PROPOSAL: Rebuild of barn and subsequent use in C3 residential along with associated infrastructure – resubmission of application 21/01263/FUL.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Refuse.

33.25        This application was for rebuild of a barn and subsequent use in C3 residential along with associated infrastructure – resubmission of application 21/01263/FUL.

33.26        The Development Management Team Manager (South) advised that this application sought full planning permission for the erection of a three bedroom dwelling.  The site was located outside of a designated settlement boundary, within the open countryside and in the Green Belt.  The site was previously occupied by a barn which was granted planning permission for conversion to a dwelling; however, the existing structure had been completely dismantled and the site cleared.  As a result, the previous permission for the conversion could no longer be implemented and the application stood to be considered on the basis of a new dwelling in the countryside.  The site lay outside of any defined settlement and would not accord with any exception for dwellings in rural areas. Furthermore, the proposal would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt and no very special circumstances existed which would outweigh the harm to the Green Belt by way of inappropriateness.  The site was presently clear of development and the construction of a new dwelling would, by its presence, impact openness and the purposes of the Green Belt.  Whilst it was noted that the Council could not demonstrate a five year housing land supply, as set out in the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1, it was considered that the harms of the development in terms of its location, impact on Green Belt, unsustainable location and potential impact on highway safety would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the development.  It was therefore recommended that planning permission be refused for the reasons set out in the report and the additional reason set out in the Additional Representations Sheet.

33.27        The Chair invited the applicant to address the Committee.  The applicant advised that he had purchased The Old Barn on Cold Pool Lane in April 2021 and it had come with planning permission to build his dream family home; however, this was during a time of lockdown due to the pandemic and he had been unable to find a builder that could start the build within the required timeframe to keep the planning permission alive, so he had decided to at least start the build himself. After reading up on building regulations, he had concluded that poured concrete foundations were required.  He had not been able to find any foundations in place beneath the existing barn and, whilst looking for the foundations, part of the roof had collapsed when he had opened one of the large barn doors.  He had decided that the only way to safely install the foundations was to carefully take down the barn, dig the footings, pour the concrete and then rebuild the barn into a solid, structurally sound and well insulated dwelling, using as much of the original building materials as possible. He had carefully disassembled the barn, storing all the timber, tiles and stones blocks on pallets and under cover.  The footings had been dug and they had been inspected by Building Control on 19 July 2021 when he had been given the green light to pour the concrete, which had been done the next day.  The following day, he received an email from a Planning Enforcement Officer telling him to immediately cease all works and the resulting emails between himself and the Officer had led to the realisation that he had made a huge mistake in taking down the barn to which he had held his hands up, admitted the error and stopped all building work.  He had been working since then to get back his planning permission which was a very stressful and expensive process.  He had been able to find two very similar cases where Tewkesbury Borough Council had approved the rebuild of an old building such as his and he wished to reassure the Committee that his re-application was for the exact same plans that had previously been submitted and granted permission – the same size footprint as the original barn, in the exact same location. He had provided an artist impression based on these plans and believed it would vastly improve the appearance of the area when compared to what was there before.  Given that a solid foundation, along with power, water, sewers and drainage, was now already in place, he felt it would be huge waste of resources for this project to stop here. The Old Barn was included on the first ever Ordnance Survey map which was drawn between 1844 and 1888 and it would be a great shame if this piece of history was not rebuilt.  The applicant indicated that he was truly very sorry for his mistake and begged Members to give him permission to rebuild The Old Barn into the dream family home he had excitedly purchased nearly two and half years ago.  With reference the recent comment made by County Highways he confirmed he had been accessing the site for the last two years without issue, but the hedge in question was on his land so could be easily trimmed back to give greater visibility.

33.28        The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to refuse the application and he sought a motion from the floor.  A Member asked for clarification as to whether planning permission for the conversion of an existing barn had been granted but since expired and the Development Management Team Manager (South) advised that it was not that it had expired but it could no longer be implemented by virtue of the fact that the building was no longer there so, technically, there was no planning permission.  The Member indicated that similar cases had been brought to the Committee before and, in those cases, she understood that the principle of development on site had been established through the previous planning permission so she asked why that was not the case here.  In response, the Development Management Team Manager (South) explained that the principle of conversion of an agricultural dwelling in a rural location was compliant with policy, subject to the caveat that the building was structurally sound to be converted which had not proven to be the case.  As the building was no longer in existence, implementation of that planning permission was no longer possible and Members were required to determine the application before them – as there was no longer a building to convert, the previous conversion policies were not applicable and it was necessary to apply new dwelling policies which would not allow permission to be granted in this location.  A Member noted that the applicant had stated that the materials from the original building had been preserved for reuse and she asked if that provided mitigating circumstances.  The Development Management Team Manager (South) advised that, unfortunately, that was not the case; Officers had assessed the application on its own merits and, whilst technically the building would appear the same, it was not an appropriate location for a new dwelling.  Another Member sought confirmation as to whether the planning permission would stand if the site had not been cleared and had been left in a state of collapse and the Legal Adviser explained that if the building, or part of, was still there, planning permission would stand; unfortunately, the building was no longer there so there was nothing left to convert and the original planning permission could not be carried out so it was necessary to start afresh which required assessing the application on the basis of a clear site in the open countryside.  She recognised it was a very difficult situation, and she had sympathy with the applicant, but the position would not be altered by using the same materials and rubble did not amount to a building which could be converted in terms of planning legislation.  In response to a query as to whether demolition of the building constituted the start of development, the Development Management Team Manager (South) advised that was not true in this instance as the planning permission was for conversion rather than demolition and rebuild.

33.29        A Member expressed the view that planning permission had already been granted, the work had been started at a strange time during the pandemic and the applicant had been in the process of implementing the build when the building had become unsafe and he been told by the Planning Enforcement Officer to stop.  The applicant had confirmed that he intended to put the building back as it was and had retained the materials to do that and he questioned whether the Council should be encouraging work to be undertaken when the conditions made that dangerous.  In response, the Legal Adviser explained that it was the applicant’s responsibility to take all steps necessary to make the building safe.  She appreciated it was a very difficult period of time but scaffolding would usually have been put up to retain some part of the building to allow it to be converted.  The current position was that the building had gone and it would be necessary to start again from scratch.  A Member questioned whether this meant that Members’ hands were tied and it was not legally possible to give consent to go ahead with the application.  In response, the Development Management Team Manager (East) advised that the relevant National Planning Policy Framework and Joint Core Strategy policies were set out within the Committee report and it was for Members to determine the application based on what was before them.  The Legal Adviser added that, whilst it was within Members’ gift to go against the Officer recommendation, as the site was located within the Green Belt, very special circumstances were required in order for planning permission to be granted and, based on Officer’s advice, none had been put forward to warrant that.  If Members considered there were very special circumstances, that may lend itself to an alternative motion.  A Member drew attention to the recommended refusal reasons, set out at Page No. 198 of the Committee report, and suggested that these needed to be considered as a whole without focusing solely on the conversion aspect. 

33.30        It was proposed and seconded that the application be refused in accordance with the Officer recommendation.  The proposer of the motion acknowledged the difficult situation and sympathised with the applicant but, by his own admission, the applicant had demolished the building of his own accord – this was not his fault and had not been intentional but planning permission had been granted to allow conversion of an existing building to be utilised as a dwelling and there was now no existing building so erection of a new dwelling would be at the expense of the Green Belt and protection policies were in place for that very reason.  A Member made reference to the malicious demolition of Crooked House near Dudley, and the calls for the person responsible to rebuild it on the basis that it was a heritage asset, and she asked if Tewkesbury Borough Council would have required a rebuild in that scenario.  In response, the Development Management Team Manager (South) reminded Members that it was necessary to look at the application before them and to make an assessment based on its own merits and the relevant planning policies.  Another Member recognised this was a complicated application and raised concern that planning permission had previously been granted for conversion of the existing building on the basis that it was structurally sound and capable of conversion which had evidently not been the case.  He had great sympathy with the applicant but noted that this application was for a new building in the Green Belt which conflicted with policy; however, if Members were minded to refuse the application in line with the Officer recommendation, he was sure the applicant would appeal and the Inspector may take a different view given the five year housing land supply position.  In addressing the points raised, the proposer of the motion indicated that if the building had been a heritage asset then it was possible that the Council would require a rebuild but that was not the situation here.  There was no suggestion that the barn had been unsafe for conversion, and he presumed the relevant checks had been carried out in that regard, rather the applicant had felt the appropriate thing to do was to deconstruct the existing building.  The application was now for a new dwelling in the Green Belt and, although it may seem heartless, Members needed to assess the proposal before them today.  The Development Management Team Manager (East) advised that the previous application was a prior approval application which was a permitted development application to convert a building and the tests for that were slightly different to a full planning permission application.  He confirmed that the necessary information had been provided in terms of a structural study on the basis of what was proposed at that stage and that type of application did not look at the Green Belt or locational tests in strategic policies for housing so Members were considering a different raft of policies in relation to this application. 

33.31        A Member noted that Officers had got the recommendation right based on policy but, looking at it in the round, he felt it would be harsh to refuse the application given that there was no ill will on the part of the applicant and it was a very unfortunate situation – if permitted, the barn would be reinstated and he felt that was the right thing to do.  Another Member asked whether permitting the application would set a precedent and was advised that each application must be considered on its own merits based on interpretation of planning policy.  With regard to the earlier comment regarding the five year housing land supply, a Member expressed the view that this was a single home in the Green Belt with other objections, including highway grounds, so she did not feel that would apply in the same way as it would for a development of 20 houses outside of the Green Belt - in her opinion, the planning balance was weighted the other way.  Another Member indicated that she considered that the principle of development had already been established on this particular site and, taking into account the purpose of the Green Belt -  to check unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas, prevent neighbouring towns merging, assisting with safeguarding the countryside from encroachment, preserving the setting and special character of historic towns and assisting with urban regeneration - she did not feel that permitting the application would go against the fundamental principles of Paragraph 138 of the National Planning Policy Framework.  It was a sad situation and one which had happened before with a similar barn being taken down in Twigworth where the Planning Committee had resolved that the principle of development had been agreed.  As such, she believed that planning permission should be granted on the basis that it did not go against the fundamental aims of the Green Belt.  Another Member indicated that he could not support the motion as the applicant had taken down the building with good intentions and had kept the materials for the rebuild; he did not consider it to be a new building as there had been one there previously.  Upon being put to the vote, the motion to refuse the application was lost.

33.32        The Legal Adviser indicated that a new motion must now be put forward and Members needed to demonstrate why the Committee considered that very special circumstances outweighed the harm to the Green Belt and the issues around transport choices and the fact that the site was unsustainable.  In response to a Member comment regarding the original reasons for planning permission being granted, the Legal Adviser explained that the policy and legislation was different when there was an existing building on the site and what was being considered today was a vacant site with no development which was the basis for the policy applied – had there been an existing building the Officer recommendation may have been different.  A Member expressed the view that building had already been started due to the footings being poured and the Legal Adviser reiterated that the position was that the building had been removed and the planning permission was for conversion as opposed to removal and rebuild.  Building Control was a separate legislative process – it did not give consent for development but controlled what was being done to ensure it was in accordance with the proper regulations; it was not their remit to pick up on the unauthorised removal of the building and that was why the Planning Enforcement Officer would have gone out the following day.  A Member noted that the building had been dismantled but was still in situ, as could be seen from Google Earth, and the Legal Adviser explained that legally there was no building on site.  The Development Management Team Manager (East) advised that the policies which would have applied in 2017 were the rural conversion policies and building needed to have commenced to be able to apply those policies in this instance; he appreciated there was material on the ground but there was nothing to convert. 

33.33        It was proposed and seconded that authority be delegated to the Development Management Manager to permit the application on the basis that very special circumstances existed as there had been a longstanding structure on the site and the principle of development had already been established; there was no conflict with the fundamental aims of the Green belt policy and would be no impact on its openness; and the proposal would accord with the Tewkesbury Borough Plan and Planning Policy Guidance which recognised there were thriving rural communities which did not have public transport options and had to rely on private vehicles, subject to conditions.  The Development Management Team Manager (East) drew attention to the additional refusal reason, outlined on the Additional Representations Sheet, in relation to the failure to demonstrate that safe and suitable access could be achieved.  He was unsure whether this could be dealt with by condition so it may be necessary to obtain further information in relation to that.  The proposer and seconder of the motion indicated that they were happy for this to be included within the delegation and brought back to the Committee if it could not be resolved by condition.  In terms of conditions, the Development Management Team Manager (South) suggested it would be necessary to refer to commencement of development, the development being carried out in accordance with approved plans, details of materials, details of new windows and doors, highways conditions regarding visibility splays and parking, landscaping, restriction of permitted development rights, and ecological enhancements and protection and mitigation measures as set out in the Ecological Protection Report.  The proposer of the motion asked for provision of an electric vehicle charging point to be required by condition and the Development Management Team Manager (South) advised that this was a requirement under building regulations so would not require a condition.  The proposer and seconder of the motion confirmed they were happy with the suggested conditions.  With regard to the visibility issue, the County Highways representative advised that the previous condition was for a very large visibility splay of 147m which seemed excessive and could impact the hedgerow – that had been based on an approach speed of 60mph so, if the true approach speed could be ascertained, it may be possible to reduce the size of the splay.

33.34        A Member asked that it be noted that, in his view, if the application was permitted, the Council was essentially giving licence to the demolition and rebuild of existing buildings in the Green Belt.  Another Member disagreed with this view and felt it was about different interpretation of policies.  The Development Management Team Manager (South) clarified that the building was not being replaced with the same use – there were caveats to Green Belt policy which applied to the conversion of buildings which did not apply to this application.  Upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED           That authority be DELEGATED to the Development Management Manager to PERMIT the application on the basis that very special circumstances existed as there had been a longstanding structure on the site and the principle of development had already been established; there was no conflict with the fundamental aims of the Green belt policy and would be no impact on its openness; and the proposal would accord with the Tewkesbury Borough Plan and Planning Policy Guidance which recognised there were thriving rural communities which did not have public transport options and had to rely on private vehicles, subject to conditions in relation to commencement of development, the development being carried out in accordance with approved plans, details of materials, details of new windows and doors, highways conditions regarding visibility splays and parking, landscaping, restriction of permitted development rights, and ecological enhancements and protection and mitigation measures as set out in the Ecological Protection Report.