Browse

Agenda item

20/09147/FUL - Upper Farm, Wexcombe, Marlborough, SN8 3SQ

Conversion of existing agricultural building into a C3 residential dwelling, together with associated residential curtilage, parking and landscaping, including the demolition and removal of two existing open sided barns within the site (resubmission of 20/02786/FUL).

 

Minutes:

Public Participation

Mr Charlie Woodhead spoke in support of the application.

 

Morgan Jones, Senior Planning Officer presented a report which recommended that planning permission be refused for the conversion of an existing agricultural building into a C3 residential dwelling, together with associated residential curtilage, parking and landscaping, including the demolition and removal of two existing open sided barns within the site (resubmission of 20/02786/FUL).

 

Attention was drawn to some late items. Since publication of the agenda there had been a further 10 letters of support for the application. Two people who had previously objected to the application had updated their positions, one now supporting the application in principal with the caveat that there was no further development on the site and one supporting in principal, but not this particular proposal.

 

The officer explained that the site was among former agricultural buildings on the edge of a village, surrounded on three sides by open fields and was within the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

 

Plans and evaluations were shown to the meeting. The current building was of steel frame construction with a mixture of corrugated metal and blockwork elevations.

 

It was stated that in regards to the planning policy context surrounding the application, the provision of a new build in this area would conflict with the settlement strategy in the development plan. The application sought to benefit from an exception policy of the Wiltshire Core Strategy (WCS), Core Policy 48 ‘Supporting Rural Life’. That policy provided support in principal for the conversion and re-use of rural buildings. This was subject to meeting the following set criteria:

 

i)               the building(s) is/are structurally sound and capable of conversion without major rebuilding, and with only necessary extension or modification which preserves the character of the original building; and

ii)              the use would not detract from the character or appearance of the landscape or settlement and would not be detrimental to the amenities of residential areas; and

iii)            the building can be served by adequate access and infrastructure; and

iv)            the site has reasonable access to local services; or

v)             the conversion or reuse of a heritage asset would lead to its viable long term safeguarding.

 

It was explained that the agenda report gave an assessment against the policy and criteria stated above.

 

Further slides were shown with proposed elevations and graphics of the proposal. The proposed conversion would see the removal of 1 bay, which was approximately 25% of the structure. Existing metal and blockwork elevations would be largely rebuilt, along with the roof. New windows and doors would be added. Comparisons of the building in its current form and a 3D image of the proposed dwelling were shown, highlighting the differences between the two.

 

It was explained that the submitted structural report had been based on a visual inspection which did not contain much detail. However, the costings submitted showed that the only part of the structure to remain was its steel frame, everything else would be new and substantial works were required. Officers were of the opinion that the extent of works required to secure residential use of the building fell well outside the scope of a conversion.

 

There were public footpaths near the site and the impact of the proposal on the character of the site and the AONB were also key considerations. In conclusion the officer recommended that the application be refused for the reasons outlined on page 47 of the agenda report.

 

Members of the public then had the opportunity to present their views, as detailed above.

 

The unitary division member, Cllr Stuart Wheeler, spoke in support of the application. Cllr Wheeler stated that there were many old barns in the countryside such as the one on the site at present. He felt the application was different to the previous application at agenda item 7a as it was on the edge of a village and the current barn was an eyesore. The AONB had not objected to the application and it was not a new build. This was the redevelopment of a rural brownfield site and the conversion of an old building. The Member cited 2 other applications he considered to be similar in Burbage Wharf and Froxfield where permission was granted.  

 

In response to public statements the officer stated that the AONB had not said they had no objection to the proposal but had not commented at all, although they had objected to the previous application submitted on the site. In relation to the application at Burbage Wharf the officer felt that was very different, it was the redevelopment of a site within the setting of a listed building so there were many different policies involved. The proposal being considered was a barn conversion under CP48. The officer acknowledged that there were some similarities to the Froxfield case, but the committee needed to consider each application on its own merits and to apply a planning judgement on whether it was a conversion, or a major rebuild.

 

The officer confirmed that the steel structure was structurally sound, however the scale of the works required to make the building a residential property were the issue. The officer clarified that the Hibbitt case referred to in the report was in relation to conversions under permitted development rights, which was slightly different to the application before the committee. However, the principals set out within the judgement could be applied to any conversion because it sought to define what was meant by the word ‘conversion’ in a planning context.

 

Cllr Mark Connolly proposed a motion to refuse planning permission as per the officer recommendation, for the reasons stated at page 47 of the report. This was seconded by Cllr Ian Blair-Pilling.

 

During debate councillors stated that they did see similarities between this and the previous agenda item. The committee would not approve a new build in this location, a small hamlet, as it would not be considered infill. Core policy 48 was central and the consideration as to whether this was a conversion. It was felt that the works were very substantial, there was very little resemblance between the current barn and the proposed dwelling. In fact, it was felt to be almost a complete rebuild as only the metal frame would be reused, therefore it could not be considered a conversion.

 

It was stated that the current building was not a heritage asset that required conservation. Members felt that if this was approved then this would set a precedent for every unsightly metal shed in the countryside to get approval in this fashion. It was acknowledged that the proposal would make the site look more attractive, but the committee had to follow policy and the countryside should be protected. It was also stated that there were so special or exceptional reasons linked to the application.

 

At the conclusion of the debate it was;

 

Resolved:

 

That planning permission refused.

 

REASON

 

The proposed development, due to the position of the site within the 'open countryside' on the periphery of the village of Wexcombe, would conflict with the settlement strategy (Core Policies 1, 2 & 18) and exception policies of the Wiltshire Core Strategy. The change of use of the building to create an unrestricted open market dwelling would not comply with the relevant exception policy (Core Policy 48 ‘Supporting Rural Life’) of the local development plan because the totality of works required to secure a residential use is considered to amount to major rebuilding that would fall outside the scope of a ‘conversion’. The proposed development is therefore deemed to be unsustainable and would conflict with the Council's plan-led approach to sustainable development

 

It has not been demonstrated that the dwelling is required to meet a defined local need and there are no exceptional circumstances or material planning considerations which justify the approval of the proposed development.

 

In light of the above the proposed development is considered to conflict with Chapters 4 ‘Decision-Making’, 5 ‘Delivering a Sufficient Supply of Homes’, 9 ‘Promoting Sustainable Transport’ and 15 ‘Conserving & Enhancing the Natural Environment’ of the National Planning Policy Framework (2018), Core Policies 1 'Settlement Strategy', 2 'Delivery Strategy', 18 'Spatial Strategy: Pewsey Community Area'; 48 ‘Supporting Rural Life’, 60 'Sustainable Transport' and 61 'Transport and New Development' of the adopted Wiltshire Core Strategy (2015).

 

Supporting documents: