Agenda item

Conversion of field barn to 1no. residential dwelling

Consideration was given to the report of the Principal Planning Officer regarding an application for the conversion of a field barn to 1no. residential dwelling (for copy see file of Minutes).

A Caines, Principal Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation on the application which included photographs of the site. Members had visited the site and were familiar with the location and setting.

Councillor R Bell, local Member who had called the application to Committee was unable to attend but had submitted written representations which were read out at the meeting. In his statement Councillor Bell appreciated the efforts made by the Case Officer to make the application more acceptable, but there remained issues with it. He noted that at paragraph 41 of the report the applicant had dismissed the offer of a neighbour to buy the barn and restore it as a barn. A proper restoration would secure the barn’s future for many decades, hardly a ‘temporary solution’, and it was regrettable that this had not been encouraged by the report. NPPF Part 12 mandated planning authorities to ‘recognise that heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource and conserve them’. Failure to take up this offer was surely a breach of NPPF Part 12.

He noted the report at paragraph 68 dismissed the DCC Highways objections at paragraph 24. He considered it to be curious that a car or lorry serving a barn conversion was considered less dangerous in planning law than when they served a new build.

The use of red pantiles and the creation of a surrounding garden/amenity space was detrimental to the historic landscape character in a sensitive site, within a Conservation Area close to the listed Quaker meeting house, and was contrary to saved policy ENV3 and NPPF Part 12. Red pantiles were rare west of Barnard Castle and unknown on field barns of this vintage in the local area. The roof would stick out like a sore thumb.

He asked the Committee to refuse the application. If however the Committee was minded to accept the application, he asked for a condition to require the use of Teesdale stone slate as a roofing material, and a condition to prevent the applicant from demolishing and rebuilding the barn if he decided it was beyond economic repair.

Mr I Moorhouse addressed the Committee on behalf of Cotherstone Parish Council and the Field Barn Conservation Group. He stated that apart from the effect on the setting in a Conservation Area there were three main objections to the proposals. The offer to buy and restore the barn had been dismissed in paragraph 54 of the report and this seemed to be contrary to Part 12 of the NPPF which stated that Heritage Assets were an irreplaceable resource. The proposals would constitute a loss of essential character; the barn was small and the converted dwelling would be small and dark with no natural light downstairs. It would not be a desirable property and was contrary to the NPPF’s requirement to provide a wide range of high quality homes. Even Planning Officers had acknowledged that this would be basic accommodation.  The single track had no proper passing places and was unsuitable for emergency service vehicles. A recent estate development in the village had contributed to an increase in traffic.

In accordance with the General Permitted Development Order conversion could only be allowed where the structure was capable of being converted. Rebuilding was not permitted and he therefore asked if Members were minded to approve the application that a structural survey be carried out before planning permission was granted. He also asked that the curtilage of the development be defined at the same time.

Mrs Leech who spoke against the application reiterated the concerns raised  in the 64 letters of objection, however she wished to emphasise paragraph 54 of the report. The applicant claimed that the only way of retaining the building was for conversion to a house but her husband had offered to buy the barn and provide a dowry to ensure its ongoing upkeep and maintenance. The building should be preserved and maintained as a historical agricultural building befitting the location in a Conservation Area and AONB. She urged the Committee to refuse the application to protect the Conservation Area and asked the applicant to reconsider her husband’s offer. 

Maria Ferguson, the applicant’s agent then addressed the Committee. She commenced by emphasising the importance of being consistent and for the Committee to consider the proposals in the same way as other similar applications had been determined, some of which were in the Conservation Area and in the open countryside. Planning policy had been relaxed and new permitted development rights sought to allow the conversion of barns.  At  two appeals the Inspector had concluded that the Government’s commitment to facilitate residential conversion were material considerations which carried significant weight. The NPPF also made it clear that the risk of decay and neglect of heritage assets were best addressed through ensuring that they remained in active use. Left unaltered this building and its association would be lost and it would contribute nothing to the Conservation Area. This scheme would ensure the long-term future of the building.

The offer to restore the building by a third party did not meet her client’s needs, offered no incentive to the landowner and was not a material planning consideration. It was a credit to the owner, who cared about Cotherstone,  that the building had survived.  The barn was unsuitable for modern agriculture and every care had been taken to respect the character of the building and its surroundings.

With regard to the access it was acknowledged that the lane was narrow but was an adopted highway and was typical of the area. It was safe and there had been no reported accidents.

By way of clarification for Members, C Cuskin, Solicitor – Planning and Development advised that the offer to purchase the barn by a third party was not a material planning consideration that could be given any weight in the determination of the application. 

D Stewart, Highways Officer addressed the highway concerns submitted regarding access. In accordance with the NPPF one of the tests to be applied was whether the proposed development would have a severe cumulative impact.  He advised that this could not be shown here; the limitations of the access road were clear but site visibility at the junction onto the B6277 was acceptable and commensurate with approach speeds. The lane already served other dwellings with existing vehicular and pedestrian movements associated with it.

A Caines, Principal Planning Officer responded to the submissions made. He advised that preservation was not purely about maintaining such buildings in their current form and Planning Policy encouraged development that brought them back into active use. Mr Moorhouse had asked that a condition be included to ensure that the building was converted and not rebuilt, however this was considered unnecessary as rebuilding would be outside the scope of a permission for conversion. The barn also appeared to be in good condition and it would be unlikely that major rebuilding works would be required to achieve the conversion.

Councillor Davidson made reference to the curtilage of the building and was informed that the site boundary comprised the track and barn, and did not include the surrounding land.

In response to comments from Councillors Huntington and Clare about the potential for further works to the building in future, such as additional windows or a conservatory, the Members were advised that permitted development rights would be removed by condition, and therefore any alterations the applicant may wish to make at a later date would require planning approval.

Having heard this, Councillor Clare was of the view that, with the exception of the roof, this was a proposal to retain a building in its existing form and preserve rather than lose it. The Member moved approval of the application. 

The Chairman made the point that re-use of buildings of this type was now encouraged by planning policy.

Councillor Kay asked if the development was sustainable and if a condition could be included that Teesdale stone slate be used in place of red clay pantiles which would be very noticeable in the open countryside.

In response the Principal Planning Officer confirmed that the proposal constituted sustainable development. Cotherstone served other villages in the west of the County and was classed as a tier 4 settlement. The barn was only 100m outside of the village and within walking distance of facilities, including the local primary school. In accordance with the NPPF the site represented a sustainable location in a rural area. He acknowledged that stone slate would be preferable but the building was not listed and the existing roof was not made of this material. Stone slate was expensive and difficult to find. He also felt that imitation pantiles were sometimes confused with clay pantiles, and it was the imitation pantiles that were more vivid in colour. Clay pantiles would weather to a more subdued colour. There were examples of other buildings in the village with red clay pantile roofs and next to listed buildings, as seen by Members on the site visit. It was an appropriate local material and he did not consider it to be harmful to the appearance of the area.

To clarify, the Solicitor – Planning and Development advised that conditions had to be tested against certain criteria, one of which was that they must be necessary to make the development acceptable. Members could only impose a condition requiring the roof to be constructed out of Teesdale stone slate if they were satisfied that it would be necessary to refuse the permission if the roof was not constructed out of Teesdale stone slate.  

In terms of the concerns expressed about traffic, Councillor Davidson advised that he had observed tracks in the field leading beyond the barn which were clearly being used. The access road was already in use by vehicles and he did not envisage that the development would make any real difference in terms of impact on the highway. The Member seconded approval of the application.

Councillor Richardson considered that on the face of it the site appeared suitable for development but there were a number of issues; the narrow access track, the lack of services to the field and the proposed red clay pantile roof. He agreed with Councillor R Bell that the proposals were contrary to saved Local Plan Policy ENV3 and Part 12 of the NPPF, and he could not support the application.

Upon a vote being taken it was Resolved:

That the application be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the report.