Agenda item

Residential conversion and extension of pumping station (amended description/plans 11/03/2019)

The Committee considered a report of the Planning Officer regarding an

application for Residential conversion and extension of pumping station (amended description/plans 11/03/2019) Former Pumping Station to the North East of Presser Villa, Bale Hill, Blanchland (for copy see file of minutes).

The Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation which included a site location plan, aerial photographs and photographs of the site.

Mr Tulip, Chairman of Hunstanworth Parish Meeting, objected to the application on behalf of residents who did not feel that many of their issues, including the addition of the proposed orangery, had been correctly addressed by the Planning Authority.

The North Pennines Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) Partnership had submitted consultee comments in April 2019 which asked that the conversion should strongly respect the form and function of the original building, of which the orangery did not.  They stated that there was no justification for the addition of the orangery in the form or use of the former pumping station, it was obtuse and overt when viewed from the wider landscape and should be removed.  Furthermore when lit, from the inside it would become and unacceptably domintant element of the new dwelling.  Given their disapproval, Mr Tulip was shocked by the response of the Planning Authority who stated any harm to the overall character of the building from the proposed orangery, was considered limited.  He felt comments from the AONB Partnership had been completely ignored.  He thought that as a parish in an AONB, they would be protected from adverse development by the specialised advice and guidance from the AONB Partnership.  The difference of opinion was alarming and he asked the Planning Officer to explain the contradicting statements.

The Planning Officer confirmed that in addition to the AONB Partnership, the Design and Conservation Officer and Historic England were consulted and offered no objection to the application, they commented on the urgency for re-use and repair of the building to secure its future and prevent further deterioration.  The orangery was considered to be a lightweight feature to be added to improve the viability of the scheme overall. 

The NPPF acknowledged that whenever a building of this nature that didn’t have  residential use previously, would subsequently have such a use, there would be some inevitable harm with the alterations, however it is considered that that harm would be considered less than substantial and should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including where appropriate securing its optimum viable use.  This development would ultimately secure public benefits in repair and long-term retention of the grate II listed building and it was therefore considered that the public benefits outweighed the less than substantial harm. 

Mr Morwood lived in the neighbouring property and shared access with the property and although he had already raised his concerns, he had received no satisfactory response.  This was a site which was 1300 feet up in the North Pennines and during Winter months the track could be up to several feet high with snow for periods of a few days to several weeks.  He had lived there for more than twenty years.  More often than not both vehicles would be abandoned at the top of the track to wade through the snow, but the area at the top of the track was narrow and was barely able to fit both cars on it.  A dwelling with five bedrooms would result in at least two vehicles which would leave them fighting for a space or parked on the highway, preventing the snow plough from getting through.

Mr Morwood disputed the reference to passing places in the report, they were not designated passing places – they were areas where vehicles had encroached onto the adjoining land under the control of the sporting estate tenant and therefore could be fenced off at any time.  He had consulted a legal advisor who had advised that there could be a legal basis for maladministration and potential challenge in court.

The location plan contained a large area of land at the top of the track which was not part of the track, not suitable for parking and neither the applicant or Mr Morwood had any rights over it.

The Senior Ecologist confirmed that she had undertaken a habitat regulations assessment and as well as the ecological reports submitted, she was satisfied that the level of mitigation proposed would render the application de minimis in terms of impact on protected species.

On behalf of the Applicant, the Agent Ms Cranley, addressed the Committee in support of the application. 

The Applicant was required to make best use of their assets and dispose of them when they were no longer required for operational purposes. The proceeds of these sales were reinvested back into the water and drainage system.  Presser Pumping Station was one of their disposal sites. This grade II listed building had lain vacant for over 20 years – and was at risk unless a viable alternative use can be found.

Due to the constraints of the site and the listed building, interest in development opportunities was limited. Ms Cranley confirmed that since 2011, the Applicant had sought an alternative use for the site. It had been marketed for community use, small scale employment, holiday accommodation, recreation and rural enterprise, but no interest had been secured.

Following discussions with the Council in 2017, it had been agreed that residential use offered the best way forward and that securing planning permission would help to de-risk the site for a potential investor.  The original proposals were subject to local objection, however, the applicant responded proactively to the issues raised and a revised scheme was prepared.  The addition of three new dwellings had been removed and the proposals focused on the conversion of the listed building.  The garden curtilage was reduced to avoid domestication of the site, and the landscape and boundary treatments had been redesigned to meet the requirements of the Council’s landscape and ecology officers.

Ms Cranley confirmed that further ecological work had been undertaken and the Council had carried out a full Habitats Regulations Assessment which had been approved by Natural England.  Further discussions were undertaken regarding the access with arrangements agreed with Highways.  A meeting was held with the Parish Council and local residents to explain the proposals and respond to any outstanding concerns or queries. While most issues had been addressed, several local objections remained.  In particular, the glazed extension caused concern to some residents, but it was explained that this was an essential part of the scheme – which took advantage of the merits of the site and was crucial to attracting a potential owner.

The extension occupied the site of the former crane shed and allowed an original doorway to be reinstated to provide a link between the old and new. The light touch glazing allowed the historic fabric to be seen and also afforded views of the landscape beyond.  To address concerns around lighting it was agreed that electronic blackout blinds would be conditioned – a solution that had been successfully employed elsewhere in the AONB. 

Ms Cranley confirmed that the revised scheme had addressed the comments raised by Council Officers, Statutory Consultees, the Parish Council and Local Residents.  The application would regenerate a redundant brownfield site and preserve the industrial legacy of the area, it would repair, refurbish and reuse of a grade II listed building, protecting it for future generations.  It would secure substantial ecological enhancements and the proposals represented sustainable development that offered a viable future for the building. She urged Members to accept the Officers’ recommendation and approve the scheme.

The Principal DM Engineer responded to