Contact your Parish Council

APPLICATION:       MA/09/0824         Date: 13 May 2009         Received: 28 July 2009

 

APPLICANT:	Mr & Mrs I & C  Neild
LOCATION:	ELMS BARN, HIGH STREET, YALDING, MAIDSTONE, KENT, ME18 6HU
PROPOSAL:	Erection of single storey timber clad garden room to be used as a hobby room shown on drawing numbers D0366-P001 Rev A and a site location plan  and an Arboricultural Methodology Statement received on 14/05/09 and as amended by additional documents being drawing no.s ROL711 A Rev 1 and ROL711 B Rev 1  received on 17/07/09 and an Arboricultural Method Statement (including a Tree Protection Plan) received on 28/07/09.
AGENDA DATE:   CASE OFFICER:	5th November 2009   Louise Welsford

 

The recommendation for this application is being reported to Committee for decision because:

 

●  it is contrary to views expressed by the Parish Council

 

POLICIES

 

Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000:  ENV28, ENV34, H33.
South East Plan 2009: BE6, C4.

Government Policy:  PPS1, PPS7, PPG15.

 

HISTORY

 

The most relevant is:

 

MA/03/1584         Erection of a detached garage - APPROVED

MA/99/0264         Planning Permission and Listed Building Consent for conversion of barn to dwelling - APPROVED

 

CONSULTATIONS

 

Yalding Parish Council: Objects to the design and feels very strongly that the style and materials are completely inappropriate adjacent to the listed wall of the Grade 1 listed Church. The parish council do not object to the principle of the development.   

Maidstone Borough Council Conservation Officer: wishes to see the application approved. No objections.

 

English Heritage: Does not wish to comment. Recommend that the application is determined in accordance with national and local policy and specialist conservation advice.

 

Maidstone Borough Council Landscape Officer: Initial comment:

“The documents which supports this application, the Arboricultural Impact and Methodology Statement and associated drawings are detailed. The information within this document will ensure that the trees are successfully retained after the garden room has been erected”. However no tree survey has been carried out and no details of how the root protection areas have been caluclated.

 

Recommended that a tree survey was undertaken in accordance with BS5837- Trees in relation to construction.

 

On receipt of further information, including a Tree Survey:

“There are 6 trees which are in close proximity to where the garden room will be located. As a result of the close proximity it has been necessary for a tree survey to be carried out to assess the conditions of the trees and to provide the necessary method statements to ensure that no damage occurs during the erection of the garden room.

 

The trees are within Yalding Conservation Area, therefore the trees have a degree of protection and proposed works will mean that a section 211 notice will be submitted.

 

The tree survey was carried out in accordance with BS5837: 2005 Trees in relation to construction- Recommendations, and as a result were categorised as 'A grade - 'those of high quality and value: following a site visit I would agree with this asssessment...

 

There are 5 individual trees and one group which were surveyed. The main concern is T1, a Red Oak which will be within 2 metres of the structure and therefore well within the RPA. There is also a mature Yew (T4) within the grounds of the neighbouring Church.  Also in close proximity are a group of Sycamores and Conifers. All the trees, with the exception of T4, are located within a well maintained lawn area, which is slightly raised from than the main dwelling.

 

The main concerns are how close the structure will be to T1 and what effect the construction of the structure will have on the trees, most notably T1 from soil compaction and root severance. Both of these concerns have been addressed within the Arboricultural report, both issues are covered in paragraph 7.4 and 7.5. The design of the foundations will be sleeved to prevent concrete leachate, paragraph 10.1. It is imortant to note that the surrounding lawn provides and the lack of underground services provide an ideal growing condition for the trees and therefore root distribution will be wide and far reaching. The issue regarding the closeness to T1 may result in fear of failure particularly after high winds. The applicant has a duty of care and this means that they have to ensure they are safe which may mean employing an arborist to inspect them on a regular basis, and if defects are found it may be necessary to submit an application to carry out works accordingly.

 

An additional concern which needs to be addressed is how the flooring slab will be placed, the report states that it may be lifted using a crane or manufactured on site. It is important to establish this as if it is lifted into garden it will result in limbs having to be removed from T1”. He recommends a condition regarding this issue, to ensure that no crane is used.

 

“Due to the orientation of the structure and the solar gain, the lawn being south facing it is probable that the light will very limited which may lead to pressure to have works undertaken to alleviate this issue”.

 

He recommends that this application should be approved subject to conditions regarding how the floor slab will be inserted, and that the works are to be carried out in accordance with the submitted Arboricultural report.

 

Kent County Council Heritage Conservation Group: No archaeological measures will be necessary, due to the small footprint.

 

REPRESENTATIONS

 

One letter of objection/comment has been received from Yalding Church Council.  This raises objection upon the grounds of access for maintenance of the wall and comments upon the following issues: the modern appearance of the proposal in contrast to the traditional buildings on site; there are large trees in the churchyard close to the development area which should be preserved; the roof line could be softened by the use of a sedum covering (now proposed) and the Party Wall Act.

 

CONSIDERATIONS

 

SITE AND SITUATION

 

The application site contains a Grade II Listed, converted barn, constructed of dark stained weatherboarding, under a tiled roof.  It is located in the parish of Yalding and in terms of the Local Plan it falls within the open countryside and a Special Landscape Area.  However, the site actually falls close to the centre of Yalding village and upon visiting the site, one does not get the impression that this is a particularly rural location, because of the built up nature of the surroundings. The site also falls within Yalding Conservation Area.

 

The barn is situated approximately 80m back from the road, along a private driveway.  To the east of the site lies “The Elms”, a residential dwelling and St. Peter and St Paul’s Church, Grade I Listed, lies to the north.  The Church wall runs along the northern boundary of the site and is listed by virtue of its siting within the curtilage of the Church. A sympathetic weather-boarded garage with a catslide roof lies to the west of the barn.  There are several trees to the east of the building and to the north, within the Churchyard.

 

PROPOSAL

 

Planning permission is sought for the erection of a detached outbuilding, for use as a garden/hobby room.  The building would be situated to the east of the barn and would have a footprint of 4.8m x 6.2m, and a height of approximately 3m. It would be of contemporary design and would have western red cedar cladding to its walls, which would be stained to match the colour of the weather-boarding upon the barn and a slate grey metal base/trim.  Its roof would be flat and would be a sedum planted green roof. It would be positioned approximately 300-400mm from the Church wall and more than 30m from the closest part of the Church. It would be approximately 5m from the listed barn.

 

PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

 

The key issues relate to the impact upon the setting of the Grade II Listed barn, the Grade I Listed Church and upon trees within the Conservation Area.

 

The proposed building is of a modern design and is clearly a stark contrast to the barn.  However, PPG15 advises that new buildings within Conservation Areas do not have to copy their older neighbours in detail. What is considered important, is that the new building respects the historic context in terms of scale, massing and the use of appropriate materials.

 

In this case, the proposed building would be of a relatively small scale and low height (only approximately 3m) and would not dominate the barn in either scale or position. The barn is a functional building, of simple form, and the proposal would also be of simple form, albeit of a contemporary design. It would acknowledge the appearance of the barn, through the use of dark stained boarding, and a sedum roof would give it a more natural appearance, which would help the building to blend with its surroundings. This would be particularly important when viewed from the Church, as the Churchyard is at a higher level.

 

Whilst outbuildings of domestic appearance might normally be considered inappropriate within the setting of converted farm buildings, this particular building is not considered to have an especially agricultural setting.  The barn is not grouped with other farm buildings upon a former farmstead, nor does it occupy what is considered to be a rural location.  Indeed, visually it appears more as a structure within the garden of the domestic property “The Elms”, rather than part of any former farm and it occupies a fairly central village location.

 

The proposed structure would not be attached to the barn and would not, therefore, affect its linear form, which is a key element of its special interest in my view, because its form is intrinsic to its character and directly related to its historic function.

 

Also, in terms of its position, the building would not be prominent in any public views.  It would be set back from the road by over 100m and beyond the barn, such that it would not be visible from the High Street.  It would be visible from the Churchyard, but the site is on lower ground than the Churchyard and it would be partly obscured by the Churchyard wall and also around 50m from the main path through the Churchyard, plus the sedum roof would soften its impact when viewed from there..

 

It is important to note that the Conservation Officer has not objected to the proposal and that she recommends approval.

 

It would be of an unobtrusive colour, having dark stained cladding to match the barn.

 

On balance, given its small scale, position, very contrasting design and the village location, the materials to be used and also the Conservation Officers comments, it is considered that the proposal would not be so detrimental to the setting of the Listed barn, the character and appearance of the countryside and Special Landscape Area or the Conservation Area as to justify a refusal.

 

With regards to the setting of the Grade I Listed Church, the building would not be prominent from the churchyard, because it would be on a lower level, with only approximately1.5m of its height projecting above the wall.  The green roof would help to soften its impact and the timber cladding would be dark stained, which would further limit its impact.  Due to its height and positioning, and the levels involved, I do not consider that it would significantly adversely affect the setting of the Grade I Listed Church and it is important to note that English Heritage have not objected in this regard.

 

 The building would be a stark contrast to the Listed wall, to which it would be very close (within half a metre), but it would be of a small scale and discretely positioned and the dark staining and sedum roof would give it a fairly unobtrusive and natural appearance.  On balance it is considered that the proposal would not significantly adversely affect the setting of the Listed wall.

 

Turning to the impact upon trees, there are a number of trees close to the site proposed for the building, including some upon the other side of the Church wall.  A tree survey in accordance with the British Standard has been carried out and includes five individual trees and a group.  All of the trees are identified as either Grade A (high quality and value) or Grade B (moderate quality and value).  The most notable trees are T1, a Turkey oak, stated to be a good example of its species and T4, a Yew, within the Churchyard, which it is stated may possibly be a veteran.  The building would be within 2m of the Oak and well within the Root Protection Area.  However, due to the type of foundations proposed, the Landscape Officer does not consider that any of the trees are likely to be lost, subject to the works being carried out in accordance with the details in the tree survey.  He also has a concern regarding how the floor is to be inserted, and considers it important that no crane shall be used for assembly, in order to protect the trees.  It is considered appropriate to attach conditions relating to these matters. Foundations are not considered to be of a type to cause significant damage to the trees or their health.

 

The site lies in an area of archaeological potential, however, due to the small footprint of the proposals, no archaeological measures are considered necessary.

 

The Conservation Officer has not objected to the proposal on the grounds of the impact upon the Listed Churchyard wall and its stability and access for maintenance is not considered to be a material planning consideration, nor is the Party Wall Act.

 

The site lies in a flood plain, however, due to the scale of the development and the fact that it is not stated to be used as main living accommodation, there are considered to be no significant flooding issues.

 

The sedum roof, which would be approximately 30 square metres in area, would soften the appearance of the building and would provide a more natural appearance to the development. It would also enhance the ecological value of the site.

 

There are no residential amenity issues, due to the siting and distances to other properties. The proposal would not create any new views towards “The Elms”.

 

CONCLUSION

 

Due to its scale, siting and contrasting design, and the location and character of the site and surroundings, and also the use of dark stained boarding and a sedum roof, the proposal would not cause significant harm to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area, the countryside or the setting of any Listed Buildings.

 

Approval is therefore recommended. 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to the following conditions:

 

         

 

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

Reason: In accordance with the provisions of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004

2.   The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the submitted Arboricultural Method Statement and Tree Protection Plan received on 28/07/09;

Reason: In order to protect trees which make a positive impact upon the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, in accordance with Policy BE6 of the South East Plan 2009 and PPG15.

3.   No crane shall be used in order to insert the floor slab, assemble the building, or position it upon the site;

Reason: In order to protect trees which make a positive impact upon the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, in accordance with Policy BE6 of the South East Plan 2009 and PPG15.

4.   The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the building hereby permitted shall be those submitted in sample form and stated upon the application drawings and the timber cladding shall, within two months of the erection of the building or prior to its first use (whichever is sooner) be dark stained to match the weatherboarding upon the existing listed barn;

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development and to preserve the setting of the Grade II Listed barn, in accordance with Policy BE6 of the South East Plan 2009 and the advice given in PPG15.

5.   The foundation design shall be as stated on drawing no. ROL711C unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority: 

Reason: In order to protect trees which make a positive impact upon the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, in accordance with Policy BE6 of the South East Plan 2009 and PPG15.

6.   The development shall not commence until full details of new external joinery, in the form of large scale drawings, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To preserve the setting of the Grade II Listed building in accordance with Policy BE6 of the South East Regional Plan 2009, and the advice given in PPG15.

7.   The development shall not commence until full details of  a planting scheme for the green roof have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To preserve the setting of the Grade II Listed building and the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, in accordance with Policy BE6 of the South East Regional Plan 2009, and the advice given in PPG15.

Informatives set out below

An arboriculturalist must be available on site for supervision as set out in Section 11 of the arboricultural report.

The proposed development, subject to the conditions stated,  is considered to comply with the policies of the Development Plan (Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000 and South East Plan 2009) and there are no overriding material considerations to indicate a refusal of planning consent.