AGENDA ITEM 13

13.1

STAFFORDSHIRE MOORLANDS DISTRICT COUNCIL PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE

3rd November 2016

Location Land at Salters Ford Farm, Newtown, Biddulph ST8 7SW Proposal Confirmation of Article 4 Notice in response to a Lawful

Development Certificate Application for extensions and ancillary buildings

Agent Richard Pigott, Planning Design Practice Ltd Parish/ward Rushton / Horton Date registered 19/02/2016 If you have a question about this report please contact: Arne Swithenbank tel: 01538 395400 or arne.swithenbank@staffsmoorlands.gov.uk

REFERRAL A decision to confirm an Article 4 Notice is not a delegated decision for an officer but is within the remit of the Planning Applications Committee in accordance with the Council’s constitution.

1. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION CONFIRM ARTICLE 4 DIRECTION

2. INTRODUCTION 2.1 A notice giving direction restricting permitted development under Article 4 of the

Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 was served in respect of the domestic curtilage of Salters Ford Farm, Newtown, Biddulph on 12th May 2016. The direction was made with immediate effect but, under the terms of the Article 4 procedure, would expire at the end of the six months from when it was made unless confirmed by the Local Planning Authority. The purpose of this report is to consider whether the direction should be confirmed taking into account the reasoning for it and representations received.

3. DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND ITS SURROUNDINGS 3.1 Salters Ford Farm is occupied as a private domestic residence served by

metalled single track driveway of some 280m running south from Newtown Road. The stone farm house has been altered and extended and faces south across a surfaced yard to a two storey converted stone ancillary building which provides garaging and other ancillary accommodation with a further attached building providing livestock housing / stabling / storage. The holding occupies

AGENDA ITEM 13

13.2

4.5 hectares in total essentially comprising three fields of pasture / meadow land. The site is surrounded by fields of similar size and character typically divided by hedged and treed boundaries or post and wire fences. The property is well separated from its neighbours, the nearest being c.200m to the north east with others at c.300m to the west and in excess of 400m away to the south. The driveway to the farm house is a public footpath right of way which converges at the farm yard with public footpaths from the south, east, and west.

4. BACKGROUND 4.1 In December 2014 following application to the Council (SMD/2014/0701)

approval was granted for a Lawful Development Certificate in respect of some 0.5ha comprising the farm house and outbuildings, yard, turning areas, a parcel of land incorporating a large pond and further associated land, all to be regarded for planning purposes as domestic garden and curtilage to the dwelling house.

4.2 Under application reference SMD/2016/0062 a lawful development certificate

was sought for a series of substantial permitted development extensions to the existing farm house and also for a large ancillary building to occupy a position to the north of the existing farm house. The applicant sought confirmation that these developments could proceed on the basis of the Permitted Development rights available within the curtilage of a dwelling house as defined at Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the General Permitted Development Order (GPDO) (2015).

4.3 Upon examining this application, officers were concerned about the impact on

the character and appearance of this traditional Moorlands farmhouse and the implications for the openness of the wider countryside and Green Belt in particular. It was therefore considered to be appropriate to seek an Article 4 Direction to restrict permitted development rights at this site.

5. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY 5.1 SM/96/0140 – domestic extension – approved 5.2 SMD/2006/0249 – first floor side extension – refused 5.3 SMD/2006/0991 – first floor side extension – refused 5.4 SMD/2014/0701 – lawful development certificate for garden and domestic

curtilage – granted 5.4 HNT/2015/0030 – Householder Notification – rear extension – permitted

6. PLANNING POWERS & POLICIES RELEVANT TO THE DECISION 6.1 Statutory Instrument 2015 number 596: The Town and Country Planning

(General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 provides at article 4 1

AGENDA ITEM 13

13.3

that “If the Secretary of State or the local planning authority is satisfied that it is expedient that development described in any Part, Class or paragraph in Schedule 2 [Permitted Development Rights], other than Class K or M of Part 17, should not be carried out unless permission is granted for it on an application, the Secretary of State or (as the case may be) the local planning authority, may make a direction under this paragraph that the permission granted by article 3 [Permitted Development] does not apply to—

(a) all or any development of the Part, Class or paragraph in question in an area specified in the direction;

6.2 The Government’s National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) states:

“The use of Article 4 directions to remove national permitted development rights should be limited to situations where this is necessary to protect local amenity or the wellbeing of the area. The potential harm that the direction is intended to address should be clearly identified. There should be a particularly strong justification for the withdrawal of permitted development rights relating to:

• a wide area (eg those covering the entire area of a local planning authority, National Park or Area of Outstanding National Beauty);

• agriculture and forestry development. Article 4 directions related to agriculture and forestry will need to demonstrate that permitted development rights pose a serious threat to areas or landscapes of exceptional beauty;

• cases where prior approval powers are available to control permitted development

• leisure plots and uses • the installation of micro generation equipment”

6.3 None of the above itemised points identifying a requirement for particularly

strong justification to be provided for an Article 4 applies in relation to the case here. The potential harm intended to be addressed is that to the Green Belt, landscape character and public amenity.

6.4 The following PD rights are removed by the Article 4 Direction as served:

A. The enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a dwelling house. B. The enlargement of a dwelling house consisting of an addition or alteration to its roof. C. Any other alteration to the roof of a dwelling house. E. The provision within the curtilage of the dwelling house of— (a) any building or enclosure, swimming or other pool required for a purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling house as such, or the maintenance, improvement or other alteration of such a building or enclosure; F. Development consisting of— (a) the provision within the curtilage of a dwelling house of a hard surface for any purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling house as such;

AGENDA ITEM 13

13.4

7. CONSULTATIONS CARRIED OUT 7.1 There is no requirement for consultation in respect of applications for a lawful

development certificate. Notice of the making of an Article 4 Direction is served on the property owner, displayed on the site and a copy must be sent to the office of the Secretary of State (Department for Communities and Local Government).

7.2 A representation opposing the Article 4 Direction has been received from the

agent acting for the property owner. Individuals raising the concern

Comment Officer response paragraph

Agent The property has changed hands (at 14th September 2016) since the SMD/2016/0062 LDC application was submitted. The new owner does not have the same intentions and these factors represent a material change in circumstances since the Article 4 Direction was served.

8.6

Agent There is nothing particularly unusual about Salters Ford Farm. There are countless traditional properties in the Staffordshire Moorlands district which lie within the North Staffordshire Green Belt and have their permitted development rights in place, meaning they can be the subject of large extensions and ancillary outbuildings. Does the council propose to issue an Article 4 (1) Direction on every Green Belt property that could be extended beyond the normal tolerances of Green Belt policy?

8.4 8.5

Agent The suggested potential harm to public amenity is overstated as the footpaths through the farm are not heavily used.

8.6

Agent Acknowledges that the application submitted crude and unsympathetic proposals but these were “merely” intended to highlight the range of permitted development (PD) rights.

8.4

Agent Acknowledges that the 2014 LDC for domestic garden and curtilage has defined the area open to PD but comments that this was only sought when the Council had questioned the garden extent; the full extent of the curtilage was in use when the previous owner bought the property in 1995.

8.6

Agent The owner seeks a variation or removal of the Article 4 Direction.

8.7

Agent Contends that the site is not particularly unusual in respect of its location or scope to add extensions or new outbuildings.

8.4 8.6

AGENDA ITEM 13

13.5

Agent Why has the property been singled out; countless PD applications take place without serving an Article 4; not aware of there being any other example of this approach being taken by the Council.

8.4 8.6

Agent The potential costs implications for the Council have been down-played. If planning permission is refused where it has been necessitated solely due to the removal of PD rights, compensation is payable in respect of the gain in capital value which has been prevented by refusing the permission. The Council’s compensation liability could be very substantial as we would argue that substantial extensions to the dwelling would add significantly to its value.

8.8

Agent The Article 4 will dissuade other land owners from engaging with the Council prior to exercising PD and will instead “just press ahead”.

7.3 Statutory and other consultations and the responses received are as given in

the table below. Consultee

Comment Officer response paragraph

N/A

8 OFFICER ASSESSMENT 8.3 Legislation is available at Article 4 (1) of the GPDO (2015) specifically

enabling a Local Planning Authority to remove the relevant Permitted Development (PD) rights applicable here. The NPPG states that use of an Article 4 Direction should be limited to situations where this is necessary to protect local amenity or the wellbeing of the area.

8.4 The site at Salters Ford Farm subject of the Article 4 Direction is within the

North Staffordshire Green Belt with public footpath rights of way passing north to south and east to west through the site. The Council’s Landscape and Settlement Character Assessment (2008) places the site within the Gritstone Uplands Landscape Character Type. The buildings comprise, although developed by extension and modernisation, a stone-built residential house consistent in scale and character with the stone farm houses typical of the immediate local area. The proposals, which could be carried out under Permitted Development Rights, are of such a scale that they would bring significant harm to the Green Belt and to the character of the area. These would be contrary to adopted local and national planning policy, were they to be assessed as a planning application and not covered by PD rights.

8.5 No evidence is presented as to the usage of the public footpaths which

converge at Salters Ford Farm being any different to the usage and enjoyment of public footpaths in the countryside generally. However, the public rights of

AGENDA ITEM 13

13.6

way network is a key means to the public enjoyment of the countryside and the impact of development on the countryside and public amenity are important material considerations. It is a matter of fact that the public may pass along these paths in proximity to the developments.

8.6 The 2014 lawful development certificate for an extensive domestic garden

curtilage was granted essentially because development involving change of use, which would normally require planning consent, had taken place without permission but was found to have been in place for more than 10 years and therefore to be immune from action by the Local Planning Authority. The Council had no choice in the circumstances but to grant the certificate. It is out of character for rural farmstead residences to have extensive domestic curtilage, certainly not extending to 5273m2 (in excess of 0.5ha / 1.3 acres). In turn this has opened the property to significantly more extensive PD opportunities than would be more typically encountered.

8.7 The application for lawful development remains under consideration and has

not been amended or withdrawn and in any event doing so would not alter the PD rights available.

8.8 The effect of the Article 4 Direction is to necessitate a full planning application

in respect of any future development at the site, including that for which a lawful development certificate is being sought. In requiring a Planning Application the Article 4 Direction would enable the Local Planning Authority to give full consideration to local and national planning policy when considering the development enabling, in particular (but not exclusively), consideration to be given to the implications for the Green Belt, landscape character and public amenity. Where a planning application is necessitated as a result solely of the removal of PD rights by Article 4 Direction, no planning fee is payable.

8.9 The NPPG states as follows in respect of potential compensation claims: “If a

local planning authority makes an article 4 direction, it can be liable to pay compensation to those whose permitted development rights have been withdrawn, but only if it then subsequently: •refuses planning permission for development which would otherwise have been permitted development; or •grants planning permission subject to more limiting conditions than the General Permitted Development Order. The grounds on which compensation can be claimed are limited to abortive expenditure or other loss or damage directly attributable to the withdrawal of permitted development rights.” A claim can only be made in respect of an application submitted in the first 12 months from the serving of the Article 4 Direction.

9. CONCLUSION 9.1 As discussed in the report there is the potential for harmful development to be

carried out under PD rights as a result of the domestic curtilage which has been acquired at this property amounting to just over 0.5 hectares. Powers exist through Article 4 (1) for an LPA to remove aspects of PD. The effect is to require development otherwise considered PD to instead be subject to the need for full planning consent.

AGENDA ITEM 13

13.7

9.2 Compensation is potentially payable but only in respect of an application that is

submitted in the first 12 months following the making of the Direction and which is refused. A claim would be limited to the terms set out in the Planning Acts and the Article 4 Direction would not prevent a scheme which was considered to be acceptable in planning policy terms from being approved.

9.3 It is considered that the potential risk to the Council from compensation claims

arising from the Article 4 is outweighed by the risk of harm to the character and appearance of the area and dwellinghouse and, in particular, the openness of the Green Belt.

10. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Committee confirms the Article 4 (1) Direction for Salters Ford Farm as stated below: 1) The effect of this Direction is that permission granted by Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 shall not apply to development of the type specified in the First Schedule to this Notice and that such development shall not be carried out within the area specified in the Second Schedule to this Notice unless planning permission is granted by the Authority on an application made to the Authority under Part III of the Town And Country Planning Act 1990. First Schedule A. The enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a dwelling house. B. The enlargement of a dwelling house consisting of an addition or alteration to its roof. C. Any other alteration to the roof of a dwelling house. E. The provision within the curtilage of the dwelling house of— (a) any building or enclosure, swimming or other pool required for a purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling house as such, or the maintenance, improvement or other alteration of such a building or enclosure; F. Development consisting of— (a) the provision within the curtilage of a dwelling house of a hard surface for any purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling house as such; or . Second Schedule Domestic Garden and Curtilage at:- Saltersford Farm Newtown Road Biddulph Park Staffordshire Moorlands ST8 7SW

AGENDA ITEM 13

13.8

Appendix A – Site location plan