Development Control Committee 16 October, 2014 WD/D/14/ ITEM NUMBER 03

Transcription

1 Development Control Committee 16 October, 2014 WD/D/14/ ITEM NUMBER 03 Application Number: WD/D/14/ Variation of condition Registration Date: 23 April, 2014 Application Site: DAIRY COTTAGE, LOWER EYPE FARM, BARTON LANE, EYPE Proposal: Use of cottage with removal of condition 3 of 1/W/02/1529 to allow permanent residential occupation. Applicant: Mr & Mrs Keating Ward Members: Cllr Mrs G Summers Case Officer: Robert Burden 1. Summary Recommendation 1.1 Approve 2. Description of development 2.1 The site relates to an existing one and a half storey dwelling of cream render finish with untreated horizontal timber boarding above. It has an assymetrical pitched roof with untreated horizontal timber boarding above. It has a assymetrical pitched roof of dark concrete tile. The dwelling is accessed from a single width partially unmade-up trackway, which leads past the site, allowing access to several other properties, and has public rights of way running along and off it. To the west of it, about 8m away, is a large farm building, which has been put to other uses in recent years. This is clad with timber and metal sheeting. A garden area lies to the south of the dwelling. 3. Main planning issues principle of an open market dwellinghouse in this location loss of a unit of holiday occupation effect on visual amenity of locality effect on residential amenity infrastructure contributions highway safety 4. Statutory Consultations Parish/Town Council 4.1 Symondsbury Parish Council object to the removal of condition 3 of planning approval 1/W/02/ to allow for permanent residential occupation for the following reasons; There is no Development Boundary for Eype.

2 The village does not have the infrastructure to support further residential development. The application refers to the policy regarding the conversion of redundant farm buildings. The conversion has been made already and this is no longer a redundant farm building but a highly successful holiday let. Previous attempts to obtain permission for permanent residential use have been refused. During an unsucessful attempt to obtain a Certificate of Lawfulness (appeal 1/D/12/000767) refused 5 July 2012, the Inspector commented, "indeed. this planning permission would never have been granted for a new build since it only accords with the policy for change of use of a redundant farm building". It has been classified as a conversion and so the redundant building rule does not apply. The applicant argues his case with inaccurate statistics. The planning need for a house in this location does not exist. In a recognised tourism area the need for quality "holiday lets" with the year round trade and employment in places where residential development would be inappropriate. Highway Authority 4.2 No objection. 5. Other consultations 5.1 n/a 6. Other representations 6.1 Copies of the letters of representation are available to view on the website letters of support have been received, with 1 giving qualified support. the main planning-related points include- lack of demand for further units of holiday occupancy, relieves pressure for new housing in Eype generally, too many holiday homes in West Dorset, already enough holiday establishments in Eype, better to have permanent residential rather than second homes, lower carbon footprint, opportrunity for local family to stay in area, security for empty homes, little difference in traffic, another dwelling would increase sustainability consistent with the NPPF. 8 letters of objection have been received. The main planning-related points include- information on number of second homes relative to permanent dwellings is not correct, higher percentage of permanent residency is present thanm the applicant indicates, they are in breach of the planning regulations as already living in the holiday unit, unsuitability of site for permanent residential due to use of site adjacent, materials across the right of way, holiday makers likely to spend more in local businesses in Eype that permanent residents. approval would set an undesirable precedent for Dorset.

3 recent Parish council questionnaire did not find a pressing need for more village housing, potential church closure nothin g to do with the level of housing stock, building not built in accordance with the approved plans, site is visible from rights of way, untidyness and commercial activity associated with the use, holiday lets bring much needed revenue. 7. Human Rights 7.1 Article 6 - Right to a fair trial. 7.2 Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life and home. 7.3 The first protocol of Article 1 Protection of property 8. Relevant Planning History App. No Type Proposal Decision Date Officer 1/W/03/ C/U Relief from holiday condition Appeal dismissed 21 october /D/12/ (Appeal) REF Certificate of lawfulness for existing use as a dwelling house Appeal dismissed 06 November SR WD/D//14/1025 CLE Certificate of lawfulness for storage Refused July 2014 LF 9. The Development Plan The West Dorset District Local Plan (adopted July 2006) SA1 Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty SA2 Heritage Coast SS3 Development outside defined development boundaries IN5 Community infrastructure provision DA6 Privacy, daylight, general amenity AH14 Road safety SA21 conservation area protection. 10. Supplementary planning documents 10.1 Design and Sustainable Development Guidelines design policy H 11. Supplementary planning guidance 11.1 N/A 12. Other Material Planning Considerations National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) Sections 3,6, 11 and 12. Paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF require that: 186. Local planning authorities should approach decision-taking in a positive way to foster the delivery of sustainable development. The relationship between decision-taking and plan-making should be seamless, translating plans into high quality development on the ground.

4 187. Local planning authorities should look for solutions rather than problems, and decision-takers at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable development where possible. Local planning authorities should work proactively with applicants to secure developments that improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area. West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland Draft Local Plan (submission plan 2013) INT1 Presumption in favour of sustainable development ENV1 Landscape, seascape and sites of geological interest ENV4 Heritage assets ENV16 Amenity SUS3 Adaptation and re-use of buildings outside defined development boundaries. ECON6 Built tourist accommodation Conservation Area Appraisal 13. Planning issues 13.1 The building subject of this application was approved for use as holiday accommodation in 2002, and the use was implemented. Planning policy in West Dorset has generally favoured the re-use of buildings for holiday use in locations beyond defined development boundaries (such as Eype) and/or as part of farm diversification There was an appeal in 2004 which sought relief from the holiday occupancy condition. In the decision letter on that appeal the Inspector made reference to the holiday restriction" having an economic benefit", but did not expand on this Coming up to date in terms of Central Government advice to planning authorities, the central thrust of the National Planning Policy Framework published in March 2012, is the presumption in favour of sustainable development; there is now a very strong policy stance from the government to create or enable residential development in appropriate circumstances There are certain facts that need to be acknowledged with the current position on this site; firstly -the building already exists. Secondly, it is already in a residential use (albeit acknowledging that it is subject to the holiday condition). It is also understood that the building is currently occupied in breach of that condition; this is a matter which does not influence the consideration of this application- it is considered on whether the planning implications of lifting the condition are acceptable or not Whilst it is true to say that Eype does not have a defined development boundary,under current central government guidance, this does not in itself mean that it is inappropriate to allow the re-use of an existing holiday unit as a permanent dwelling. Given the residential-type use already exists in an existing building, we need to consider whether a change from holiday to permanent residential use would result in such adverse planning consequences which would outweigh the benefits.

5 13.6 Eype does have a number of community-related elements which include a public house, church, a hotel, two sizeable holiday parks- the Eype House Caravan Park and West Dorset Leisure Holidays. Within these facilities are a shop, laundrette, restaurant/cafe available for an extended holiday season to non-residents The fact is that the building is in residential occupancy; the issue, therefore, is whether there remains a compelling case for retaining the holiday use restriction, having particular regard planning guidance. At the appeal in 2004 the Inspector included the comment of the "holiday accommodation having an economic benefit". However, there has been a significant re-alignment of goverment advice in the NPPF 2012; "To promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the 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. "(Para 55) 13.8 In the spirit of the above comment this would lend support to the argument for this property to be available for permanent residential use. Whilst it is true to say the range of local facilities in the village is relatively restricted and to some extent seasonal, the position is that a residential use is present. Central government is very supportive of new housing in appropriate locations - and the quotation from para 55 lends support to this. The Parish Council have made the comment that there is not the infrastucture to support further rsidential development. However, this is not further residential development. Rather, it is already a dwelling- albeit with the occupancy restriction. The Parish Council also comment on the building not being redundant. However, this is not necessary for the proposal to be in the spirit of current Government advice given that the building exists. They also comment that they feel the dwelling should be retained for holiday use ; this point is explored in the paragraphs further below Whilst it is also true to say the lanes in the village are narrow and tortuous in significant parts, the fact that a residential-type use already exists substantially weakens any argument on traffic grounds. It should also be noted that the Highway Authority do not object to the application Turning to the issue of potential economic benefits from holiday occupancy, it is considered that these are less clear today given the current government advice. it is also pertinent to note that Eype is now an area which has 2 well -established sizeable holiday parks, a hotel and a significant number of hoiday cottages. It is not therefore a village which lacks holiday accommodation. As such, it is considered that the case for retaining the holiday restriction - in this particular location- is now a difficult argument to sustain Regarding visual issues, the site lies within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, the Heritage Coast, and the conservation area. Public rights of way pass the site. As such it is a site within the context of an attractive landscape. The site is already in a residential-type use. For that reason, the effects of a change from holiday use to permanent residential use, in tems of character of the use are limited. It could be argued that permanent residential use may lead to increassed pressure for garden buildings. However, given the landscape designations affecting the site it is likely such structure would

6 need express planning permission, thereby giving the local planning authority control over these Turning to residential amenity, the building is already in a residential-type use. Overlooking is not therefore likely to change. In any event the property has as an acceptable relationship with others in overlooking terms. There is a large agricultural-type design of building located 8m to the west adjoining the site. This is currently owned by the occupier of the dwelling subject of this application The Public Health Officer has suggested that the adjacent building and the application site might be tied together as one unit in the interests of amenity. However, it is currently unclear precisely what the authorised use of that building is - it having originated as agricultural use, with other uses, including storage being apparent. A Lawful Use Certificate for storage use has recently been refused on 9 July 2014 due to lack of evidence for this (WD/D/14/001025). It is relevant to note that the building has historically been associated with agricultural use and, as such, some noise, disturbance, etc would reasonably be expected The change to permanent residential use triggers the requirement for financial infrastucture contributions. The applicant has supplied a draft unilateral undertaking to address this and this is currently being checked by the legal officer Regarding highway considerations, it is fair to say the highways leading to the site are substandard in the village of Eype. The narrowness, winding nature and lack of footways is clearly not ideal. However, because the building currently is authorised for holiday occupancy, it is not felt the change in the pattern of usage to permanent residential is likely to be significantly different from this. The Highway Authority have considered this scheme and they have no objection to the change to permanent residential use. 14. Summary 14.1 In the light of the above, it is considered that, given the building exists and a residential-type use is present, coupled with the current thrustvof central government advice seeking to increase the number of permanent dwellings in relatively sustainable locations - that the principle of the use here is acceptable. It is also acceptable in visual and residential amenity terms. The scheme would be acceptable in highway safety terms. Hence the scheme is considered in accordance with policies SA1, SA2, SA21, SS3, IN5, DA6 and AH14 of the adopted West Dorset District Local Plan 2006; Sections 3, 6, 11 and 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012, and Policies INT1, ENV1, ENV4, ENV16 and ECON6 of the West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland Draft Local Plan (submission plan 2013) 15. Recommendation 15.1 Approve with condition. i. Plan submitted