Agenda item

Demolish black barn and rebuild using brick and cladding to create annexe within curtilage of Rowdens Farm house.

Public Participation

Whiteparish Parish Council – Trevor King

 

For clarity, Cllr Leo Randall noted that he was a member of Whiteparish PC, however was not in attendance at the parish meeting when the matter was discussed.

 

The Senior Planning Officer Becky Jones presented the application to demolish the black barn and rebuild using brick and cladding to create an annexe within the curtilage of Rowdens Farm house. The application was recommended for approval with conditions.

 

It was noted that the barn on the left was agricultural and was excluded from the red line area as it was still currently in use.

 

The barn was of a fairly historic construction, however, was not of concern to the Conservation Officer.

 

An application originally came in for a change of use, however this was   withdrawn due to the domestic storage underneath. The application for consideration today was then submitted.

 

The design was approximately 30cm taller than the existing barn, and included a dormer and balcony on the roof. The footprint had not changed and the proposal included 2 bedrooms, each with ensuites. Appendix 4 detailed personal reasons why that arrangement was needed.

 

The main dwelling was for agricultural workers. Any occupant of the annex would also need to be a dependent or relative of the agricultural dwelling occupants.

 

The Officer drew attention to the other case laws which had been included in the report for guidance.

 

The Panel were then able to ask technical questions of the Officer, where it was clarified that condition 4 set out the restriction on the sale of the annex as a separate dwelling.

 

Members of the public were then given the opportunity to present their views as detailed below.[ED1] 

 

Trevor King spoke on behalf of Whiteparish parish council. He urged the committee to refuse the application. The parish council did not believe the proposed development was an annex in any way, as it was 17.5m away from main dwelling.

 

He queried the statement in the report which suggested there was insufficient room to extend Rowdens Farm house, noting that there was plenty of room for an extension.

 

The condition is understood very well, however there were ways to get around them, as in 5/6 years’ time, he suggested that the applicant would come back to the committee for a certificate of lawfulness, and then the condition would be removed. At that point, would it also remove the condition from Rowdens farm house? The Parish was seeing annexes being sold away from the main dwellings with land registry.

 

The Division Member, Councillor Richard Britton then spoke in objection to the application, noting that Core Policy (CP) 48 was not engaged because it referred to a conversion and to existing buildings, yet the proposed development was accepted as a new build. He queried how then they could continue to argue that CP24 applied. He suggested that the development was not an extension or an addition to a building, therefore CP24 was not engaged.

 

The report argued that H33 could be used to support occupancy for dependents, yet none of the characteristics of H33 applied in this instance. This was not a conversion of an existing building so H33 could not apply in support of this.

 

This is a new building at a considerable distance to the farm building it claims to be annexed to. It is a new build in open countryside, and falls foul to all of the policies [ED2]  identified. Because of this, the application should be refused.

 

Cllr Britton moved the motion of refusal against Officers recommendation. This was seconded by Cllr Leo Randall.

 

Cllr Randall noted that the application was from the Head Brothers, he asked who the annex was for? The Officer noted that appendix 4 to the report stated the annex was for the parents of Mr Head’s wife.[ED3] 

 

There was no suggestion that the new house was required because of any medical issues with the family, it seemed that it was wanted because of a financial matter and they want somewhere to live.  This was not required to assist a relative’s medical issues and therefore there was no justification.

 

This annex was in the same curtilage, so could be considered an annex, and there are conditions to ensure it would not be separated.

 

Class Q and Class C, not in the AONB but there is a big move to support rural life and this was one way of doing it. Farming was a changing face and the domestic storage use, that has come about by default rather than necessity.

 

The Officer clarified that class Q was quite complex. She noted that it was in use for domestic storage, though they would struggle that the use had not changed. Class Q application would require them to prove it could be converted, which may be a struggle. There are buildings there that could more easily be considered for class Q, but then they would be on the open market, and the applicant wanted an annex.

 

If the owners could not convert a barn on their farm to house elderly parents then what can we do. At some time in the future they may have medical issues, and at that point it would be better that their children were around to look after them.

 

The Committee could not determine what could happen in the future.

 

This was not about the reuse of redundant farm buildings. There was no case being made for the medical needs of parents. It was purely financial.

 

The Committee voted on the motion of refusal against Officers recommendation.

 

This motion was not carried.

 

Councillor Mike Hewitt then moved the motion of approval, in line with Officer recommendation. This was seconded by Councillor Sven Hocking.

 

Resolved

That application 19/05178/FUL – Rowdend Farm, Bunny Lane, Sherfield English, Romsey, be approved subject to conditions:

 

1.    The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

 

REASON: To comply with the provisions of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

 

2.    The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans listed in schedule: Proposed Elevations Dwg No C dated 20/5/19 Proposed Ground Floor with footprint of Existing Barn Dwg No AA dated 20/5/19 Proposed First Floor Plan Dwg No B dated 20/5/19 Barn conversion to Dwelling Plan 2 dated 6/11/18 Site Location Plan (red line) at 1:1250 scale Planning Statement from M. Head received 5/7/19

 

REASON: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

 

3.    The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be in accordance with the details submitted, namely red brick (to match Rowden’s Farm house) and timber cladding for the walls and slate for the roof.

 

REASON: In the interests of visual amenity and the character and appearance of the area.

4.    The annexed accommodation hereby permitted shall not be occupied at any time other than for purposes ancillary to the residential use of the main agricultural worker’s dwelling, known as Rowdens Farm house and it shall remain within the same planning unit as the main dwelling. The annexe shall not be sold or let separately from the main dwelling.

 

REASON: The additional accommodation is sited in a position where the Local Planning Authority, having regard to the reasonable standards of residential amenity, access, and planning policies pertaining to the area, would not permit a wholly separate dwelling. The main dwelling, known as Rowden’s Farm house is subject to a restrictive condition under 73/EY/478 which restricts the occupiers to a person solely, or mainly employed or last employed in the locality in agriculture (as defined) or in forestry (including any dependents of such a person residing with him) or a widow or widower of such as person). The occupation of the annexe, being ancillary to the main dwelling, would be available only to such dependents/persons.

 

5.    Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting or amending that Order with or without modification), there shall be no additional insertion of any doors or entrances in the west elevation of the annexe hereby approved.

 

REASON: To ensure that the annexe retains its entrance within the curtilage of the main house.

 

6.    The annexe hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the proposed sewage and surface water disposal drainage works set out on the statement from M. Head received 5/7/19 and Plan 2 have been completed in accordance with the details hereby approved.

 

REASON: To ensure that the development is provided with a satisfactory means of drainage before occupation.

 

7.    If, during development, any evidence of historic contamination or likely contamination is found, the developer shall cease work immediately and contact the Local Planning Authority to identify what additional site investigation may be necessary. The development shall be implemented in accordance with any scheme of remediation works to be subsequently agreed in writing.        

 

Reason: In the interests of future amenities of the occupiers.

 

8.    The demolition works hereby approved shall be overseen by a licenced bat ecologist who will be present on site on the day the demolition works commence to undertake a detailed inspection of the internal and external parts of the building to identify any areas that hold potential for bats (a bat scoping survey). The works will only proceed in accordance with any subsequent written advice issued by the ecologist.

 

REASON: To ensure harm to bats is avoided in accordance with the Habitats Regulations 2010

 

Informative

The applicant is advised that all British bat species are protected under The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended), which implements the EC Directive 92/43/EEC in the United Kingdom, and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). Please note that this consent does not override the statutory protection afforded to any such species. If bats are discovered, all works should stop immediately and Natural England should be contacted for advice on any special precautions before continuing (including the need for a derogation licence)

 

 

Councillor Richard Britton requested his dissent be recorded, stating that the decision was flying in the face of the policies.