Page | 1 Planning and Heritage Statement Site: Buildings at Dipton House, Corbridge, Northumberland, NE45 5RY Proposal: Conversion of traditional stone building to residential use (Class C3) creating 1no. residential dwelling with associated parking. Applicant: Mr and Mrs Pybus Date: October 2021
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Page | 1
Planning and Heritage Statement
Site: Buildings at Dipton House, Corbridge, Northumberland, NE45 5RY
Proposal: Conversion of traditional stone building to residential use (Class
C3) creating 1no. residential dwelling with associated parking.
5.23 The accompanying plans make provision for 3no. parking spaces and, as such, is in accordance
with the standards as noted in Figure 5.1. There is also provision made for cycle storage. With
regards to refuse storage and collection, there are existing facilities in the courtyard to the west
of the proposed dwelling adjacent to the public highway. On the day for collection by the Council,
the bins are all wheeled out onto the road verge just outside the gate, where the Council's lorry
stops for collection.
5.24 Accordingly in this case, the proposed development will not result in any adverse impact to
highway safety, and there is no justification for refusing this planning application on highways
grounds. The proposed access arrangements and parking provision is in accordance with LP
Policy GD6 and NLP Policy TRA 4.
Ecology 5.25 Paragraph 8 of the NPPF states that the planning system should, “protect and enhance our
natural, built and historic environment; including making effective use of land, improving
biodiversity...”. In addition, paragraph 174 states that, “Planning policies and decisions should
contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by: minimising impacts on and
providing net gains for biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that
are more resilient to current and future pressures”. The pontential for protected species on or
adjacent to the site has been assessed and opportunities for mitigation and enhancement are
presented.
5.26 When determining planning applications in accordance with the Local Plan and the presumption
in favour of sustainable development, local planning authorities should aim to conserve and
enhance biodiversity by applying a number of principles detailed in paragraph 180 of the NPPF.
Planning Statement Buildings at Dipton House, Corbridge
22
This includes (amongst other things) that “if significant harm to biodiversity resulting from a
development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful
impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission
should be refused.”
5.27 CS Policy NE1 and LP Policies NE27, NE33 and NE37 gives protection to biodiversity,
geodiversity, and protected species. This means that development must not harm ecological
interests, which is particularly important for disused, redundant, and old traditional barns
intended for conversion.
5.28 Given the proposal relates to the conversion of traditional agricultural buildings which have the
potential to support roosting bats or nesting birds, a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (including
bat roost assessment) has been undertaken by specialist consultants OS Ecology. The appraisal
seeks to identify species and habitats on site (with reference to protected and notable species),
assessing the potential impact of the proposed development on any identified habitats and
protected or notable species, considering potential opportunities for biodiversity enhancement
and outlining necessary or recommended mitigation and compensation proposals.
5.29 Three bat surveys were undertaken in June, July and August 2021 which recorded species of
common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle, brown long-eared bats and Myotis genus. The complex
is considered to be of district significance, supporting 4 species within the structure. Brown long
ear bats were recorded within all the barns surrounding the site and within the site itself and as
such the building to be redeveloped is considered to support the maternity colony of brown long-
eared bats.
5.30 Signs of several nesting swallows were found on site noted throughout the building complex,
however, there was no evidence of any barn owl use of the site. The buildings provide a range
of opportunities for species such as swallow and house sparrow to nest.
5.31 Proposed mitigation and compensation measures will consist of the provision of a new bat loft
within the northern end of the adjoining barn to the west. Due to the operational requirements of
providing sufficient alternative roosting provision and the constraints of design, it has been
advised that a purpose-built loft should be provided adjacent to the site (See Proposed Roof
Plan 358:1003). The incorporation of further bat access crevices will be incorporated into the
redeveloped structure, alongside the incorporation of opportunities for nesting birds as part of
mitigation measures for the site and the district area.
5.32 The proposed development does not affect any existing trees, does not involve development
works in close proximity to trees and all existing trees at the site will be retained.
Planning Statement Buildings at Dipton House, Corbridge
23
Residential Amenity 5.33 The layout of the proposal has been designed with consideration to the site context and has
sought to maximise opportunities to enhance or maintain the site’s contribution to the character
of nearby receptors and the wider landscape, whilst making efficient use of the site and buildings
for new development to support the overall viability of the scheme. The development will be of
the highest standard, both in terms of its build quality and its place making credentials.
5.34 The proposed layout is made up of 1no. 3-bedroomed dwellinghouse and makes provision for
parking, and benefits from existing private amenity space. The proposed plans ensure adequate
privacy and daylighting is maintained and a reasonable outlook is provided for existing and
proposed residential dwellings.
5.35 The nearest sensitive receptors are the existing cottages to the west of the application site.
Proposed plans demonstrate how a high-quality development can be delivered on site without
impacting on existing properties. Principally this has been achieved by limiting any development
within the existing courtyard. It is worth noting that the buildings existing openings are principally
located within the courtyard and there is already a generous distance between courtyard
elevations. However, in the interests of maintaining adequate privacy for the existing cottages
and future occupiers, these openings are proposed to be a combination of timber and glass,
providing a sophisticated solution in terms of privacy.
5.36 The development provides an opportunity to sensitively improve the appearance of the site and
the wider landscape. Given the existing orientation of the courtyard and existing cottages, the
proposal would not have an adverse impact on residential amenity. The proposal would deliver
a conversion opportunity which is aesthetically pleasing and in keeping with its environment.
Site Conditions 5.37 The application site is located within Flood Zone 1 (Figure 2.2), identified on the Flood Risk Map
for Planning. The proposed development will therefore have a low to very low risk of flooding
from rivers and sea, surface water, reservoirs and sewers.
5.38 In respect of matters relating to foul drainage, an upgraded and more sustainable domestic
sewage treatment tank will be installed on site to replace the existing septic tank which currently
serves the cottage west of the barn (Stable Cottage). In this case a connection to mains
sewerage is not feasible and the presence of an existing septic tank confirms the suitability of
the site to deliver this from a technical perspective. This aspect of the proposal is in accordance
with Policy CS24 of the LP.
5.39 There are not considered to be any other technical constraints that would prohibit conversion of
the building for residential use. Accordingly, the proposal meets the requirements of national and
local planning policy in regard to these matters.
Planning Statement Buildings at Dipton House, Corbridge
24
Developer Contributions 5.40 LP Policies LR11 and LR15 require the provision of land for sport and play when considering
proposals for residential development or redevelopment, the amount of which to be
proportionate to the scale of the development. It is expected that a requirement of £3,264 would
be sought for the creation of a three-bedroom dwelling.
.
Planning Statement Buildings at Dipton House, Corbridge
25
6 Heritage Statement Introduction
6.1 The purpose of this section is to provide a Heritage Statement outlining relevant planning policy
and to undertake an informed assessment of the significance of the existing buildings and the
potential impact of the proposed development on any identified heritage assets.
6.2 There are no designated heritage assets which fall within the application boundary or that lie
adjacent to the site (see Figure 6.1). The application site is not located within or adjacent to a
Conservation Area, Battlefield, Scheduled Monument, Registered Park or Garden or a World
Heritage Site.
Figure 6.1 –No heritage assets in the vicinity of the site (Source: Historic England).
6.3 During pre-applications discussion with the Council, it was suggested that buildings should be
regarded as non-designated heritage assets due to their age.
6.4 The Council’s Conservation Officer responding to the pre-application summarised that “The
proposed development forms part of a late 19th century complex of buildings combining farm
buildings to the north with buildings to the south, more closely associated with Dipton House to
the south-east. The buildings should be to be regarded as ‘undesignated heritage assets’ of
likely local significance in the context of the NPPF.” Consequently, a Heritage Statement has
been prepared to assess the development proposal from a heritage perspective.
Planning Statement Buildings at Dipton House, Corbridge
26
National Planning Policy Framework 6.5 Section 16 of the NPPF considers matters relating to the conservation and enhancement of the
historic environment and makes it clear that adverse impacts on heritage assets should be
avoided.
6.6 Paragraph 194 of the NPPF states that “In determining applications, local planning authorities
should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including
any contribution made by their setting. The level of detail should be proportionate to the assets’
importance and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on
their significance.”
6.7 Paragraph 203 has regard to the potential impacts of development on non-designated heritage
assets, stating that “The effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage
asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that
directly or indirectly affect non-designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be
required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage
asset.”
6.8 The NPPF (pages 67 and 71-72) includes definitions of ‘heritage asset’, ‘setting’ and
‘significance’:
- Heritage asset: A building, monument, site, place, area or landscape identified as having a
degree of significance meriting consideration in planning decisions, because of its heritage
interest. It includes designated heritage assets and assets identified by the local planning
authority (including local listing).
- Setting of a heritage asset: The surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced. Its
extent is not fixed and may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve. Elements of a
setting may make a positive or negative contribution to the significance of an asset, may
affect the ability to appreciate that significance or may be neutral.
- Significance (for heritage policy): The value of a heritage asset to this and future generations
because of its heritage interest. The interest may be archaeological, architectural, artistic or
historic. Significance derives not only from a heritage asset’s physical presence, but also
from its setting. For World Heritage Sites, the cultural value described within each site’s
Statement of Outstanding Universal Value forms part of its significance.
The Development Plans 6.9 The CS was formally adopted in October 2007, and in conjunction with the LP adopted April
2000, it forms the development plan for Tynedale. The emerging NLP is a material consideration
and once adopted, will replace the Tynedale plans.
6.10 CS Policies NE1, NE2 and BE1, and NLP Policy ENV 7 are relevant. Emerging NLP Policy ENV7
specifically relates to the historic environment and heritage assets. Criterion (1) states that
Planning Statement Buildings at Dipton House, Corbridge
27
“development proposals will be assessed and decisions made that ensure the conservation and
enhancement of the significance, quality and integrity of Northumberland’s heritage assets and
their settings”. Criterion (2) continues further, stating that: “Decisions affecting a heritage asset
will be based on a sound understanding of the significance of that asset and the impact of any
proposal upon that significance: Applicants will be required to provide a heritage statement;
describing the significance of the asset and any contribution made to this significance by its
setting. The level of detail should be proportionate to the asset’s importance, but should make
use of the Historic Environment Record, the Historic Landscape Characterisation Study, any
relevant character appraisals or design guides, and/or other relevant records”. Criterion (6)
refers specifically to non-designated heritage assets, “Development proposals that affect the
significance of non-designated heritage assets shall require a balanced judgement, taking into
account the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset. Where, in the
case of a non-designated heritage asset of archaeological interest, the significance of which is
demonstrably equivalent to that of a scheduled monument, the policy approach for designated
heritage assets will be applied if it:.
a. Has not formally been assessed for designation; or
b. Has been assessed as capable of designation, but not designated by the relevant
Government agency; or
c. Is not capable of designation under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological
Areas Act because of its physical nature.”
Historic England Advice Note 12 ‘Statements of Heritage Significance’ (2019) 6.11 The Historic England Advice Note 12 ‘Statements of Heritage Significance’ (2019) recommends
a staged approach to decision-making in which assessing significance precedes designing the
proposal. Completion of this staged assessment considers how adverse impacts (if any) have
been avoided and or minimised through appropriate design and mitigation measures proposed
where required. The staged approach is identified in Table 6.2
Table 6.1 – Historic England’s staged approach to decision-making in applications affecting
heritage assets (Pages 3-4 Historic England Advice Note 12)
Stage Informative
1) Understand the form, materials and history of the affected heritage asset(s), and/or the nature and extent of archaeological deposits.
These two stages fulfil the requirement in
paragraph 189 of the NPPF (2019) and are
undertaken by the applicant.
2) Understand the significance of the asset(s).
3) Understand the impact of the proposal on that significance
This stage fulfils the requirement in paragraph
190 of the NPPF (2019) and is undertaken by the
LPA. However, the applicant needs to be aware
Planning Statement Buildings at Dipton House, Corbridge
28
of impacts so that the analysis of significance
submitted to the LPA, under paragraph 189, is
sufficient in its level of detail.
4) Avoid, minimise and mitigate negative impact, in a way that meets the objectives of the NPPF
These two stages are addressed by the
assessment of impact by the LPA but may also
be addressed by the applicant in reaching a
decision on the scope and design of a proposal.
Indeed, assessment of these three latter stages
by the applicant prior to application may assist a
positive assessment of impact by the LPA, thus
leading to better outcomes for applicants,
reducing both abortive work and delays
5) Look for opportunities to better reveal or enhance significance
6.12 Development does not necessarily lead to harm. It is only development which reduces the
significance of the asset in a material and quantifiable way which is unacceptable. If harm is
identified then this should be weighed against the benefits of the proposal, including securing its
optimum viable use.
Heritage Significance 6.13 As stated previously, the proposed development is identified as a potential non-designated
heritage asset because of its historic group interest. The Council’s Conservation Officer when
responding to the pre-application enquiry noted the site context as follows:
“Historic mapping of this area does not show any buildings on this site until the Second Edition
Ordnance Survey map of c.1899 when this complex of buildings and Dipton House are first
shown. The buildings on that map appear to reflect the current layout in this part of the site
with a track leading down to Dipton House from the south-east corner of the buildings.
Historic mapping and observation during a site visit indicate that the building layout is largely
the same phase of construction. While later openings have been introduced, there does not
appear to be evidence of significant rebuilding with certain architectural details running
through the buildings.
There is, however, a distinct difference between the buildings to the north and south of this
complex of buildings. While there was internal access between buildings within the complex,
evidence on historic mapping and during the site visit show that an east-west wall was
attached to the east of the buildings. This meant that while external access to the buildings
to the south came from both Dipton House and the road to the north, external access to the
buildings in the north came from the road.
Planning Statement Buildings at Dipton House, Corbridge
29
The buildings to the south, set around a courtyard included stables, coach house and cottage
have finer tooled stonework and detailing, presumably due to their location, function and
closer association with Dipton House. In comparison, the buildings to the north have a
farming function with first floor openings for loading vehicles on the road and the stonework
is less finely tooled, presumably because they were less visible and less likely to be visited
from Dipton House. The difference in levels between the north and south of the complex of
buildings is likely to be associated with function and topography. The coach house also
includes a cellar.
While there is good preservation of historic features within the stables and associated office,
no significant historic features survive internally within the coach house and farm building to
the north which are the subject of this pre-application consultation. Externally the coach
house is largely unaltered and still retains 3 of the original sliding doors and fittings. The farm
building has the original first floor opening for loading, but the ground floor doorway appears
to be a later introduction.”
6.14 Furthermore, detailed heritage input and assessment is included within the accompanying DAS
where the heritage significance of the buildings was considered in detail as part of the initial
design.
6.15 Using available historic mapping data provides a useful understanding of the historical context
of the application site. Page 6 of the DAS states that “Historic maps from 1890 show the group
of buildings (in footprint at least) as they are today, although it is visible from some of the
stonework eaves detailing that the northern part of the barn and the eastern off shot were built
at a different (likely later) date than the main southern volume. This also ties into the difference
in floor levels between the two sections”.
6.16 The DAS proceeds to describe the building to which this application relates as two
distinguishable sections, southern and northern (Pages 6 – 7 of the DAS):
- Southern: “The southern volume is of large format rough faced worked and coursed
stone which remains largely in good condition. The scale and precision of this stone
means that quoins were not used (or required), although there is a fine worked edge to
the corner which gives a clean precise aesthetic to the corner of the building. Simple
decorative corbelled eaves details support the water table dressings at the gables (both
north and south, with the north likely being reused when the barn was extended) and
simple projections form a feature and some support to guttering along the east
elevation, a detail which also extends into the adjacent courtyard”.
- Northern: “The northern volume is constructed with the same stone, but of a rougher
rubblestone which is more randomly coursed. Quoins and the watertable detail are as
per the southern volume. There is a substantial cut lintel to the upper opening with a
simple fine detail to the underside; interestingly this opening has quoins whereas the
Planning Statement Buildings at Dipton House, Corbridge
30
lower barn doors do not, meaning the lower opening was possibly altered at some point
after its initial construction. The lower doors also have a timber lintel which would
strengthen this hypothesis”.
6.17 There is one account of planning history at Stable Cottage (already in use as a residential
dwelling) which remains physically attached to the part of the building to which this application
relates (T/930835), and this consisted of a First-floor extension. Planning permission was
granted, however, no information is available in respect of heritage considerations in determining
this application.
6.18 In respect of Archaeology, pre-application comments affirm that whilst there is a potential
medieval settlement at East Dipton, its exact location is unknown – LiDAR sensing found no
evidence of this within the area. Groundworks associated with the conversion will be very limited,
and it is concluded that there is unlikely to be any impact on below ground archaeological
remains.
Assessment of Impact 6.19 The development seeks to convert a traditional stone barn to create 1no. residential dwelling
(Use Class C3). The design process was informed by the site context, alongside a variety of
guidance documents including (but not limited to) those prepared by Historic England. To ensure
sensitive conversion, as previously stated, the key design principles adopted, as set out in the
DAS (page 9) include:
- To minimise any intervention to the existing barn
- To keep and/or reuse materials and features wherever possible
- Where new elements are introduced, to provide materials and details which are in
keeping and/ or complementary to the existing barn
- To be considerate of the neighbours and to the future residents of the barn
- Sensitive approach internally retaining large walls and roof structure
6.20 The proposal will not exceed the existing external dimensions of the agricultural building. The
internal proportions will be utilised as to minimise additional openings. Constraints have been
accounted for as to create a habitable place that can be easily accessed and provides
opportunities for light and ventilation, whilst being sympathetic to the nature of the building and
its historic fabric, preserving the stonework design to be visible.
6.21 All rooflights will conform under a conservation style to maintain the character of the building.
The proposal looks to keep the seven existing rooflights, but will redistribute these to relate to
spaces within, thus making the space habitable. An additional two new rooflights will be added
to the western pitch of the northern element to serve the master bedroom, however these
rooflights will be contained from public views.
Planning Statement Buildings at Dipton House, Corbridge
31
6.22 New window openings are proposed along the south and east elevations. Following pre-
application discussions, the number of windows on the east elevation has been reduced from
five to four and the proportions revised to align with the existing opening in the north elevation.
This further improves the design and balance of the elevation in line with comments from the
Conservation Officer. This is also the case for the opening to the south gable which now is an
exact reflection of the existing opening to the north; this creates a symmetry which is entirely in
keeping with the original barn and provides a balanced overall aesthetic.
6.23 The west elevation will retain its large sliding barn doors which will be restored within their
original position, with the window orientation having been adapted to correspond to the
proportions of the other windows proposed. This is in response to pre-application feedback from
the Conservation Officer, who noted the doors to be an important feature of the barns and as
such should be retained where possible.
6.24 Preserving the historic fabric of the building, stonework will be internally displayed. In respect to
the Courtyard, a combination of glass for light and timber screens for privacy have been used.
As such, the proposed design will retain the agricultural character of the building, in keeping with
the rural setting and will not have a detrimental impact on the surrounding area.
6.25 Taking into account the nature of the development proposal, where external alterations have
been kept to a minimum and have been designed with great sensitivity in keeping with the rural
and agricultural character of the area, the proposal is considered to preserve and enhance the
special interest of the building and secure its optimum viable use. Accordingly, the proposal
complies with relevant local and national planning policy in respect to heritage conservation.
Planning Statement Buildings at Dipton House, Corbridge
32
7 Summary and Conclusions
7.1 The application proposal is for a high-quality residential development at Dipton House, Corbridge
involving the conversion of an existing traditional stone building, to facilitate the creation of a
modestly scaled and sensitively designed scheme. The proposals are considered to present a
positive response to the existing building and its setting within the Dipton House Estate which
will serve to preserve and enhance its character.
7.2 The Planning and Heritage Statement and supporting information contained within the
application submission clearly demonstrate that the application proposal accords will all
relevantly planning policies and the guiding principles of the NPPF. The relevant national and
local planning policies considered include (but not limited to); the NPPF (2021); Tynedale Core
Strategy 2007; Tynedale Local Plan 2000; and the emerging Northumberland Local Plan. With
regards to the development proposal, reference has been made to matters relating to; principle
of the development, design and landscape, highway safety, ecology, residential amenity, site
conditions, developer contributions and heritage impact.
7.3 Whilst it is evident that the proposals accord with the development plan in so far as those policies
that are up to date and relevant to the application, it is also evident that the benefits of the
proposal significantly and demonstrably outweigh any adverse impacts, and as such the
proposal draws support from the presumption in favour of sustainable development. On this
basis, it is respectfully requested that Northumberland County Council grant planning permission