applicant explained that he had designed this house for himself to live in and to be versatile enough should his mobility become restricted.  In summary, the proposal would protect the environment, provide a much smaller footprint, with less impact, and a better end result than converting the barn and the extended time taken ensured a high quality design which was sensitive to its rural setting.  The applicant hoped that Members could support the Officer recommendation to permit the application.

31.18        The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to permit the application and he sought a motion from the floor.  It was proposed and seconded that the application be permitted in accordance with the Officer recommendation and, upon being taken to the vote, it was

RESOLVED           That the application be PERMITTED in accordance with the Officer recommendation.