REPORT OF THE STRATEGIC DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT SERVICES TO DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE
SITE INSPECTION – 20 JUNE 2003
|
1. |
TCP/09682/E P/00267/03 Parish/Name: Wootton Registration Date: 06/03/2003 -
Full Planning Permission Officer: Mrs. J. Penney Tel: (01983) 823593 Conversion/adaptation of unauthorised 2 storey
building into single storey barn Fernhill House, Fernhill, Wootton Bridge, Ryde, Isle
Of Wight, PO334QX |
REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
Report requested by Development Control Manager.
PERFORMANCE INFORMATION
This is a minor application. The
processing of this application has taken 14 weeks to date and has gone beyond
the prescribed time limits due to further information being forwarded by the
agent and this being the earliest committee date following the Development
Control Manager instruction.
LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The site is to the south of Wootton, accessed off Fernhill, an unadopted
roadway which has a junction to Station Road approximately 120 metres south of
Lushington Hill traffic lights. There
is bungalow on site with some outbuildings within a garden of 1.127 hectares
and the unauthorised building the subject of this application. The site itself is isolated and surrounded
by open countryside.
RELEVANT HISTORY
TCP/9682 - outline consent for
erection of dwelling at Fernhill Gardens - approved subject to
conditions including agricultural occupancy condition in November 1963.
TCP/9682/A - erection of bungalow at Fernhill Nurseries - approved
subject to conditions including agricultural occupancy condition in January
1964.
As a result of investigations following allegations of business use, a
Planning Contravention Notice was served on the owner in March 2000. From the information received, the owner was
advised in May 2000 that on the basis of information provided, there was no
material change of use of the premises requiring planning permission at that
time. It also appeared from the
information provided that the agricultural occupancy condition was being
complied with.
TCP/9682/C - Retention and
completion of new building to provide holiday accommodation - Refused March 2002.
ENF/9682/D - Following a report to the Development Control Committee on
18 December 2001 enforcement action was authorised seeking the removal of the
building. The Notice was issued on 19
February 2002 - attached as Appendix A.
Two appeals against the
Enforcement Notice were lodged, both stopped the enforcement action
pending the determination of the appeals.
One appeal was not accepted by the Planning Inspectorate as it was out
of time, and the other failed to provide the relevant information and the
Secretary of State dismissed it on 19 June 2002. The enforcement action recommenced from 19 June 2002 with a new
compliance date of 19 December 2002.
The site was visited in January 2003 and it was noted that the building
had not been removed. Following several
exchanges of correspondence with the landowner the Council's Solicitor is being
asked to pursue the failure to comply with the requirements of the Enforcement
Notice through the Courts.
DETAILS OF APPLICATION
Application seeks consent for the conversion and adaptation of an
unauthorised two storey building to provide a single storey barn. The application form states that the first
floor is to be demolished but the proposed elevational drawings do not reflect
this. The plans detailing the existing
floor plans show kitchen/utility, w.c., lounge, porch at ground floor with 3
bedrooms and bathroom at first floor.
The elevation drawings show changes to the north and south elevation to
remove windows. The materials are wood
and country cladding of grey/green.
Applicants supporting letter details history of development - attached
as Appendix B. Additional information
received on behalf of applicant attached as Appendix C.
At the time of my inspection of the site the applicant advised that
there were 50 /60 apple trees on the site and that he grew garlic but none at
the time of my visit. It was also noted
that the elevation drawings were inaccurate.
Amended plans received showing a reduction in height and further details
of how the site is used with regard to other buildings - letter attached as
appendix D.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY
The application site is outside the defined development envelope for
Wootton. Policies S4 - Strategic Policy protecting countryside
from inappropriate development, G1, Development Envelopes for Towns and
Villages, G5 - Development Outside
Defined Settlements, C1 - Protection of
Landscape Character, D1 - Standards of
Design are relevant.
CONSULTEE RESPONSES
Highway Engineer considers no highway implications on application.
Environment Health make no comment.
Ecology Officer has confirmed that a Barn Owl has taken up residence in
the building and is using it as a roosting site but it is not being used as a
breeding site. The Wildlife and
Countryside Act confers protection of Barn Owls at their nest site. However, the loss of a roost site can affect
the breeding population of Barn Owls in the area if there are no alternative
roosting sites in the vicinity. It is
entirely possible that demolition or other disturbance may have a detrimental
“knock-on” effect if the Barn Owl concerned has a nest site nearby. Disturbance of such an adult bird could be
deemed an offence under the legislation and should be avoided.
For this reason, Ecology Officer advises that any disturbance should not
be permitted between the months of April to August inclusive. Also advises that, following any approved
works, provision for a Barn Owl box should be provided.
PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS
Parish Council requests information on what use the barn would be put to
and whether it is justified before commenting.
Any further comment will be reported at meeting.
THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS
None received.
CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS
Relevant officer given opportunity to comment, but no observations
received.
EVALUATION
The site is in within an area of open countryside where planning
policies seek to protect the landscape character from inappropriate
development. Applications should
maintain and protect the landscape, should be for the benefit of the rural
economy and the people who live there and must take account of the landscape
character and local distinctiveness of the area.
Some types of development are considered appropriate in the
countryside. These are generally ones
which are essential and necessary to the successful operation of the rural
economy, or provide for the needs of the rural population.
With regard design standards, one of the objectives of policy is to
promote and enhance the character of the Islands countryside. In accordance with Policy D1, applications
will be expected to show a good quality of design and respect the visual
integrity of the site and the distinctiveness of the surrounding area and
should be sympathetic in scale, materials, form, siting, layout and
detailing.
The building subject of this application was first brought to the
Councils attention and investigated by the Enforcement Section in July
2001. At that time construction work
revealed a two storey wooden chalet structure.
An application submitted in November 2001 claimed that the building was
a rural outbuilding and the intention was to convert it into tourism and
holiday accommodation to support the agricultural business. The application was returned to the
applicant as it was incomplete to be registered.
As the history section of this report details, there is an outstanding
breach of the Enforcement Notice which should have been complied with by 19
December 2002. Failure to comply with
the requirements of an Enforcement Notice is a criminal offence.
The application for retention and completion of the new building to
provide holiday accommodation that was refused in March 2002 has not been the
subject of any appeal to the Planning Inspectorate.
This matter has now been outstanding since July 2001 with the
unauthorised building still on site.
The owners have been given more than ample time to comply with the
Enforcement Notice or appeal the decisions.
The current application would seem to be a further attempt to retain a
building not constructed for the purpose intended. The submitted plans do not reflect a demolition of the first
floor of the building and are inaccurate in detail and the site inspection has
revealed limited evidence of agriculture activity. Whilst the supporting letter gives details on the business
potential, there is no evidence of the existing level of use of other buildings
on site and the evidence does not override the Policy objection. I would also suggest that the position of
the barn in the lower eastern end of the holding is not ideally located to
serve the enterprise.
Policy C17 of the UDP relates to conversion of existing building but is
not relevant in this case as the unauthorised building was a new build. One of the concerns in dealing with this
application is that if a building is permitted in the countryside without
justification of its need in connection with the use of land, then how long
will it be before a further application is submitted to convert this building
for purposes unrelated to agriculture.
The policies referred to in this report are of primacy in the
consideration of this application and it is my view that the supporting
information does not provide sufficient justification of agriculture need. The building is of domestic appearance and
the plans inaccurate. The proposal is
therefore contrary to Policy.
Notwithstanding the outcome of this application or the Ecology officer
comments with regard the Barn Owl; at the time of report writing, the
Enforcement Section are preparing their statement of evidence to submit to the
Legal Services Department with a view to commencement of prosecution
proceedings.
The reduction of this building does not give the appearance that it is
not a residential unit - still reads as a non-agricultural development.
No change to recommendation.
HUMAN RIGHTS
In coming to this recommendation to refuse planning permission,
consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (right to
privacy) and Article 1 of the first protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of
Possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The impacts this development might have on
the owners/occupiers of the other property in the area and other third parties
have been carefully considered. Whilst
there may be some interference with the rights of the applicant to develop the
land in the manner proposed, it is considered that the recommendation to refuse
is the proportional to the legitimate aim of the Council’s Unitary Development
Plan and in the public interest.
JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION
Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material
considerations proposal represents inappropriate development in the countryside
contrary to policy and recommend accordingly.
1. RECOMMENDATION - REFUSAL
Conditions/Reasons:
|
1 |
The proposal as submitted is not supported by sufficient evidence to
outweigh Policies restricting new building in the countryside to that shown
to be necessary and in the interests of agriculture and is therefore contrary
to Policies S4, G1 (Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages, G5 (Development
Outside Defined Settlements), and C1 (Protection of Landscape Character) of
the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
2 |
The proposal would be detrimental to the rural character of the area
by reason of the physical impact and appearance and would therefore conflict
with the intention of the Local Planning Authority to protect the natural
beauty of the landscape and would be contrary to Policy C1 (Protection of
Landscape Character) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
3 |
The Local Planning Authority is not satisfied that the building is
required for agriculture purposes on this site and furthermore the design and
construction of the building does not suggest ancillary agriculture
uses. The proposal is therefore
contrary to Policy D1 (Standards of Design) and C1 (Protection of Landscape
Character) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
4 |
The information accompanying this application is inadequate and
inaccurate in respect of the application form and elevation drawings so that
the Local Planning Authority is unable to consider fully the effect of the
proposal on the landscape character. |
2. RECOMMENDATION
That the Members of the Development Control Committee note and support
the current actions of the Officers in pursuing the failure to comply with the
requirements of the Enforcement Notice through the Magistrates Court.
Head of Planning Services