Agenda item

Conversion of existing barn to 1 dwelling

Land to East of Edgewell House Farm House, Edgewell House Road, Prudhoe, Northumberland, NE42 5PD

There were no questions arising from the site visit videos which had been circulated prior to the meeting.

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the application with the aid of a powerpoint presentation and confirmed that there were no updates.

Mr. C. Ross spoke on behalf of the owners of the Old Granary who would suffer the most if the development were allowed.  They objected to the application in the strongest terms on the grounds of highway safety and residential amenity and raised the following points:

·        Existing arrangements were historical and not open for consideration.

·        An application for a new development should be assessed against all policy requirements.  Policy TRA 2 required development to have effective and safe access and egress to the existing transport network.

·        The Highways Team had confirmed that the existing access and visibility splay were sub-standard but had not objected.  This would result in more cars, bikes and vehicles using the sub-standard access with sub-standard visibility creating more opportunities for near misses, similar to recent events with cars going into the hedge opposite.

·        This was a 60 mph road which required a visibility splay of 215 metres.  Based on current plans, only 12-13 metres of visibility was achievable and therefore over 200 metres short of what was required.  A visibility splay of 215 metres could not be achieved and therefore the development failed to provide an effective and safe access and egress required by Policy TRA 2 and should be refused on Highways grounds, a valid material planning reason.

·        Currently the Old Granary house and garden was not overlooked and was a private family space.  If the adjacent building was developed, they would be overlooked in the living room, bedroom and outside space with 6 new windows not there before.  This would destroy the privacy of the Old Granary contrary to the following policies:

-       Policy HOU8 which required a development to enhance its setting.

-       Policy QOP1 which required no unacceptable harm to amenity.

-       QOP2 which required appropriate levels of privacy.

·        The development should be refused on loss of privacy and overlooking, valid material planning reasons.

·        They requested that the application be refused and that the Old Granary should be visited so the site was understood from both sides.

Mrs Hannah Underwood, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  She highlighted the following:-

·        They hoped to bring new life to a disused building whilst retaining its character.

·        The previous refusals and dismissed appeal on the site related to a single factor, the disputed previous use of the building.  Those applications/appeal had been made under a prior notification procedure and not a full planning application.

·        The technical aspects of highway safety, ecology, land contamination, coal mining and drainage had been carefully assessed with no objections raised by the professional consultees.

·        The principle of development, design of the conversion, residential amenity of neighbours, sustainability of the site and Green Belt matters had been assessed by the planning officer.  They had also been taken into account by the Planning Inspector on the recent appeal who had not found any reason to refuse the previous prior notification application or appeal on those grounds.  The current proposal was no different to that previously assessed.

·        Their first consideration had been the protection of the amenity enjoyed by the neighbours and also future residents of the barn, once converted.

·        Separation distances between the barn and neighbouring dwellings ranged from 21-40 metres.

·        As demonstrated on the site visit, the land sloped in a south – north direction, with the barn located on higher ground than the neighbouring properties.  However, due to the separation distances, single storey nature of the barn, modest nature of the proposed windows and existing boundary treatments, the conversion would not have an overbearing presence or adverse impact on privacy or outlook.

·        Permitted development rights for additional openings or extensions to the barn had been removed which would control any future alterations/extensions to ensure that any impact be assessed.  A condition also required that boundary treatments be enhanced.

·        Bringing an unused building back into use with enhanced hedge planting on the boundaries could only be of visual benefit to the immediate area.

·        The proposals, if accepted, would prevent any future non-residential uses of the building and site which would improve the neighbours amenity in the long term.

·        They had actively sought to address the objections made to their proposals.  There were no outstanding technical objections to the scheme which was compliant with local and national policies.

·        Planning and other officers had considered objections on amenity and highways safety to have been overcome and that the proposal would not bring about any harm or detriment to amenity or safety.

·        The committee were requested to accept the officer’s recommendation.

In response to questions from Members of the Committee the following information was provided:-

·        Arrangements were made for site visits in accordance with the Council’s protocol.  Whilst at the site visit, members may have wished to assess the impact of the proposal on the neighbouring property, however, this would not have been possible if permission to enter the land had not been obtained.  It was not normal practice to invite neighbours to a site visit, only the applicant/agent and representatives from the town or parish council.  A decision could be made from the roadside and photographs included in the presentation.  Members comments regarding the usefulness of viewing a site from an adjacent property had been noted.

·        The proposals for the development were not expected to a have a significant adverse impact on the privacy of future occupiers of the unit or the residents of the neighbouring dwellings given the separation distances, the single storey nature of the building and proposals for additional boundary planting.

·        Policy QOP5 required the prioritisation of the use of locally sourced, recycled and energy efficient building materials with details being required to be approved in advance by Condition No. 4.  This could include roof materials, if an amendment was requested by Members.

·        The visibility splay would be sub-standard for the construction of a new dwelling and would constitute a reason for refusal.  However, the access was already in use and currently served 2 dwellings with associated vehicle movements.  The proposals would not result in additional movements on the highway network and there were no material changes in how it would be used.  There were also no recorded incidents at that location in the previous 30 year period.

·        There would be no increase in the height of the building, it was a relatively straightforward conversion with no additional accommodation in the roof space.

Councillor Hutchison proposed acceptance of the officer’s recommendation to approve the application.  This was seconded by Councillor Horncastle.  A suggestion that the conditions be amended to specify use of recycled materials for the roof and aluminium doors was declined.

Members were satisfied that the proposals would bring a redundant building back into use.  They were of the view that the height of the surrounding hedge, removal of permitted development rights to prevent additional openings and assessment by highways was satisfactory.

Upon being put to the vote the results were as follows: -

FOR: 7; AGAINST: 0; ABSTENTION: 1.

RESOLVED that the application be GRANTED permission for the reasons and with the conditions as outlined in the report.