items received after the production of … · that two years before closing down he spent in excess...
TRANSCRIPT
- 1 -
ITEMS RECEIVED AFTER THE PRODUCTION OF THE REPORT FOR THE PLANNING COMMITTEE TO BE HELD ON 29th JULY 2010
Report Page
Application No. Address Item no.
Description
P. 31 Appeals Report * 2008/01203/FUL
Woodham Road, Barry 1. ‘Standard’ letter received from 13 no. local business (single copy attached), urging Committee to challenge Inspector’s decision
P.119 2009/01179/FUL Land adjacent to Maughan Terrace, Penarth
2.
3.
Email from Cllr Sophie Williams expressing the concerns of local residents and her own concerns with the scheme. Letter of objection from a neighbouring property raising concerns about privacy, visual impact, parking, density and building works.
p. 128 2010/00147/FUL Sealawns Hotel, Slon lane, Ogmore by Sea
4.
Representations from Planning Consultant on behalf of applicant in response to report
P.160 2010/00362/FUL 3, Dylan Close, Llandough
5. Email confirming Llandough Community Councils objections to the scheme.
P.166 2010/00260/FUL River Court, Treoes
6. Letter of objection from Llangan Community Council
P. 196 2010/00535/FUL Mill Barns, Mill Road, Boverton
- Llantwit Major Town Council confirm no objections (letter not attached)
7. Addendum report following recent appeal decision in respect of barn conversion at Mill Barns. Note: Amended recommendation to defer determination of application but to authorise enforcement action (as amended)
With reference to your report to Committee, I should like to make the following brief comments. For future reference, it would be helpful if reports to Committee were compiled in numbered paragraphs for easy reference and identification.
Omissions
‡ There is no mention of one of the Unitary Development Plan’s Guiding Principles, Environment Section, namely to promote urban regeneration and the use of Brownfield land thereby minimising the use of Greenfield sites. There are many references to Brownfield land throughout the UDP and a specific link to the application site through Policy HOUS2 (see Appendix 1 Environmental Appraisal – emphasise Brownfield sites and existing settlements for new development). I believe that this is a material consideration which you have not included.
‡ There is no mention in the report of the Visual Appraisal and Landscape Assessment prepared by Tirlun Design Associates Ltd. Properly qualified Landscape Architects. This is a very serious omission as would have counterbalanced your planning opinion that massing of the proposed dwellings and their setting as specified in the second reason for refusal. The conclusions of the Assessment is that the application site could accommodate the new residential development without adverse visual or landscape impacts upon its surroundings. This omission means that your report is skewed and therefore unfairly biased, so far as the impacts of the development are concerned.
Errors and other comments
‡ Reference to Policy ENV1 is somewhat misleading as the building operations are confined to the area within the settlement boundary.
‡ Objections to the scheme from “Save the Sea Lawns Committee” unnecessarily repeats the list of grounds of objection set out just in advance of the “Save the Sea Lawns Committee” list. Furthermore, you accept without question or correction, the Committee's erroneous and therefore misleading allegation the Sea Lawns is the last pub in the village. With regard to the claim that the present owner ran the business down over many years, he has stated that two years before closing down he spent in excess of £50,000 on refurbishments.
‡ You quote the Inspector’s report at great length. In his report, the Inspector said that “I understand that this is the last remaining hotel along this coast”. Have you ever wondered why? Mr Williams should be congratulated in bettering the attempts of other hoteliers by holding out for longer, but in the end, harsh economic reality has overwhelmed him. The Council understands the principle of the decline of industry, including service industry and the subsequent reuse of obsolescent buildings and land uses – Barry Docks is an example all Members will recognise. Asking Mr Williams to retain the hotel and maintain it to acceptable standards in the hope, Mr Micawber-like, that something will turn up. The fact was appreciated with regard to the redundant Barry Docks and redevelopment was not only allowed but positively encouraged. No question of keeping open the docks in hopeful expectation, which does not pay bills. Mr Williams seems to be disadvantaged by being the last hotel. It is inequitable that he has been treated differently from other ex-hoteliers (who obtained planning permission for their redevelopment plans) on account of this fact.
‡ The Inspector expressed the view, which you have quoted, that Sealawns “seeks to primarily meet the needs of this rural community, as well as local tourism”. If the local community had patronised the hotel and its facilities as much as he implies they did, the hotel would be thriving. There is a severe mismatch between what the local community said and what it did.
‡ The strength of opposition to Mr Williams’ plans is not, of itself, a material consideration. I Petitions are unreliable as a measure of true objection to a proposal. Many signatures are given under pressure or without full knowledge of what the petitioner is signing.
‡ I strongly object to your use of the word “nevertheless” following the list of what was the primary and what were ancillary uses of Sealawns. The use of that word introduces the commentary that I was not previously involved and therefore implying, deliberately or not, that what I said has no weight. For the information of Committee, my purpose in sending the list to you was not (my emphasis) to cast doubt on the extent to which Sealawns was a community facility. I have simply stated the facts of the case in respect of the Use Classes Order and established law, namely that Sealawns is an hotel (Use Class C1), that Sealawns is not a public house (Use Class A3) and that the bar was ancillary to the primary use of hotel. I believe you should present the facts without interpretation as to my motives or what the Inspector said. At no time did the Inspector refer to the Use Classes Order and your attempt to conflate the Inspector’s use of the word “primarily” and what constitutes the primary Use Class is wrong. I’m prepared to accept that the impression you have left in the report was not deliberate – it can easily be remedied by your explaining the difference to the Committee.
‡ I think that the valuation exercises carried out by the Council and Mr Williams have been the source of much contention, as recognised by the Inspector who came down in favour of the Council’s approach at the appeal. At the risk of being derided for daring to say something on this topic, I should like you to consider a possible explanation, It is true that the owner’s valuation contemplates its development potential and therefore the price he is asking. If Sealawns had a small curtilage, sufficient only to accommodate a reasonable number of cars, there would be no difference in approach between the two parties – the price of Sealawns as a going concern would be more likely to be the same as its value for another use. Let me, as an avowed layman in these matters, give you an example that explains Mr Williams’ approach. Imagine a half hectare plot within a settlement boundary. Let’s imagine the plot contains a shed. Would you expect the valuation of that plot of land to be the value of the shed in its present condition, the value of the shed in good condition or the value of the land on which a house could be built? I fail to see why Sealawns should not be approached in the same way. Perhaps you would explain to Members the error in Mr Williams' approach (which seems to have been vindicated by there being only developers interested in the site).
‡ Mr Williams is understandably wounded by you attitude towards his offer, which, by placing the word in inverted commas, you imply that his offer was spurious. There is no reason whatsoever why the Council should be involved in what was an offer by a private individual, Mr Williams, to a Village Hall Association. Had the offer (which is a matter of public record) been accepted, Mr Willams' solicitor and another solicitor acting for the Association without the unhelpful complication of the Council's involvement. Mr Williams' offer was made self-interestedly to overcome a major stumbling block to his plans. His offer was not dependent on the Association's support for his plans. By holding out for a Hall and
the retention of Sealawns, the Association has succeeded in losing both.
‡ You should make it clear to Members that the applicant does not consider that the demolition of Sealawns without planning permission justifies the proposals. Mr Williams is fully aware that his scheme must be acceptable on planning grounds on its merits. I am puzzled by your comment that the demolition “would represent a calculated attempt to circumvent the clear policy presumption against the loss of the existing facility”. Taking your comment at face value, you imply that Sealawns should stay forever, irrespective of trading circumstances and condition of the building itself (or provide an alternative). Alternatives have been offered and rejected by both you and the Village Hall Association.
‡ The Inspector recognised that some hotels are run in such a way that they cater almost entirely for residents staying in the hotel and would not represent a community facility in the sense of the policy. Hoteliers run their business to make and maximise a profit, not for philanthropic, altruistic or planning policy motives. Non-residents could have been barred at any time without planning permission and without there being a change of use of the premises. The hotel was opened to non-residents for economic reasons and economic reasons now dictate closure.
‡ Sea Lawns has been on the market now for over five years with the only interest being expressed by developers. Eve your report demonstrates that. You quote a letter being supplied to the Council with information that the applicant turned down an offer of £700,00 in 2007. You say that this weighs heavily against the applicant. You hardly stopped to think what the offer meant. You correctly noted that the offer was in excess of (over 20% in excess of) the Council's appointed consultant at the time of the appeal. And that offer was made without survey, without licence and unconditional. In your position I would have queried the prospective purchaser's motives in offering over 20% more than your own valuation with unknown liabilities with regard to the structure of the building and what legal requirements there might be satisfy at unknown cost and all this without a licence. Businessmen do not offer such a high premium with so many unknowns without there being an ulterior motive. Mr Williams is a businessman and applied business acumen to the offer, which he feels he rightly refused to entertain. As an offer for an hotel, it is suspicious and as an offer for a development site it is an undervaluation. Did you ask the person offering the 20% premium why he had done so?
‡ You say that the Sea Lawns, if properly marketed, is an attractive site for a public house. What you mean is that if the site was sold with no development potential, it would easily be sold. Mr Willams does not disagree with that statement as many people would pay for an undervalued parcel of land. I'm surprised that you refer to Sea Lawns in the same breath as “public house”, which you, as a qualified planner, know that it is not.
‡ There is a gross error when you say that “even the much larger community facility approved on nearby land was not considered by the Inspector to be comparable with the public bar in the Sea Lawns”. In other words, you claim , through the Inspector, that the public bar at Sea Lawns was bigger than the whole of the proposed community facility. What the Inspector actually said was “In addition, the bar shown on the plans (of the
community facility) is little more than a serving area and would not provide a facility comparable to the public bar in the Sealawns” .
‡ You say that “the appeal site thus lies within a highly attractive,predominantly undeveloped coastal landscape...”. Sea Lawns is not an appeal site, it is an application site and the application site is within the settlement boundary of Ogmore by Sea.
‡ You concluded that the proposal would significantly and materially increase the impact of built development in this sensitive rural location (see my second point in “Omissions above”). I would say that saying that the site is in a sensitive rural location is misleading. It is in an urban location which is surrounded by countryside. You could say the same of a site in London the fringes of the Green Belt. Although the permission for an hotel extension has lapsed, it is a very good pointer to what would, in terms of massing, be acceptable to the Council. When you compare the current scheme with what the Council permitted in the recent past, the impact is nowhere as marked as you suggest. In any case, a qualified and experienced landscape architect disagrees with your findings. Again I say that the contrary view should be brought to the attention of the Members.
LATE ITEMS FOR COMMITTEE – ADDENDUM REPORT
COMMITTEE DATE : 29 July 2010 Application No: 2010/00535/FUL
Location: 1, Mill Barns, Mill Road, Boverton
Proposal: Change of use of summer house to a single dwelling
Background Since the finalising of the report for the above-referenced application, an appeal decision against the refusal of application ref. 2009/01293/FUL for the conversion of the two remaining barns at Mill Barn on the eastern side of the track has been received. That appeal was allowed on 21st July 2010, with the Inspector’s assessment of that proposal, given that it relates to a similar development on an adjacent site, considered to be of particular relevance and material to the assessment and determination of this application. A copy of the Inspectors decision is attached. Members of the Committee will note that the second recommendation in the original report objects to the proposal on grounds relating to its unsustainable location, the site being located some 1.2 kilometres from the edge of Boverton and some 1.8 kilometres from the nearest public transport or other services. Inspectors Decision In assessing application ref.2009/01293/FUL, the Inspector considered that there were two main issues, namely the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area and on sustainable patterns of development, having regard to the LPA’s policies on conversion of rural building and the location of additional housing development. Of particular relevance are the views made by the Inspector, which relate to sustainability: “The site is located away from public services and public transport routes, it being some 1.8km from the latter. Undoubtedly residents of the property would be mainly reliant on the private car, although the flat terrain may encourage cycling or walking into Boverton and Llantwit Major. However, the buildings are not in a wholly isolated position, forming part of a group which already consists of 6 dwellings, 3 of which have been formed from barn conversions. So while the thrust of the council's policies presumes against the conversion of isolated buildings to residential use, this proposal is more appropriately judged against the sentences in paragraph 3.4.30 of the UDP which note that the conversion of buildings in hamlets and isolated pockets of dwellings may be acceptable. Moreover, while Strategy Policies 2 and 8 of the UDP favour proposals which are located to minimise the need to travel, the former also encourages the reclamation of degraded land for appropriate beneficial use, which I consider is apposite in this case.” (para. 7) “…Although the proposal is located away from public transport and services, it is not in an isolated location and is capable of access by means other than the private car, and would moreover accord with other sustainability objectives. I conclude therefore that planning permission should be granted.” (para. 8)
Assessment It is noted that the Inspector accepted that the site is located away from public services and public transport routes and that, as a result, occupiers would be mainly reliant on the private car. However, he considered that the flat terrain may encourage cycling or walking into Boverton and Llantwit Major. Moreover the Inspector also appears to place great weight on they fact that the application site is not in an isolated position, but forms a group of dwellings, 3 of which are barn conversions. Thus it would appear that greater weight has been afforded to those policies which support the conversion of buildings in hamlets and isolated pockets of dwellings over those policies which presume against the conversion of isolated buildings to residential use. This together with the Councils policies which seek to encourage the reclamation of degraded land for appropriate beneficial use, was considered by the Inspector to outweigh those policies which favour proposals which are located to minimise the need to travel. The distance of developments/ sites from public transport and services has been considered in several recent appeals for both conversion of rural buildings to residential use and new dwellings. Inspectors have consistently upheld the Councils view that, where proposal are located away from public transport and services, there would be a heavy reliance on the private car, which demonstrates the unsustainable and therefore unsuitable location of such sites in line with the Council’s policies to reduce the need to travel by car, which is echoed in national policy. Moreover it is not considered that the fact the site is located close to or may form part of a group of other dwellings, should have any actual bearing or make the development more sustainable as the assessment is based solely on the proximity of the development to public transport and services. As stated above, whilst there are three units accommodated within the adjacent complex of converted barns, these were approved prior to the current guidance and the increased emphasis on sustainability matters, and should not set a precedent for what should be considered further unsustainable development. In this regard this appeal decision appears wholly inconsistent with the previous decisions made by the Welsh Ministers in relation to sustainability and the consistent approach the Council has taken in assessing application in relation to sustainability. In this regard the Council disagree with the Inspectors view. Notwithstanding the above, however, this recent appeal decision has to be taken as a material consideration in the determination of this application. In this respect, while it is still considered that further residential development at the site would amount to unsustainable development, given the recent Inspector’s decision it is considered that a decision to refuse the application on grounds related to it being in an unsustainable location may not be able to be sustained at appeal. Conclusion That Members defer a decision on the application to allow the implications of the recent appeal decision to be considered further through submission of an amended report. That Members resolve, in respect of Recommendation B, to take enforcement action, but with such recommendation amended to remove criterion (i) and its reasoned justification, in respect of the use of the building as detailed below: -
RECOMMENDATION B: 1. In the event of Committee agreeing to the recommendation to refuse the planning
application, the Director of Legal, Public Protection and Housing Services be authorised to take all necessary action including under Section 172 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to require the following:
(i) Removal of the access track and hard surface areas and to ensure that the
land is returned to grass. (ii) Removal of the ornamental pond. (iii) Removal of the animal cage/pen structure. (iv) The erection of a 1mt high, post and rail fence to physically define the
southern and western boundary of the approved curtilage associated with the barn complex.
2. In the event of non compliance with the Notice, authorisation is also sought to take
such legal proceedings as may be required. Reasons for Enforcement Recommendation 1. The access track, the additional hard surface areas, animal cage/pen and
ornamental pond are visually incongruous features of this agricultural land. The developments are an unjustified and unacceptable encroachment of the residential development associated with the barn complex into the surrounding countryside, which is considered to harm the character and appearance of the rural setting that surrounds the barn complex that is recognised for its landscape value as part of the Glamorgan Heritage Coast. The developments are, therefore, considered contrary to Policies ENV1 - Development in the Countryside; ENV5 - The Glamorgan Heritage Coast, ENV8 - Small Scale Rural Conversions; ENV10 - Conservation of the Countryside and ENV27 - Design of New Developments of the Vale of Glamorgan Adopted Unitary Development Plan 1996-2011; and Supplementary Planning Guidance on Sustainable Development and Conversion of Rural Buildings; and national guidance contained in Planning Policy Wales March 2002.
Yr Arolygiaeth Gynllunio, Adeilad y Goron, The Planning Inspectorate, Crown Buildings, Parc Cathays, Caerdydd CF10 3NQ Cathays Park, Cardiff CF10 3NQ 029 20823889 Ffacs 029 2082 5150 029 20823889 Fax 029 2082 5150 e-bost [email protected] email [email protected]
Penderfyniad ar yr Apêl Appeal Decision Ymweliad â safle a wnaed ar 1/7/10 Site visit made on 1/7/10
gan/by P G Horridge BSc DipTP FRICS MRTPI
Arolygydd a benodir gan Weinidogion Cymru
An Inspector appointed by the Welsh Ministers
Dyddiad/Date 21/07/10
Appeal Ref: APP/Z6950/A/10/2125658
Site address: Mill Barns, Mill Road, Boverton CF61 1UB
The Welsh Ministers have transferred the authority to decide this appeal to me as the appointed Inspector.
The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.
The appeal is made by Broadlands Property Investments Limited against the decision of The Vale of Glamorgan Council.
The application ref. 2009/01293/FUL, dated 25 November 2009, was refused by notice dated 5 March 2010.
The development proposed is conversion of disused barns into a 3 bedroom dwelling.
Procedural Matters
1. The description of development refers solely to the conversion of the barns, but it involves the erection of a glazed link extension so is more accurately described as being for the conversion and extension of 2 barns to form a 3 bedroom dwelling.
Decision
2. I allow the appeal and grant planning permission for the conversion and extension of 2 barns to form a 3 bedroom dwelling at Mill Barns, Mill Road, Boverton in accordance with the terms of the application no. 2009/01293/FUL dated 25 November 2009 and the plans submitted therewith, subject to the following conditions: 1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of five years from
the date of this decision.
2. No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority a scheme of landscaping, 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.
3. All planting, seeding and turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of the buildings 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.
Appeal Decision APP/Z6950/A/10/2125658
2
4. Full details of all means of enclosure shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to the commencement of development. The development shall be completed in accordance with the approved details prior to the first occupation of the dwelling.
5. No development shall take place until a method statement for the repair and restoration of the buildings, including mortar mix details, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The statement shall identify any areas of the buildings which require demolition and repair and shall also set out a schedule of materials to be used in the restoration works. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved method statement.
6. Details of the windows and doors, including sections to a scale of 1:20, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to the commencement of development. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
7. Details of any flues, vents, chimneys or means of external extraction shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority prior to the commencement of development. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
8. The developer shall ensure that a suitably qualified archaeologist is present during the undertaking of any ground works in the development area, so that an archaeological watching brief can be conducted. The archaeological watching brief shall be undertaken to the standards laid down by the Institute of Field Archaeologists. The name and address of the archaeologist shall be notified to the local planning authority at least two weeks prior to the commencement of development.
9. The residential curtilage, access and parking area shall be laid out in accordance with the approved plans prior to the first occupation of the dwelling. The access and parking area shall thereafter be kept available at all times for the manoeuvring and parking of vehicles.
10. The dwelling shall not be occupied until a scheme for the disposal of foul sewage has been implemented in accordance with details that have first been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority.
11. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that order), no development within Classes A to E of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Order shall take place without the prior permission in writing of the local planning authority.
Main issues
3. At issue are the effects of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area and on sustainable patterns of development, having regard to the authority's policies on the conversion of rural buildings and on the location of additional housing development.
Reasons
4. The proposal involves two separate former agricultural buildings. They would be linked by a new glazed structure and converted to form a single dwelling.
5. The conversion of rural buildings is dealt with by Policy ENV8 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (UDP), supplemented by Supplementary Planning Guidance on 'The Conversion of Rural Buildings'. Policy ENV8 permits the small-scale conversion of rural buildings to new uses where a number of criteria are satisfied. Criterion (iii) is that the building is structurally sound and the conversion can be achieved without substantial reconstruction of the external walls. The proposed development would involve some rebuilding of the external walls of one of the two barns, including the reconstruction of 3 of the 4 piers supporting the roof structure at its present open side. However, within the context of the overall scheme this does not in my view amount to 'substantial
Appeal Decision APP/Z6950/A/10/2125658
3
reconstruction of the external walls'. While the conversion of this second barn would also involve a new roof structure, this is frequently the case with barn conversions and does not involve any conflict with the criteria of Policy ENV8.
6. More significant is the fact that to achieve the conversion involves the linking of two separate buildings by a new structure of some 40 sq m in floor area. Criterion (iii) of Policy ENV8 further notes that conversion should be achieved without extension. However, it does go on to say that each proposal will be assessed as a matter of fact and degree, depending on the particular circumstances of the case. The link would be a lightweight glazed structure with minimal visual impact, being contained in the angle between the two buildings and occupying part of a presently concreted area. The latter would form the curtilage of the new property, thereby avoiding encroachment of the use into the undeveloped agricultural land surrounding the group of buildings. The link would facilitate the conversion of a building whose present appearance detracts from the appearance of the area, which is designated Heritage Coast. The appeal proposal would therefore result in an overall improvement in the landscape impact of the site.
7. The site is located away from public services and public transport routes, it being some 1.8km from the latter. Undoubtedly residents of the property would be mainly reliant on the private car, although the flat terrain may encourage cycling or walking into Boverton and Llantwit Major. However, the buildings are not in a wholly isolated position, forming part of a group which already consists of 6 dwellings, 3 of which have been formed from barn conversions. So while the thrust of the council's policies presumes against the conversion of isolated buildings to residential use, this proposal is more appropriately judged against the sentences in paragraph 3.4.30 of the UDP which note that the conversion of buildings in hamlets and isolated pockets of dwellings may be acceptable. Moreover, while Strategy Policies 2 and 8 of the UDP favour proposals which are located to minimise the need to travel, the former also encourages the reclamation of degraded land for appropriate beneficial use, which I consider is apposite in this case.
8. Taking all these matters into account, then notwithstanding the rebuilding of some of the external walls and the construction of an extension in the form of a glazed link, the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the area. Any conflict with the requirements of UDP Policy ENV8 is outweighed by the improvement in the landscape impact of the site. Although the proposal is located away from public transport and services, it is not in an isolated location and is capable of access by means other than the private car, and would moreover accord with other sustainability objectives. I conclude therefore that planning permission should be granted.
9. In granting permission I have imposed the conditions suggested by the local planning authority although, in some instances, I have re-worded the conditions for clarity and to better accord with the advice in Circular 35/95. Conditions 8 to 10 are necessary to protect any archaeological interest in the site, in the interests of highway safety, and to safeguard the environment from pollution. The remaining conditions are necessary to secure a satisfactory appearance to the completed development and to protect the countryside from unnecessary or harmful subsequent development.
Appeal Decision APP/Z6950/A/10/2125658
4
Peter Horridge
Inspector
- 1 -
ADDITIONAL LATE ITEMS
ITEMS RECEIVED AFTER THE PRODUCTION OF THE REPORT FOR THE PLANNING COMMITTEE TO BE HELD ON 29th JULY 2010
Report Page
Application No. Address Item no.
Description
P.119 2009/01179/FUL Land adjacent to Maughan Terrace, Penarth
8.
Letter from neighbour objecting on grounds including overdevelopment; impact on existing access; parking (including site being used for residents parking)
P.160 2010/00362/FUL 3, Dylan Close, Llandough
9. Supporting letter from agent responding to objections to the scheme
10. Supporting letter from applicant responding to objections to the scheme
