Proposed conversion of existing stone barn and attached ancillary building into 2 no. residential units.

Ward: Burghill, Holmer & Lyde

Proposed conversion of existing stone barn and attached ancillary building into 2 no. residential units.

Given claims made by a member of the public in a letter to Councillors, the Chairman invited Councillor SJ Robertson, the Local Ward Member, to comment.  Councillor Robertson advised that, in accordance with Code of Conduct, she had not indicated whether she supported or opposed the application prior to the meeting and contact with the applicant was limited to giving procedural advice.  The Legal Practice Manager advised that he had discussed the situation with Councillor Robertson and was satisfied that, on the information provided, the Councillor did not have a personal or prejudicial interest to declare.

The following updates were reported:

·             Correspondence had been received from the applicant in support of the application.

·             Four letters of support had been received.

·             An e-mail had been received from Mr. S. Vaughan which stated that the report was not correct as the whole scheme was for conversion with all the buildings being retained and that there were no extensions.

In response to the additional representations, the following officer comment was reported:

·             To enable the buildings to be converted into two dwellings the lean-to together with the corrugated addition are required to be substantially demolished and rebuilt therefore forming extensions to the main stone barn.  Your officers are therefore satisfied that the report accurately reflects the proposal before members.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs. Reynolds spoke on behalf of Burghill Parish Council and Mrs. Eagling spoke in support of the application.

Councillor SJ Robertson, the Local Ward Member, thanked the Principal Planning Officer for his work on this scheme.  Councillor Robertson noted that the Parish Plan had identified the need for affordable housing, particularly for young people who had been priced out of existing local housing, and this proposal provided the opportunity for the family concerned to live at the farm and manage the smallholding into the future.  She felt that the proposal, subject to appropriate mitigation measures, would not cause harm to the character of the farm complex or to the wider countryside and proposed that the application be supported.

Councillor RI Matthews concurred with the views of the Local Ward Member and noted that Burghill Parish Council had no objection to the application and local residents supported it.  He did not feel that conversion of the outbuildings would have a significant impact and said that a common sense approach needed to be taken to the policy considerations.

Councillor MAF Hubbard commented that references to affordable housing were misleading as the development would be for the benefit of the family concerned rather than the wider community through a social housing provider.  However, he acknowledged the specific needs of the applicants and suggested that any planning permission granted be restricted to people working on the smallholding.

The Principal Planning Officer noted that a personal condition or a condition preventing the dwellings being sold separately from each other could be imposed but did not feel that this would entirely overcome the policy objections and other material planning considerations.

Councillor PJ Edwards commented that the footprint of other lean-to extensions to rural buildings had been included in other conversion schemes.  In response to a question, the Principal Planning Officer advised that the footprint of the buildings would actually reduce in this instance but emphasised that, whilst the stone barn was worthy of conversion, the additions were not worthy of retention and drew attention to the comments of the Conservation Manager (Historic Buildings).  Given the overall reduction in footprint, Councillor Edwards felt that the application could be supported subject to a personal condition.

In response to comments by members, the Development Control Manager outlined the potential complications of a personal condition.  He said that the case had not been made for agricultural need and the dwellings would not meet the criteria for affordable housing.  Therefore, the proposal was contrary to the authority’s current policies.

Councillor Matthews felt that members needed to focus on the application before them, rather than possible future scenarios, and re-iterated his support for the application.

RESOLVED:

That

(i)           The Central Area Planning Sub-Committee is minded to approve the application, subject to the condition listed below (and to any further conditions felt to be necessary by the Head of Planning Services), provided that the Head of Planning Services does not refer the application to the Planning Committee:

1.            This permission shall enure for the benefit of the applicant and her dependants and not for the benefit of the land or any other persons interested in the land.

(ii)     If the Head of Planning Services does not refer the application to the Planning Committee the Officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be instructed to approve the application, subject to such conditions referred to above.

[Note:

Following the vote on this application, the Development Control Manager advised that, as the resolution was contrary to the officers’ recommendation and there were crucial policy issues at stake, he was minded to refer the matter to the Head of Planning Services.]