APPLICATION: MA/12/1317 Date: 13 July 2012 Received: 7 December 2012
|
APPLICANT: |
Mr Sean Cole |
|
|
|
|
LOCATION: |
CHERRY TREE FARM, PETT ROAD, STOCKBURY, SITTINGBOURNE, KENT, ME9 7RL |
|
PARISH: |
Stockbury |
|
|
|
|
PROPOSAL: |
Permanent retention of existing poultry house and feed silos permitted under reference MA/08/1173; and erection of a detached farmhouse and garage to replace existing mobile home as shown on drawing nos. 1136/3 and 1136/5 received on 16/7/12; drawing no. 1136/10/A received on 28/11/12; and drawing no. 1136/4/A received on 7/12/12. |
|
AGENDA DATE:
CASE OFFICER: |
31st January 2013
Geoff Brown |
The recommendation for this application is being reported to Committee for decision because:
● it is contrary to views expressed by the Parish Council
1. POLICIES
· Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000: ENV6, ENV28, ENV33, ENV34, ENV43
· South East Plan 2009: CC1, CC6, C3
· Village Design Statement: N/A
· Government Policy: NPPF
2. HISTORY
The relevant planning history is considered to be:
MA/08/1173 - Erection of a poultry house and two feed silos, stationing of a mobile home for a period of three years, hard surfacing of existing access track and improvement of existing access - Approved
3. CONSULTATIONS
3.1 STOCKBURY PARISH COUNCIL states:
“Stockbury Parish Council has considered the amended details for the above planning application and I am writing to inform you that our objections still stand for the following reasons:
· The proposed development is out of keeping with the surrounding area.
· The site lies within an AONB.
· This application would amount to creeping development is the AONB.
· A similar application was recently turned down and we feel that this has established a precedent.
The Parish Council would therefore wish to see this planning application refused and reported to the Planning Committee.”
On the fourth point the Parish Council elaborate thus:
“There are two applications that have been refused recently, these are as follows:
12/1689 KEEPERS COTTAGE, RUMSTEAD LANE, STOCKBURY, KENT, ME9 7QL
Change of use of land from agricultural/forestry land to garden, construction of concrete hard surfacing and erection of detached garage/storage building as shown on the site location plan and drawing numbers 2029-001 rev A, 2029-006 rev B, 2029-007 rev B.
Refused
Reason for Refusal
The proposed development, by way of the visual impact of the proposed outbuilding, in particular the horizontal extent of the proposed outbuilding which would be sited above the natural slope of the land and the prominence of the development as a result of the elevated and exposed location and character of the site, would result in visual harm and a detrimental impact upon the character and appearance of open countryside with the designations of being within the North Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Kent Downs Special Landscape Area.
CREST FARM, YELSTED ROAD, YELSTED, SITTINGBOURNE, KENT, ME9 7UU
An outline application with all matters reserved for the erection of a dwelling as shown on site location plan received on 14/3/12.
The reasons for this refusal:
No adequate justification has been put forward to demonstrate why a new dwelling is essential to the workings of the stables, nor has it been demonstrated that the stables constitute a viable business. In the absence of adequate justification, a new dwelling here would be an unsustainable form of development, harmful to the character of The Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, The North Downs Special Landscape Area and the Strategic Gap. The application is therefore considered to be contrary to The South East Plan (2009) Policies CC1, CC6 and C3 and Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000 Policies ENV28, ENV31, ENV33 and ENV34; and the advice in the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).
This application has been considered in relation to the following policies:
Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000: ENV28, ENV31, ENV33, ENV34 South East Plan 2009 : CC1, CC4, CC6, C3”
3.2 The Council has consulted RURAL PLANNING LTD as its advisers on agricultural matters on this application. Rural Planning were initially concerned as to the size of the building proposed and the costs of its construction in relation to the overall size and viability of the business. Following the receipt of amended plans and details Rural Planning state:
“Further to my letter of 11 October 2012, and to our meeting with Mr and Mrs Cole and their agent David Bass on 20 November 2012, I note that a revised house design has now been submitted which reduces the size of the dwelling proposed to 178m2 gross, 158m2 internal.
The size reduction, a revision of some of the specifications, and a degree of internal work (floor covering, and decoration) being undertaken by Mr Cole himself, has enabled the estimated cost to be brought down to just under £105,000 (including £5,000 contingency).
This appears broadly in line with the sum I suggested as being potentially affordable from the income that the holding can produce. I would also regard the revised size of dwelling as not inappropriate in relation to the functional needs of the holding. Consequently the revised scheme now appears in line with the general tenets that were set out in. Annex A of PPS7, to which we are still referring, notwithstanding its withdrawal as official government policy.
However, the dwelling appears about on the limit of what might be affordable as matters stand, hence I would suggest that it would be appropriate to consider applying a condition to any consent withdrawing permitted development rights for extensions (as per Annex A PPS7, para. 10).”
4. REPRESENTATIONS
4.1 None received.
5. CONSIDERATIONS
5.1 Site Description
5.1.1 The application site is in the open countryside, lying within the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and the North Downs Special Landscape Area (SLA). The application relates to a 6.2ha holding, formerly covered in cherry trees. It is irregular in shape but roughly forms a T-shape. It is bounded by fields in equestrian use to the south, east and north and fields in agricultural use to the west.
5.1.2 The site is found towards the top of a valley slope that drops down gently to Pett Road to the east. The landscape is undulating with gentle valleys and slopes in this part of the AONB. Numerous cherry and other trees are found within the site with the land generally overgrown. Access is off Pett Lane, (a narrow country lane) via a surfaced track.
5.1.3 Permission MA/08/1173 allowed the erection of a poultry house, two feed silos and the stationing of a mobile home for a period of three years; and the hard surfacing of an existing access track. Since then the land has been developed in accordance with that permission and the land used for an organic free-range hen farm business selling eggs to at least one major supermarket and a local farm shop. The mobile home is to be found in an informal ‘garden area’ at the northern end of the track with the poultry building and silos to the north west of that.
5.2 Proposal
5.2.1 The main element of this application involves the construction of a permanent farmhouse to replace the existing mobile home. The new house would be on roughly the same site as the mobile home with a double garage to its south; all set within a rectangular garden area off the north side of the access track. This would be a two storey dwelling of traditional ‘farm cottage’ design with a rectangular ‘footprint’ of approx. 11.5m by 7.8m. The dwelling would have hipped roofs and would be of a fairly simple vernacular form, with brickwork under a tiled roof (details to be approved). It would have an eaves height of approx. 4.7m and a ridge height of 8.4m. The garage is again in open ‘cart lodge’ style of weatherboarding under a clay tile roof.
5.2.2 The temporary permission for the poultry building and silos has expired and this application seeks to retain the buildings permanently. The poultry building (48m x 10m) is located at the end of the access track and is sited on a northwest to southeast axis. It has a ridge height of 4m with a shallow 15o pitch roof. The building is constructed of plastic coated profile roof sheeting and walls of concrete blockwork. The two feed silos are sited on a concrete base to the immediate rear, south of the poultry building, both with an overall height of 4m.
5.3 Principle of Development including Agricultural Need
5.3.1 Development in the countryside is restricted under the terms of the Development Plan and the Central Government Guidance set out in The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The high quality of the AONB/SLA landscape is to be protected from visually harmful development.
5.3.2 As an exception to the general theme of restraint, Policy and Guidance allow for the construction of farm buildings where there is an essential need for such accommodation. The NPPF states in para. 55:
“To promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be
located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities.
For example, where there are groups of smaller settlements, development in
one village may support services in a village nearby. Local planning authorities
should avoid new isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special
circumstances such as:
● the essential need for a rural worker to live permanently at or near their
place of work in the countryside; or” [there follows a list of other ‘exceptions’ criteria]
Similarly Local Plan Policy ENV28 allows for the construction of farm dwellings as an exception to an otherwise restrictive regime.
5.3.3 This background allows for the principle of farm accommodation but clearly, to avoid the proliferation of such dwellings, they should only be allowed where there is an essential need. There is no Development Plan Policy directly related to agricultural dwellings. The old PPS7 Annex A had detailed guidance on how to assess need but PPS7 has now been superseded by the NPPF. Nevertheless, in my view (and that of Rural Planning), the tests in Annex A remain the most appropriate means of assessing need and I consider it appropriate to utilise it in this case.
5.3.4 Annex A sets a functional test and a financial test. The applicant has requested that the trading accounts be kept confidential. Rural Planning have thoroughly examined the business, its trading accounts and the estimated cost of construction. In their initial comments they said:
“I consider the business can now provide a sufficient livelihood for the applicant (in excess of an average farm worker's wage), for the purposes of the sort of financial test normally applied to such cases (under the criteria set out in Annex A of PPS7, which is still being used by decision makers for such assessments, albeit no longer official Government advice).
By the same token, I consider the viability of the unit has been proven for the purposes of retaining the poultry building and feed silos.
I also consider (for the reasons previously accepted in relation to the mobile home) that the enterprise generates an essential functional requirement for someone to be resident on site at most times for the proper care of the hens.”
5.3.5 The ‘trial run’ set up by the MA/08/1173 permission has proved successful and the functional and financial tests are satisfied. I consider the principle of a permanent farmhouse to be acceptable here. However, it is also appropriate to examine whether the size and cost of construction of the property is acceptable. Rural Planning’s view on the original scheme was that the house was overly large and expensive to construct when assessed against the needs of the farming enterprise. Negotiations followed resulting in the revised scheme now before Members. As reported above, Rural Planning considers the revised dwelling and costings to be acceptably proportionate to the needs of the holding. I agree with that assessment. I also consider there to be a clearly reasonable need to retain the poultry building and silos which are essential to the functioning of the unit.
5.4 Visual Impact
5.4.1 This is an elevated site on the sides of a valley within the AONB/SLA. The relative isolation of the site for the dwelling means that there are unlikely to be clear short range views of the development. For example, the new dwelling would be approx. 280m away from Pett Road to the south. However, because of the position on elevated ground and the fact that a two storey house is proposed, I consider that there would be distant views of the dwelling, albeit against a background of rising land. I do not consider that this renders the development unacceptable, particular as a fairly modest, traditionally designed structure is put forward that would not be prominent. Provided that adequate landscaping is put in place, I consider that the new dwelling and garage would not be significantly harmful to the landscape qualities of the AONB/SLA.
5.4.2 The poultry shed and silos are low structures that would not cause significant harm.
5.5 Residential Amenity
5.5.1 The dwelling would be so far removed from neighbours that no loss of light, outlook or privacy could occur. Similarly, the poultry building and silos are so remote that there are unlikely to be significant amenity problems to any residential properties in the general area.
5.6 Highways
5.6.1 The access track is established and, together with the local highway network, is adequate to serve the traffic for the uses proposed. The dwelling would have parking and turning space on site. The occupiers of the dwelling would be heavily reliant on the private motor car for their basic needs but that is often the situation with farm dwellings and I consider the need to provide a dwelling outweighs those sustainability considerations in this case.
5.7 Landscaping
5.7.1 Following the implementation of permission MA/12/1317, there are no trees on the site intended for any of the buildings in this application. The nearest trees are old cherry orchard trees that would not be directly affected by the proposed scheme. I note the plans indicate an intention to retain cherry trees and to plant a new hedgerow along the access road. However I consider that more extensive landscaping is required than that (most notably to mark the garden boundaries) and this can be secured by condition. The areas that would form the siting and curtilage for the buildings is quite intensively managed and unlikely to be of any significance for ecology. Clearly a properly devised landscaping of indigenous species would provide ecological benefits.
5.8 Other Matters
5.8.1 Looking at the comments of the Parish Council, I disagree that the proposals would be out of keeping with the surrounding area: I consider this a worthy attempt to design a vernacular farmhouse. The site lies within an AONB but this is not, in itself, a bar to providing a new farm dwelling where deemed essential (as in this case). The other cases referred to by the Parish Council are not, in my view, comparable: the Keepers Cottage case did not involve any agricultural considerations; whilst, at Crest Farm, the equestrian-related case for a dwelling was so weak that the principle of a dwelling there was deemed unacceptable.
6. CONCLUSION
6.1 I conclude that it has been proven that there is an over-riding need to provide a permanent dwelling on this site and that the detail is appropriate.
7. 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 hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the
following approved plans:
drawing nos. 1136/3 and 1136/5 received on 16/7/12; drawing no. 1136/10/A
received on 28/11/12; and drawing no. 1136/4/A received on 7/12/12;
Reason: To ensure the quality of the development is maintained in accordance
with Policies CC1, CC6 and C3 of The South East Plan 2009.
3.
The
development shall not commence until, written details and samples of the
materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the
dwelling and garage hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be
constructed using the approved materials;
Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development. This in
accordance with Policies ENV28, ENV33 and ENV34 of The Maidstone Borough-Wide
Local Plan 2000.
4.
No
development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority a scheme of hard and soft landscaping
(including boundary treatments), using indigenous species which shall include
indications of all existing trees and hedgerows on the land, and details of any
to be retained, together with measures for their protection in the course of
development and a programme for the approved scheme's implementation and long
term management. The scheme shall be designed using the principles established
in the Council's adopted Landscape Character Assessment and Landscape
Guidelines;
Reason: No such details have been submitted. This in accordance with Policies
ENV28, ENV33 and ENV34 of The Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000.
5.
All
planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping
shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the
occupation of the building(s) or the completion of the development, whichever
is the sooner; and any trees or plants which within a period of five years from
the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged
or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of
similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written
consent to any variation;
Reason: To ensure a satisfactory setting and external appearance to the
development. This in accordance with Policies ENV28, ENV33 and ENV34 of The
Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000.
6.
The
existing mobile home shall be permanently removed from the site within 2 months
of the first use of the dwelling hereby approved:
Reason: In order to avoid an unnecessary proliferation of residential
development in the countryside. This in accordance with Policies ENV28, ENV33
and ENV34 of The Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000.
7.
The
occupation of the dwelling hereby approved shall be limited to a person solely
or mainly working, or last working, in the locality in agriculture (as defined
in Section 336 (1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990) or in forestry,
or a widow or widower of such a person, and to any resident dependants;
Reason: The site is in an area where new residential development is not
normally permitted unless essentially required for the proper functioning of
the enterprise concerned. This in accordance with Policies ENV28, ENV33 and
ENV34 of The Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000.
8.
No
free-standing lighting shall be installed on the site;
Reason: To safeguard visual amenity. This in accordance with Policies ENV28,
ENV33 and ENV34 of The Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000.
9.
With
regard to the curtilage of the dwelling hereby approved no further development
shall take place within that curtilage without the prior written permission of
the local planning authority;
Reason: The dwelling and garage are considered to be the maximum size
appropriate to the farming enterprise and uncontrolled additions or alterations
may be harmful to the character of the countryside. This in accordance with
Policies ENV28, ENV33 and ENV34 of The Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000.
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 the South East Plan 2009) and there are no overriding material considerations to indicate a refusal of planning consent.