REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF CORPORATE SERVICES TO DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

SITE INSPECTION - 26 OCTOBER 2001

TCP/17657/H P/01685/00 Parish/Name: Arreton

Registration Date: 06/12/2000 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. D. Booth Tel: (01983) 823577

Conversion of agricultural buildings into dwelling with office & store room; alterations & continued use of barn as store & packing shed Blandings, Horringford, Newport, Isle Of Wight, PO303AP

Site and Location

This application relates to buildings situated to the south of Horringford House, which as members will be aware, is accessed from the eastern side of the main road to the south of Arreton village. The buildings comprise a relatively modern farm building, which is used as a packing shed for the business. This comprises growing and packaging of vegetables, which are provided for delivery under a box scheme, whereby customers place orders, which are then boxed up for delivery. The application also includes a disused former cart shed and semi-derelict pigsty buildings situated adjacent to the access track and this building is proposed for conversion to a dwelling.

Nearby buildings include Horringford House and Horringford Cottage, which are in residential use and a range of former farm buildings to the north-west, some of which have been converted for residential occupation and some are undergoing conversion, in accordance with previous planning permissions.

The site is accessed via a long unmade gravel track and there is substantial hedge screening to the roadside boundary. The site levels fall to the north and east and parts of the buildings are therefore lower than the level of the access track itself.

Relevant History

There are a number of previous applications relating to alterations and extensions to Horringford House and Horringford Cottage, both of which are listed buildings in established residential use. Previous applications also relate to conversion of the former barns to the western side to form five self-contained living units and consents also granted previously for residential use of the former Coach House. Members are advised that all the above buildings are considered to be within the curtilage of; and an integral part of; the setting of the main dwelling, which is a listed building and the barns themselves are of some historic character, being of considerable age and constructed of natural stone with some brickwork. The buildings are grouped around a former farmyard on the western site of the main house and form an integral part of the group of historic buildings.

A planning application relating to the buildings now under consideration was considered in 1991. The application was the conversion of the former farm buildings to form two units of holiday accommodation and was withdrawn, following a recommendation for refusal on grounds of the proposal being contrary to rural development plan policies and because the proposed accommodation was considered to be capable of permanent residential occupation, which would be contrary to adopted policies regarding residential developments in rural areas. Planning permission was refused in 1997 for removal of conditions, which restricted the erection of boundary fences and walls on the site relating to the former Coach House. The proposal was considered to be detrimental to the visual amenities of the area and contrary to the original concept of the layout of the development and would detract from the pleasant and open character and appearance of the existing buildings, including Horringford House, which is a listed building.

Details of Application

Planning permission requested for continued use of the relatively modern agricultural building as a store and packing shed in connection with the vegetable packing and delivery business, which has been operating on this site for some time, together with conversion of the former cart shed and ancillary structures into a dwelling with office and storeroom, including a kitchen area, which would be partly for domestic use and partly used in connection with preparation of produce for sale. The submitted details indicate substantial extensions to both the modern packing shed building and also extensions and alterations to the former cart shed to provide a dwelling. This would include infilling the open fronted cart shed element and construction of extensions to the south and west including a new gabled roof over the southern and eastern sections, together with an extension on the southern side of the packing shed building.

The application has been accompanied by the detailed business plan for the property, together with supplementary information submitted in respect of the amended proposals, and copies of this information are attached as an appendix to the report.

In summary, the information indicates that the business started as a small scale vegetable sorting and packing operation where customers place prior orders, which are then boxed up and delivered to them. The business has been successful and has grown recently and is managed by the applicant, who currently lives in one of the converted barns to the west.

It is indicated that the horticultural project can bring at least twenty jobs to the countryside within the next year and would make beneficial use of the existing buildings, which are part of the historic site. In view of the low margins and long working hours the project is only viable if residential and commercial facilities are combined, because many of these are dual purpose and require long hours of work and management.

Development Plan Zoning and Policy

The site is situated in a rural area outside any designated development envelope and forms part of a group of buildings including Horringford House itself, which is listed Grade II and the adjacent barns, which are considered to be of some historic interest. The buildings forming part of this application are however, somewhat separated from the remainder of the group and are of less historic interest, although the former cart shed itself is constructed of brick and is approximately 100 years old.

I W Unitary Development Plan Policy C17, together with government advice contained in PPG7 relating to re-use of rural buildings are considered to be applicable to this proposal.

The above policy indicates that applications for re-use and adaption of rural buildings for employment, recreation or tourism purposes will normally be approved, providing that various criteria are met. Applications for re-use and adaption to residential use, must comply with similar criteria, but will be refused unless:

every reasonable attempt has been made to secure a suitable employment, recreation or tourism use for the building, or

residential conversion is a subordinate part of a scheme for employment, recreation or tourism use and;

the building is of historic and architectural merit;

conditions or agreements are applied prohibiting further extensions, alterations or outbuildings.

Guidance notes accompanying the above policy indicate that re-use and adaption of rural buildings, can have an important role in meeting the needs of rural areas for employment use and can reduce demands for new buildings in the countryside, provide jobs and reduce vacancy and dereliction. The residential conversion is likely to have a minimal economic impact, although in some cases it could play a major role in meeting identified housing needs. Where buildings are considered to be of some historic merit, the principle of re-using should generally be to secure their survival, but without alterations damaging their essential character or setting. Development should therefore seek to avoid situations where barns are not being conserved, but in effect new buildings are being created and should also avoid undue change in architectural and historic character.

In addition Policy D1 (Standards of Design) indicates that development will be permitted only where it maintains or wherever possible enhances the quality and character of the built environment and applications will be expected to show good quality of design and should confirm to various criteria, including the following:

respect the visual integrity of the site and distinctiveness of the surrounding area;

be sympathetic in scale, materials, form, siting, layout and detailing;

of a height, mass and density which is compatible with surrounding buildings and uses;

do not constitute over-development, leading to cramped appearance and obtrusiveness, but include appropriate spacing between properties;

retain, maintain, enhance and/or create open spaces, views or other features, which significantly contribute to the area.

Policy B2 relates to setting of listed buildings and indicates proposals which adversely affect the appearance setting or curtilage of a listed building will not be permitted and indicate that unsympathetic development may seriously detract from the appearance and/or setting of a listed building. The relationship between the building and its surroundings can often be as important as the detailing of the structure itself, particularly where related to nearby open spaces, vistas, prominent building sites and buildings.

Strategic Policy G5 relates to development outside defined settlements and indicates that these may exceptionally be permitted, where it requires a rural location is of benefit to the rural economy, is well designed and landscaped and has appropriate scale and relates to one of various categories of development including the following:

development connected with agriculture, forestry, fisheries and related ancillary activities;

appropriate small scale development ancillary to existing housing, industrial, commercial, tourism or community developments;

appropriate small scale development to create or sustain rural employment;

appropriate small scale specific types of housing developments.

Representations

Letter received from local resident indicated that only concerns relating to ability of local sewerage system to cope with extra load, and the ability of the access road, which is already potholed to cope with any extra traffic caused by the development.

Letter from Environment Agency, indicating that they have no objection in principle to the proposal, but would wish the following information to be taken into consideration;

under the terms of the Water Resources Act 1991 approval of the Environment Agency is required for any discharge of sewage or trade effluent into controlled waters and may be required for any discharge of sewage or trade effluent from buildings or fixed plant into the ground or waters which are not controlled waters.

Highway Engineer commented on the original proposals that the site plan does not show the access to the development within the site boundary and recent alterations to the access to the A3056 have been located broadly in accordance with previously approved plans, but the construction and visibility at present are inadequate. It is understood that improvement works are intended shortly. The application states that the existing business will expand considerably and concern expressed that this may in turn significantly increase the vehicular use of the access to the detriment of highway safety. This is particularly so if the premises include retail element open to the general public. Adequate parking and turning should be shown for all vehicles likely to be attracted to the development, although there is ample space for this within the site.

A copy of a letter from the applicant to the Committee Chairman has been received which gives additional information in respect of the requirement for residential accommodation on the site related to the viability of the business. A copy of this letter is attached as an appendix to the report.

Evaluation

This application relates to a site containing former farm buildings, with the more modern building currently being used as a processing and packing shed in connection with the vegetable packaging and delivery business which has been set up on the site. The business is owned and managed by the applicant, who currently lives in one of the converted barns to the western side of Horringford House.

The submitted details indicate that the business is expanding and in order to remain viable, will require extension and alterations to the buildings and also conversion of the adjacent former cart shed to form residential accommodation for the owner and his business partner.

Members will note that a significant amount of supporting information has been provided by the applicant in terms of an outline business plan and information relating to amendments to the scheme which have been submitted following negotiations with the planning office.

In principle, the submitted details fall to be considered under the terms of IW Unitary Development Plan policy C17, which relates to conversion and re-use of rural buildings. This policy is in line with government guidelines contained in PPG7 and would generally support alteration and re-use of rural buildings for business purposes, providing the activity is compatible with a rural location and does not involve significant alteration or extension or change of character of the locality. The vegetable packaging business is considered eminently suitable for its rural location and in fact is already operating from this site and makes use of crops grown on the adjacent land, with management by a local resident.

This element of the proposal is therefore considered to be in compliance with policy C17 and I can see no problem in principle with the retention and continued use of the former farm building for vegetable packing purposes.

Members will note however, that the application does include various elements and in particular a significant extension is proposed to the packaging building and, more importantly, the proposal also includes conversion and extension of the former cart shed to form residential accommodation, which would be occupied by the owner of the business and his business partner.

In this context, Members are advised that the building used currently for vegetable packaging is not considered to be of any architectural or historic merit, although it is a traditional farm building with block work elevations under a pitched roof. The submitted details indicate some extension to the southern side of this building, which would reflect characteristics of the existing structure and in principle, this element would be considered acceptable, as it would allow the existing business to expand and provide rural employment, whilst having a minimal visual impact on the locality, particularly bearing in mind that this building is at a lower level and is not prominent in the locality and does not significantly impact on the setting of the nearby listed buildings.

The element of the submitted details which relates to conversion of the former cart shed to residential use, does however, raise various concerns.

The building itself, is obviously later in date than the main listed buildings nearby, although it is of traditional brickwork construction with a pitched roof and is probably about 100 years old and forms part of the traditional complex of former farm buildings. The cart shed itself is accessed via a small open yard and has an open frontage supported on timber posts. The land falls steeply to the rear (south and east) and there are some walled structures at the rear, which formerly comprised pigsties and open yards. These are situated at a lower level and are screened from the remainder of the site by a boundary wall and do not have any significant visual impact. The submitted details indicate a significant alteration and reconstruction of this element of the building to provide additional living accommodation, including the provision of a new gabled roof.

Whilst some residential conversion of the existing traditional structure may be acceptable as ancillary accommodation in connection with the business use of the site, as indicated by policy C17, it is important that residential conversion should be a subordinate part of an overall scheme for employment, recreational or tourism uses. Members will be aware that the policy also indicates that buildings should be of some historic and architectural merit, and proposals should not therefore involved significant reconstruction or alteration of the buildings.

In this context I am concerned that the plans show a significant amount of reconstruction and alteration to the former cart shed, which would approximately double its footprint, and in particular would provide an additional gabled roof, thereby significantly altering the appearance and character of the building and increasing its visual impact. The resulting dwelling would contain two bedroom accommodation with an integral single bedroom annex.

Whilst I understand the applicants need for suitable living accommodation on the site, I am concerned that the proposed works to the traditional open fronted cart shed to provide substantial living accommodation would completely change its character and appearance and whilst it is acknowledged that some care has been taken to reflect the traditional detailing and characteristics of the building the proposal would still result in a substantially new residential unit on the site. Members are advised that the applicant currently lives in one of the recently converted barns which are situated to the west of Horringford House and is already therefore in close proximity to the business. The current proposal would therefore result in the provision of an additional dwelling within the complex comprising substantial accommodation, including an annexe and would also extend the residential element to the south of the existing complex. A plan is attached to this report indicating the location of the application site in relation to the existing buildings indicating those barns which have recently been converted. The plan also identifies Horringford House and Horringford Cottage which are Grade II listed buildings. A plan is also attached which indicates the extent of the new build/reconstruction of the buildings identified by cross hatching on the plans and elevations.

Members are advised that lengthy negotiations have taken place with the applicant in respect of this matter and although some alterations and improvements to the submitted details have been provided, I do not consider that these overcome the above concerns, and do not comply with the requirements of policy C17. Members will note however, that the applicant has provided detailed information relating to the business use of the site and his requirements for residential accommodation, in order to maintain the viability of the business and has requested that the application is considered as now submitted. This information has been attached as an appendix to the report, for Members attention.

Reason for recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, I am of the opinion that whilst there may be significant merit in the business use of the existing former farm building, I am concerned that the applicants requirement for a substantial amount of residential accommodation in connection with the business and the consequent extensions and alterations to the former cart shed which would effectively result in the construction of a new residential unit in the locality, would be contrary to the requirements of policy C17 and as this would also significantly affect the character of the area and setting of the nearby listed buildings, I do not consider the proposals to be in accordance with policy B6. I therefore have no alternative, but to recommend the application for refusal.

Recommendation - Refusal

Conditions/Reasons:

M J A FISHER
Director of Corporate Services