Supporting Statement to Notice of Review -...

PLANNING & PROPERTY CONSULTANTS

ERICHT PLANNING & PROPERTY CONSULTANTS |40 Belgrave Road | Edinburgh |EH12 6NQ T 07795 974 083

[email protected] www.erichtppc.co.uk

Supporting Statement to Notice of Review

in relation to Dumfries and Galloway Council’s refusal of planning permission

for alterations and change of use of existing barn and erection of two storey

building to form dwellinghouse with single storey car port (including demolition

and removal of farm buildings, slurry store and hardstanding), installation of

septic tank and soakaway and formation of equestrian ménage and associated

landscaping.

on behalf of Mr John Miller

1st February, 2016

2




EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This Notice of Local Review is submitted on behalf of Mr John Miller (the appellant) against

the decision of Dumfries and Galloway Council to refuse planning permission, on 22nd

January, 2016, for:

“Alterations and change of use of existing barn and erection of two storey building to form

dwellinghouse with single storey car port (including demolition and removal of farm

buildings, slurry store and hardstanding), installation of septic tank and soakaway and

formation of equestrian ménage and associated landscaping”.

The application reference was 15/P/3/0314.

The core reasons for refusal include the Planning Officer’s view that:

- None of the circumstances set out in adopted Housing in the Countryside policy, as

contained within the Local Development Plan and Supplementary Guidance which

permit housing in the countryside, applies.

- The proposal, due to the excessive amount of new build proposed and associated

demolition and alterations, is not considered sympathetic to the character and

appearance of the existing agricultural building.

This statement will summarise the background to the application and set out the grounds for

Local Review, prior to demonstrating the acceptability of the proposal under those grounds.

Specifically, it will be demonstrated that:

- The proposal does meet one of the criteria under which housing in the countryside

can be acceptable. Policy requires only one criterion to be met.

- The proposal was validly presented to the Planning Authority as “redevelopment of a

brownfield site” not as a conversion proposal, although part of the dwelling does

utilise, and ensure preservation of, an existing barn. No traditional stone buildings are

demolished.

- The proposal will result in environmental and visual benefit and will improve the

residential amenity of two existing houses.

- Supporting information was provided to demonstrate that buildings to be demolished

are beyond economic repair, contrary to the Planning Authority’s assertion that no

such supporting information was provided.

- The design of the proposal is sympathetic, and its scale is reasonable, in the context

of the scale of the redevelopment project.

3




1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 This supporting statement to Notice of Review is submitted by Ericht Planning &

Property Consultants on behalf of Mr John Miller to challenge the refusal, by Dumfries

and Galloway Council, of consent for the redevelopment of the former Beltonhill

steading, extending to 4,510 sqm (1.11 acres), including extensive demolition and the

erection of a new dwellinghouse, a proportion of which involves conversion of an

existing barn.

1.2 The steading and associated buildings have not been used for agriculture for over 18

years. They can thus not be said to be in agricultural use. There has been equestrian

use within the courtyard. The site beyond the main courtyard is effectively derelict.

1.3 Policy H3 Housing in the Countryside requires one criteria of six to be met in order for

housing in the countryside to be supported. This proposal fits well with criterion no. 4,

namely it is ‘redevelopment of a brownfield site’.

1.4 The appeal subjects do comprise a valid non-agricultural ‘brownfield site’, located in a

countryside location. The appeal subjects contain many redundant buildings/

structures, as highlighted in bold and italics in the table overleaf – these are to be

demolished. The un-highlighted buildings (nos. 1 and 3) are to be retained and re-

used. Fig 1: Buildings at Beltonhill

Ref Description

1 Traditional (pre-1919) barn with stone walls and slate roof

2 Concrete block extension to [1] with corrugated metal sheet roofing

3 Traditional (Pre-1919) stable block with stone walls and slate roof

4 Concrete block built extension to [3] with corrugated metal sheet roofing

5 Former milking parlour. Part stone/ part single brick walling and asbestos sheet

roofing

6 Steel framed shed clad and roofed with corrugated metal sheeting

7 Steel framed shed with railway sleeper walling (part) and asbestos sheet roofing

8 Joining lean-to shed with corrugated metal sheet roofing

9 Concrete block shed with asbestos sheet roofing

10 Slurry tank

11 Extensive area of hardstanding

12 Site of demolished building and existing wooden sleeper barrier fencing

4




1.5 No wholly stone-built traditional buildings will be demolished. The stone-built

traditional buildings in the courtyard will become part of the proposed house or be

used as stables, as indicated on the planning drawings.

1.6 Access to the subjects will be taken by way of the existing driveway, the appearance

of which will be enhanced with ‘avenue’ tree planting.

1.7 The design proposal put forward is supported, in principle, by the Planning Authority,

but not in the context of the specific site at Beltonhill.

1.8 All original planning application drawings and reports must be considered as part of

this Local Review.

1.9 It is requested that the Appellant’s case, as set out in this report, is adequately and

appropriately summarised at presentation to the Local Review Body Committee in

balance with that presented for the Planning Authority.

5




2.0 REFUSAL OF APPLICATION BY DUMFRIES AND GALLOWAY COUNCIL

2.1 The application was refused by Dumfries and Galloway Council on 22nd January, 2016

on the basis set out below.

The proposal is contrary to the provisions of Dumfries and Galloway Local

Development Plan H3 and Supplementary Guidance on Housing in the countryside,

which permit new housing in the countryside only in the special circumstances

identified, and none of these circumstances apply. The proposal, due to the excessive

amount of new build proposed and associated demolition and alterations, is not

considered sympathetic to the character and appearance of the existing agricultural

building, contrary to policy H3, Supplementary Guidance on Housing in the

Countryside and Supplementary Guidance on Conversion of Traditional Agricultural

Properties.

6




3.0 GROUNDS FOR LOCAL REVIEW

3.1 The Appellant sets out the following three Grounds for Review, which are justified in

the next section 4.0 ‘Case for the Appellant”.

Ground 1 - “Redevelopment of a brownfield site” is one criterion of six under adopted

housing in the countryside policy and supplementary guidance whereby a new house

in the countryside is permitted. Only one of the six criteria requires to be met.

The Planning Authority has elected to appraise the application under Housing in the

Countryside “conversion” policy (criterion 6) as opposed to under criterion 4

“redevelopment of a brownfield site” under which the application was submitted.

Ground 2 – The proposal will result in significant environmental and visual

improvement and an improvement in the residential amenity of the two existing

houses.

Ground 3 – Supporting information was provided to demonstrate that buildings to be

demolished are beyond economic repair, contrary to the Planning Authority’s

assertion that no such supporting information was provided.

Ground 4 – The design of the proposal is sympathetic, and its scale is reasonable, in

the context of the traditional buildings to be retained and the scale of the

redevelopment project.

7




4.0 CASE FOR THE APPELLANT

Ground 1: “Redevelopment of a brownfield site” is one criterion of six under

adopted housing in the countryside policy and supplementary guidance whereby a

new house in the countryside is permitted. Only one of the six criteria requires to be

met.

The Planning Authority has elected to appraise the application under Housing in the

Countryside “conversion” policy (criterion 6) as opposed to under criterion 4

“redevelopment of a brownfield site” under which the application was submitted.

4.1 The proposal, as was submitted, accurately describes the development proposal as

being one of redevelopment of a redundant former farm steading. The Planning

Authority appears unwilling to accept this is the case.

4.2 This is considered to be unreasonable given that the proposal includes the demolition

of significant numbers of redundant non-traditional buildings which are beyond their

economic life as confirmed by GLM Ltd’s report (Chartered Building Surveyors), as

shown in the aerial photograph below. All non-traditional buildings/ structures other

than those numbered (1), (3), (4), (6) and the two dwellings and store (13), (14) and

(15) are to be demolished. In addition an area of broken up/ degraded concrete

hardstanding extending to 1,948 sqm will be removed. This is clearly a de-facto

redevelopment proposal and to ignore this is unreasonable.

Fig 2: Buildings at Beltonhill

8




4.3 The proposal, as submitted was entitled:

“Redevelopment of Beltonhill Steading to form one dwellinghouse by conversion of,

and alterations to, existing barn and erection of two storey building with single storey

car port; demolition and removal of former farm buildings, slurry store and concrete

hardstanding; restoration and change of use of former farm steading to garden

ground and outdoor riding arena”.

4.4 The proposal, as described by the Planning Authority was changed in title to:

“Alterations and change of use of existing barn and erection of two storey building to

form dwellinghouse with single storey car port (including demolition and removal of

farm buildings, slurry store and hardstanding), installation of septic tank and

soakaway and formation of equestrian ménage and associated landscaping”.

4.5 The Officer’s report states (section 4.7) that “the application has been submitted

primarily in terms of criterion 6” (conversion). This is incorrect. The application was

submitted clearly under the factual position that the proposal amounts to the

beneficial redevelopment of a brownfield site in terms of criterion 4 of policy H3 –

Housing in the Countryside.

4.6 It is noted that the LDP defines ‘brownfield’ as “Previously developed land and

premises, including the curtilage of buildings, which may still be partially occupied or

used. Most commonly associated with derelict urban land with redundant industrial

buildings. Excludes agriculture, forestry and previously used land which now has

nature conservation or recreation value”. The definition may exclude ‘agriculture’,

4.7 It was clearly stated in the application supporting statement that the site has not

been used for agriculture at any point in the appellant’s ownership; a period of 18

years. It is factually incorrect to state it has ‘agricultural use’ and thus fail to

acknowledge that it is largely a brownfield site in a degraded state which requires to

be redeveloped. Equestrian use of part of the courtyard and storage of feed is

acknowledged – this is not agricultural use.

4.8 The Appellant considers that the Officer’s report at section 1.3 ‘application proposal’

is misleading. It does not indicate the extent of demolition, site clearance and what

amounts to significant redevelopment of a brownfield site to form a dwelling,

landscaped garden and riding arena.

9




4.9 The selection of photographs from the site overleaf clearly demonstrates that

redevelopment is both necessary and appropriate.

Fig 3: Redundant concrete hardstanding. (Traditional barn to left of picture to be retained)

Fig 4: Redundant buildings and concrete hardstanding.

10




Fig 5: Redundant buildings

Fig 6: Redundant slurry store and deep underground pit

11




Fig 7: Redundant concrete hardstanding (Building on left to be retained)

12




GROUND 2 – The proposal will result in significant environmental improvement and

an improvement in the residential amenity of the two existing houses.

4.10 The Officer’s report states that no supporting information regarding environmental

benefits was submitted. In this regard, a full and detailed photographic record of

redundant buildings and the significant area of degraded and crumbling concrete

hardstanding were provided within a buildings condition report prepared by a

Chartered Building Surveyor. It is abundantly clear that removal of these redundant

buildings, as proposed with the application, will provide a significant environmental

improvement, a visual improvement and an improvement in residential amenity of

the residents of the two existing houses.

13




GROUND 3 – Supporting information was provided to demonstrate the buildings to

be demolished are beyond economic repair, contrary to the Planning Authority’s

assertion that no such supporting information was provided.

4.11 The building condition report submitted with the application was prepared by a

Chartered Building Surveyor from GLM Ltd. It details all the buildings within the

application boundary. The report clearly states that the non-traditional (yet more

than 25 years old) buildings are beyond economic repair. Reference should be

specifically made to sections 2.4, 5.8, 5.25 and 5.29 of GLM Ltd’s report. It is

considered to be unreasonable that the Planning Authority appear to be questioning

the report’s content as appears to be the case within the Officer’s Report at section

4.6.

14




GROUND 4 – The design of the proposal is sympathetic, and its scale is reasonable,

in the context of the traditional buildings to be retained and the scale of the

redevelopment project.

4.12 The proposal for one dwelling, a part of which is created from conversion of an

existing traditional building, is reasonable in the context of the physical and economic

scale of works required to redevelop the former steading. The appellant will require

to carry out extensive demolition works at significant cost, a quotation for which was

provided within the original application.

4.13 There is no proposal to remove any stone traditional buildings, all of which will be

retained and re-used to form part of the dwelling, associated stables/ store areas.

4.14 The appellant wishes to continue to use one of the traditional buildings as stables,

whereas the Planning Authority states that such should be absorbed into a conversion

proposal. It is considered to be unreasonable for the Planning Authority to determine

the appellant’s personal requirements in terms of the use put to existing traditional

buildings. The appellant has a genuine requirement for continued use of one

traditional building as stables. As has been made clear elsewhere within this appeal,

the proposed development was not presented to the Planning Authority as a

conversion project, but principally as a redevelopment proposal, under Housing in the

Countryside policy (criterion 4).

4.15 Contrary to the Planning Authority’s point of view, the appellant strongly asserts that

the proposed layout does respect the courtyard formation. The reason for refusal

states that “the proposal, due to the excessive amount of new build proposed and

associated demolition and alterations, is not considered sympathetic to the character

and appearance of the existing agricultural building”.

4.16 In this regard, firstly, it is unclear which ‘building’ the Planning Authority refers to;

there are two traditional buildings being retained. One will continue to be used as

stables and the other will form part of the dwellinghouse. It is unreasonable to

suggest that the demolition proposed (as part of ‘the proposal’) is not sympathetic to

the buildings to be retained. Removal of unsafe, beyond-economic-life buildings of

between 30 -50 years of age cannot reasonably be described as being unsympathetic

to the traditional buildings, nor can the removal of 1,948 sqm of breaking-up concrete

hardstanding.

15




4.17 The proposal is sympathetic to the existing traditional buildings. The design approach

includes the retention of the existing traditional stone barn. The existing brick

building with fibre cement roof is unsympathetic to the stone barn. The new build

brick building replacing it retains the same width and has a roof angle and finish to

match the traditional stone barn. The new is respectful of the old and integrated by

use of form and materials to create a sympathetic whole. The detached new build two

storey part with a single storey glazed link entrance further emphasises this.

4.18 The suggestion that the project should entail conversion of the stone barn and

existing stables (buildings [1] and [3], below which are on either side of the courtyard)

to form one long dwellinghouse is wholly unrealistic as the two would require a new

linking building closing off the courtyard and giving a huge footprint for a house with

an impractical length of circulation of 52 metres as well as level differences restricting

accessibility.

4.19 The aerial photograph and the table overleaf, extracted from the original Planning

Supporting Statement, confirms the existing and proposed use of the buildings and

structures.

Fig 8: Buildings at Beltonhill and existing and proposed uses

16




Ref Existing Proposed

1 Traditional barn with stone walls and slate roof Conversion to residential use

2 Concrete block extension to [1] with corrugated

metal sheet roofing

Demolish

3 Traditional stables with stone walls and slate roof Retain in stables use

4 Concrete block extension to [2] with corrugated

metal sheet roofing

Retain for equestrian tack room

5 Former milking parlour with painted part stone/

part single brick walling and asbestos sheet roofing

Demolish. Location of the 2 storey new

build wing of the dwelling

6 Steel framed shed clad and roofed with corrugated

metal sheeting

Retain as general purpose storage

shed, remove one bay at southern end.

Repaint dark grey

7 Steel framed shed with railway sleeper walling

(part) and asbestos sheet roofing

Demolish. Remove hardstanding.

Create ménage. 8 Joining lean-to shed with corrugated metal roof

9 Concrete block shed with asbestos sheet roof

10 Slurry tank Demolish. Remove hardstanding,

storage tanks. Restore the land.

11 Extensive hardstanding (c. 1,250 sqm) Remove hardstanding, redevelop/

restore as shown on plans.

12 Site of demolished building and existing wooden

sleeper barrier fencing

Remove hardstanding, redevelop/

restore as shown on plans.

13 Dwelling - occupied No change

14 Dwelling - occupied No change

15 Store associated with dwellings No change

4.20 In respect of the design quality it is noted that the Officer states that “the design

proposal is in itself clearly of merit” but not in this particular context. The report

suggests that stone built traditional buildings are to be demolished. The Review Body

is directed to GLM Ltd’s building report. It is confirmed that no stone-built traditional

buildings are to be demolished.

4.21 It is acknowledged that the proposal comprises a significant proportion of new build

versus the limited extent of conversion. This in itself is not a reason to withhold

consent – the proposal is one of a redevelopment nature and satisfies the criterion

contained within Housing in the Countryside policy whereby a new dwelling which is

constructed in association with the redevelopment of a brownfield site can be

acceptable.

Date post:	21-Sep-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	vodang
View:	220 times
Download:	0 times

Supporting Statement to Notice of Review -...

Documents