PLANNING & PROPERTY CONSULTANTS
ERICHT PLANNING & PROPERTY CONSULTANTS |40 Belgrave Road | Edinburgh |EH12 6NQ T 07795 974 083
[email protected] www.erichtppc.co.uk
Supporting Statement to Notice of Review
in relation to Dumfries and Galloway Council’s refusal of planning permission
for alterations and change of use of existing barn and erection of two storey
building to form dwellinghouse with single storey car port (including demolition
and removal of farm buildings, slurry store and hardstanding), installation of
septic tank and soakaway and formation of equestrian ménage and associated
landscaping.
on behalf of Mr John Miller
1st February, 2016
2
PLANNING & PROPERTY CONSULTANTS
ERICHT PLANNING & PROPERTY CONSULTANTS |40 Belgrave Road | Edinburgh |EH12 6NQ T 07795 974 083
[email protected] www.erichtppc.co.uk
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Notice of Local Review is submitted on behalf of Mr John Miller (the appellant) against
the decision of Dumfries and Galloway Council to refuse planning permission, on 22nd
January, 2016, for:
“Alterations and change of use of existing barn and erection of two storey building to form
dwellinghouse with single storey car port (including demolition and removal of farm
buildings, slurry store and hardstanding), installation of septic tank and soakaway and
formation of equestrian ménage and associated landscaping”.
The application reference was 15/P/3/0314.
The core reasons for refusal include the Planning Officer’s view that:
- None of the circumstances set out in adopted Housing in the Countryside policy, as
contained within the Local Development Plan and Supplementary Guidance which
permit housing in the countryside, applies.
- The proposal, due to the excessive amount of new build proposed and associated
demolition and alterations, is not considered sympathetic to the character and
appearance of the existing agricultural building.
This statement will summarise the background to the application and set out the grounds for
Local Review, prior to demonstrating the acceptability of the proposal under those grounds.
Specifically, it will be demonstrated that:
- The proposal does meet one of the criteria under which housing in the countryside
can be acceptable. Policy requires only one criterion to be met.
- The proposal was validly presented to the Planning Authority as “redevelopment of a
brownfield site” not as a conversion proposal, although part of the dwelling does
utilise, and ensure preservation of, an existing barn. No traditional stone buildings are
demolished.
- The proposal will result in environmental and visual benefit and will improve the
residential amenity of two existing houses.
- Supporting information was provided to demonstrate that buildings to be demolished
are beyond economic repair, contrary to the Planning Authority’s assertion that no
such supporting information was provided.
- The design of the proposal is sympathetic, and its scale is reasonable, in the context
of the scale of the redevelopment project.
3
PLANNING & PROPERTY CONSULTANTS
ERICHT PLANNING & PROPERTY CONSULTANTS |40 Belgrave Road | Edinburgh |EH12 6NQ T 07795 974 083
[email protected] www.erichtppc.co.uk
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 This supporting statement to Notice of Review is submitted by Ericht Planning &
Property Consultants on behalf of Mr John Miller to challenge the refusal, by Dumfries
and Galloway Council, of consent for the redevelopment of the former Beltonhill
steading, extending to 4,510 sqm (1.11 acres), including extensive demolition and the
erection of a new dwellinghouse, a proportion of which involves conversion of an
existing barn.
1.2 The steading and associated buildings have not been used for agriculture for over 18
years. They can thus not be said to be in agricultural use. There has been equestrian
use within the courtyard. The site beyond the main courtyard is effectively derelict.
1.3 Policy H3 Housing in the Countryside requires one criteria of six to be met in order for
housing in the countryside to be supported. This proposal fits well with criterion no. 4,
namely it is ‘redevelopment of a brownfield site’.
1.4 The appeal subjects do comprise a valid non-agricultural ‘brownfield site’, located in a
countryside location. The appeal subjects contain many redundant buildings/
structures, as highlighted in bold and italics in the table overleaf – these are to be
demolished. The un-highlighted buildings (nos. 1 and 3) are to be retained and re-
used. Fig 1: Buildings at Beltonhill
Ref Description
1 Traditional (pre-1919) barn with stone walls and slate roof
2 Concrete block extension to [1] with corrugated metal sheet roofing
3 Traditional (Pre-1919) stable block with stone walls and slate roof
4 Concrete block built extension to [3] with corrugated metal sheet roofing
5 Former milking parlour. Part stone/ part single brick walling and asbestos sheet
roofing
6 Steel framed shed clad and roofed with corrugated metal sheeting
7 Steel framed shed with railway sleeper walling (part) and asbestos sheet roofing
8 Joining lean-to shed with corrugated metal sheet roofing
9 Concrete block shed with asbestos sheet roofing
10 Slurry tank
11 Extensive area of hardstanding
12 Site of demolished building and existing wooden sleeper barrier fencing
4
PLANNING & PROPERTY CONSULTANTS
ERICHT PLANNING & PROPERTY CONSULTANTS |40 Belgrave Road | Edinburgh |EH12 6NQ T 07795 974 083
[email protected] www.erichtppc.co.uk
1.5 No wholly stone-built traditional buildings will be demolished. The stone-built
traditional buildings in the courtyard will become part of the proposed house or be
used as stables, as indicated on the planning drawings.
1.6 Access to the subjects will be taken by way of the existing driveway, the appearance
of which will be enhanced with ‘avenue’ tree planting.
1.7 The design proposal put forward is supported, in principle, by the Planning Authority,
but not in the context of the specific site at Beltonhill.
1.8 All original planning application drawings and reports must be considered as part of
this Local Review.
1.9 It is requested that the Appellant’s case, as set out in this report, is adequately and
appropriately summarised at presentation to the Local Review Body Committee in
balance with that presented for the Planning Authority.
5
PLANNING & PROPERTY CONSULTANTS
ERICHT PLANNING & PROPERTY CONSULTANTS |40 Belgrave Road | Edinburgh |EH12 6NQ T 07795 974 083
[email protected] www.erichtppc.co.uk
2.0 REFUSAL OF APPLICATION BY DUMFRIES AND GALLOWAY COUNCIL
2.1 The application was refused by Dumfries and Galloway Council on 22nd January, 2016
on the basis set out below.
The proposal is contrary to the provisions of Dumfries and Galloway Local
Development Plan H3 and Supplementary Guidance on Housing in the countryside,
which permit new housing in the countryside only in the special circumstances
identified, and none of these circumstances apply. The proposal, due to the excessive
amount of new build proposed and associated demolition and alterations, is not
considered sympathetic to the character and appearance of the existing agricultural
building, contrary to policy H3, Supplementary Guidance on Housing in the
Countryside and Supplementary Guidance on Conversion of Traditional Agricultural
Properties.
6
PLANNING & PROPERTY CONSULTANTS
ERICHT PLANNING & PROPERTY CONSULTANTS |40 Belgrave Road | Edinburgh |EH12 6NQ T 07795 974 083
[email protected] www.erichtppc.co.uk
3.0 GROUNDS FOR LOCAL REVIEW
3.1 The Appellant sets out the following three Grounds for Review, which are justified in
the next section 4.0 ‘Case for the Appellant”.
Ground 1 - “Redevelopment of a brownfield site” is one criterion of six under adopted
housing in the countryside policy and supplementary guidance whereby a new house
in the countryside is permitted. Only one of the six criteria requires to be met.
The Planning Authority has elected to appraise the application under Housing in the
Countryside “conversion” policy (criterion 6) as opposed to under criterion 4
“redevelopment of a brownfield site” under which the application was submitted.
Ground 2 – The proposal will result in significant environmental and visual
improvement and an improvement in the residential amenity of the two existing
houses.
Ground 3 – Supporting information was provided to demonstrate that buildings to be
demolished are beyond economic repair, contrary to the Planning Authority’s
assertion that no such supporting information was provided.
Ground 4 – The design of the proposal is sympathetic, and its scale is reasonable, in
the context of the traditional buildings to be retained and the scale of the
redevelopment project.
7
PLANNING & PROPERTY CONSULTANTS
ERICHT PLANNING & PROPERTY CONSULTANTS |40 Belgrave Road | Edinburgh |EH12 6NQ T 07795 974 083
[email protected] www.erichtppc.co.uk
4.0 CASE FOR THE APPELLANT
Ground 1: “Redevelopment of a brownfield site” is one criterion of six under
adopted housing in the countryside policy and supplementary guidance whereby a
new house in the countryside is permitted. Only one of the six criteria requires to be
met.
The Planning Authority has elected to appraise the application under Housing in the
Countryside “conversion” policy (criterion 6) as opposed to under criterion 4
“redevelopment of a brownfield site” under which the application was submitted.
4.1 The proposal, as was submitted, accurately describes the development proposal as
being one of redevelopment of a redundant former farm steading. The Planning
Authority appears unwilling to accept this is the case.
4.2 This is considered to be unreasonable given that the proposal includes the demolition
of significant numbers of redundant non-traditional buildings which are beyond their
economic life as confirmed by GLM Ltd’s report (Chartered Building Surveyors), as
shown in the aerial photograph below. All non-traditional buildings/ structures other
than those numbered (1), (3), (4), (6) and the two dwellings and store (13), (14) and
(15) are to be demolished. In addition an area of broken up/ degraded concrete
hardstanding extending to 1,948 sqm will be removed. This is clearly a de-facto
redevelopment proposal and to ignore this is unreasonable.
Fig 2: Buildings at Beltonhill
8
PLANNING & PROPERTY CONSULTANTS
ERICHT PLANNING & PROPERTY CONSULTANTS |40 Belgrave Road | Edinburgh |EH12 6NQ T 07795 974 083
[email protected] www.erichtppc.co.uk
4.3 The proposal, as submitted was entitled:
“Redevelopment of Beltonhill Steading to form one dwellinghouse by conversion of,
and alterations to, existing barn and erection of two storey building with single storey
car port; demolition and removal of former farm buildings, slurry store and concrete
hardstanding; restoration and change of use of former farm steading to garden
ground and outdoor riding arena”.
4.4 The proposal, as described by the Planning Authority was changed in title to:
“Alterations and change of use of existing barn and erection of two storey building to
form dwellinghouse with single storey car port (including demolition and removal of
farm buildings, slurry store and hardstanding), installation of septic tank and
soakaway and formation of equestrian ménage and associated landscaping”.
4.5 The Officer’s report states (section 4.7) that “the application has been submitted
primarily in terms of criterion 6” (conversion). This is incorrect. The application was
submitted clearly under the factual position that the proposal amounts to the
beneficial redevelopment of a brownfield site in terms of criterion 4 of policy H3 –
Housing in the Countryside.
4.6 It is noted that the LDP defines ‘brownfield’ as “Previously developed land and
premises, including the curtilage of buildings, which may still be partially occupied or
used. Most commonly associated with derelict urban land with redundant industrial
buildings. Excludes agriculture, forestry and previously used land which now has
nature conservation or recreation value”. The definition may exclude ‘agriculture’,
4.7 It was clearly stated in the application supporting statement that the site has not
been used for agriculture at any point in the appellant’s ownership; a period of 18
years. It is factually incorrect to state it has ‘agricultural use’ and thus fail to
acknowledge that it is largely a brownfield site in a degraded state which requires to
be redeveloped. Equestrian use of part of the courtyard and storage of feed is
acknowledged – this is not agricultural use.
4.8 The Appellant considers that the Officer’s report at section 1.3 ‘application proposal’
is misleading. It does not indicate the extent of demolition, site clearance and what
amounts to significant redevelopment of a brownfield site to form a dwelling,
landscaped garden and riding arena.
9
PLANNING & PROPERTY CONSULTANTS
ERICHT PLANNING & PROPERTY CONSULTANTS |40 Belgrave Road | Edinburgh |EH12 6NQ T 07795 974 083
[email protected] www.erichtppc.co.uk
4.9 The selection of photographs from the site overleaf clearly demonstrates that
redevelopment is both necessary and appropriate.
Fig 3: Redundant concrete hardstanding. (Traditional barn to left of picture to be retained)
Fig 4: Redundant buildings and concrete hardstanding.
10
PLANNING & PROPERTY CONSULTANTS
ERICHT PLANNING & PROPERTY CONSULTANTS |40 Belgrave Road | Edinburgh |EH12 6NQ T 07795 974 083
[email protected] www.erichtppc.co.uk
Fig 5: Redundant buildings
Fig 6: Redundant slurry store and deep underground pit
11
PLANNING & PROPERTY CONSULTANTS
ERICHT PLANNING & PROPERTY CONSULTANTS |40 Belgrave Road | Edinburgh |EH12 6NQ T 07795 974 083
[email protected] www.erichtppc.co.uk
Fig 7: Redundant concrete hardstanding (Building on left to be retained)
12
PLANNING & PROPERTY CONSULTANTS
ERICHT PLANNING & PROPERTY CONSULTANTS |40 Belgrave Road | Edinburgh |EH12 6NQ T 07795 974 083
[email protected] www.erichtppc.co.uk
GROUND 2 – The proposal will result in significant environmental improvement and
an improvement in the residential amenity of the two existing houses.
4.10 The Officer’s report states that no supporting information regarding environmental
benefits was submitted. In this regard, a full and detailed photographic record of
redundant buildings and the significant area of degraded and crumbling concrete
hardstanding were provided within a buildings condition report prepared by a
Chartered Building Surveyor. It is abundantly clear that removal of these redundant
buildings, as proposed with the application, will provide a significant environmental
improvement, a visual improvement and an improvement in residential amenity of
the residents of the two existing houses.
13
PLANNING & PROPERTY CONSULTANTS
ERICHT PLANNING & PROPERTY CONSULTANTS |40 Belgrave Road | Edinburgh |EH12 6NQ T 07795 974 083
[email protected] www.erichtppc.co.uk
GROUND 3 – Supporting information was provided to demonstrate the buildings to
be demolished are beyond economic repair, contrary to the Planning Authority’s
assertion that no such supporting information was provided.
4.11 The building condition report submitted with the application was prepared by a
Chartered Building Surveyor from GLM Ltd. It details all the buildings within the
application boundary. The report clearly states that the non-traditional (yet more
than 25 years old) buildings are beyond economic repair. Reference should be
specifically made to sections 2.4, 5.8, 5.25 and 5.29 of GLM Ltd’s report. It is
considered to be unreasonable that the Planning Authority appear to be questioning
the report’s content as appears to be the case within the Officer’s Report at section
4.6.
14
PLANNING & PROPERTY CONSULTANTS
ERICHT PLANNING & PROPERTY CONSULTANTS |40 Belgrave Road | Edinburgh |EH12 6NQ T 07795 974 083
[email protected] www.erichtppc.co.uk
GROUND 4 – The design of the proposal is sympathetic, and its scale is reasonable,
in the context of the traditional buildings to be retained and the scale of the
redevelopment project.
4.12 The proposal for one dwelling, a part of which is created from conversion of an
existing traditional building, is reasonable in the context of the physical and economic
scale of works required to redevelop the former steading. The appellant will require
to carry out extensive demolition works at significant cost, a quotation for which was
provided within the original application.
4.13 There is no proposal to remove any stone traditional buildings, all of which will be
retained and re-used to form part of the dwelling, associated stables/ store areas.
4.14 The appellant wishes to continue to use one of the traditional buildings as stables,
whereas the Planning Authority states that such should be absorbed into a conversion
proposal. It is considered to be unreasonable for the Planning Authority to determine
the appellant’s personal requirements in terms of the use put to existing traditional
buildings. The appellant has a genuine requirement for continued use of one
traditional building as stables. As has been made clear elsewhere within this appeal,
the proposed development was not presented to the Planning Authority as a
conversion project, but principally as a redevelopment proposal, under Housing in the
Countryside policy (criterion 4).
4.15 Contrary to the Planning Authority’s point of view, the appellant strongly asserts that
the proposed layout does respect the courtyard formation. The reason for refusal
states that “the proposal, due to the excessive amount of new build proposed and
associated demolition and alterations, is not considered sympathetic to the character
and appearance of the existing agricultural building”.
4.16 In this regard, firstly, it is unclear which ‘building’ the Planning Authority refers to;
there are two traditional buildings being retained. One will continue to be used as
stables and the other will form part of the dwellinghouse. It is unreasonable to
suggest that the demolition proposed (as part of ‘the proposal’) is not sympathetic to
the buildings to be retained. Removal of unsafe, beyond-economic-life buildings of
between 30 -50 years of age cannot reasonably be described as being unsympathetic
to the traditional buildings, nor can the removal of 1,948 sqm of breaking-up concrete
hardstanding.
15
PLANNING & PROPERTY CONSULTANTS
ERICHT PLANNING & PROPERTY CONSULTANTS |40 Belgrave Road | Edinburgh |EH12 6NQ T 07795 974 083
[email protected] www.erichtppc.co.uk
4.17 The proposal is sympathetic to the existing traditional buildings. The design approach
includes the retention of the existing traditional stone barn. The existing brick
building with fibre cement roof is unsympathetic to the stone barn. The new build
brick building replacing it retains the same width and has a roof angle and finish to
match the traditional stone barn. The new is respectful of the old and integrated by
use of form and materials to create a sympathetic whole. The detached new build two
storey part with a single storey glazed link entrance further emphasises this.
4.18 The suggestion that the project should entail conversion of the stone barn and
existing stables (buildings [1] and [3], below which are on either side of the courtyard)
to form one long dwellinghouse is wholly unrealistic as the two would require a new
linking building closing off the courtyard and giving a huge footprint for a house with
an impractical length of circulation of 52 metres as well as level differences restricting
accessibility.
4.19 The aerial photograph and the table overleaf, extracted from the original Planning
Supporting Statement, confirms the existing and proposed use of the buildings and
structures.
Fig 8: Buildings at Beltonhill and existing and proposed uses
16
PLANNING & PROPERTY CONSULTANTS
ERICHT PLANNING & PROPERTY CONSULTANTS |40 Belgrave Road | Edinburgh |EH12 6NQ T 07795 974 083
[email protected] www.erichtppc.co.uk
Ref Existing Proposed
1 Traditional barn with stone walls and slate roof Conversion to residential use
2 Concrete block extension to [1] with corrugated
metal sheet roofing
Demolish
3 Traditional stables with stone walls and slate roof Retain in stables use
4 Concrete block extension to [2] with corrugated
metal sheet roofing
Retain for equestrian tack room
5 Former milking parlour with painted part stone/
part single brick walling and asbestos sheet roofing
Demolish. Location of the 2 storey new
build wing of the dwelling
6 Steel framed shed clad and roofed with corrugated
metal sheeting
Retain as general purpose storage
shed, remove one bay at southern end.
Repaint dark grey
7 Steel framed shed with railway sleeper walling
(part) and asbestos sheet roofing
Demolish. Remove hardstanding.
Create ménage. 8 Joining lean-to shed with corrugated metal roof
9 Concrete block shed with asbestos sheet roof
10 Slurry tank Demolish. Remove hardstanding,
storage tanks. Restore the land.
11 Extensive hardstanding (c. 1,250 sqm) Remove hardstanding, redevelop/
restore as shown on plans.
12 Site of demolished building and existing wooden
sleeper barrier fencing
Remove hardstanding, redevelop/
restore as shown on plans.
13 Dwelling - occupied No change
14 Dwelling - occupied No change
15 Store associated with dwellings No change
4.20 In respect of the design quality it is noted that the Officer states that “the design
proposal is in itself clearly of merit” but not in this particular context. The report
suggests that stone built traditional buildings are to be demolished. The Review Body
is directed to GLM Ltd’s building report. It is confirmed that no stone-built traditional
buildings are to be demolished.
4.21 It is acknowledged that the proposal comprises a significant proportion of new build
versus the limited extent of conversion. This in itself is not a reason to withhold
consent – the proposal is one of a redevelopment nature and satisfies the criterion
contained within Housing in the Countryside policy whereby a new dwelling which is
constructed in association with the redevelopment of a brownfield site can be
acceptable.
Top Related