-
____________________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT
APPEAL BY Mr J Harris
CHICKEN COOP, THE PADDOCK, ULTING LANE, ULTING, ESSEX
CM9 6QY
MALDON DISTRICT COUNCIL REFERENCE: MAL/16/00227
AFR COLLINS MRICS MRTPI MCIT MILT MEWI Collins & Coward Ltd
The Courtyard 9A East Street Coggeshall Essex CO6 1SH T 01376
538533 M 07825 633573 F 01376 563240 E
[email protected] W www.collinscoward.co.uk
___________________________________________________________
mailto:[email protected]://www.collinscoward.co.uk/
-
Planning Appeal Statement Mr J Harris Chicken Coop June 2016
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
CC/1726 Page 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 This appeal concerns an application for Prior Approval for
the change of use of the
Chicken Coop into a residential unit. The appeal property is at
The Paddock, Ulting Lane,
Ulting, Essex CM9 6QY. The appeal is submitted on behalf of Mr J
Harris (“the
Appellant”) by Collins & Coward Ltd. The Prior Approval
application was submitted to
Maldon District Council (“the Council”) and validated on 11
March 2016 under reference
COUPA/MAL/16/00227.
1.2 The Prior Approval application was refused on 5 May 2016 for
the following reason:
“The proposal does not constitute permitted development as
defined in
Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the Town and Country Planning
(General
permitted development) (England) Order 201. It is considered
that the change
of use of the Chicken Coop to C3 (residential use) requires
prior approval as it
fails to meet the condition set out in Schedule 2, Part 3, Class
Q, Q.1(i) of the
Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)
(England)
Order 2015. The condition and form of the Chicken Coop is not
conducive to a
residential conversion without substantial reconstruction or
replacement of
the existing fabric”
1.3 The Council Officer’s Delegated Report of 4 May 2016 is at
Appendix A.
1.4 The details of the proposal are set out in the Prior
Approval Application documentation.
1.5 The site is located within The Paddock and comprises one of
two single-storey
agricultural barns. The Chicken Coop extends to a total floor
area of 70 sq.m. The Barns
(Goat Pen and Chicken Pen) adjoin Stables which remain and are
accessed from Ulting
Lane via a drive on 160m length. This drive provides access to
the existing residential
property and other outbuildings at The Paddock.
1.6 The Property is one of a number of agricultural properties
lying on Ulting Lane.
1.7 There are no listed buildings within the site or immediate
vicinity nor is the property
within a conservation area.
1.8 The Council raises only one concern with the appeal
proposals. Save for that the Council
concludes the Chicken Coop meets all the remaining requirements
of Class Q to allow a
change to residential use.
-
Planning Appeal Statement Mr J Harris Chicken Coop June 2016
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
CC/1726 Page 2
The Agricultural Barns (Chicken Coop and Goat Pen) © Google
-
Planning Appeal Statement Mr J Harris Chicken Coop June 2016
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
CC/1726 Page 3
2.0 PLANNING HISTORY
First Prior Approval Application
2.1 The First Prior Approval Application was submitted under
reference 15/00820/COUPA
and proposed the change of use of the two barns (Goat Pen and
Chicken Coop) into a
single residential unit (Appendix B). The Council refused the
Prior Approval on 30
September 2015 based upon an illustrative “link” between the two
barns shown on the
Application Plan which did not form part of the Prior Approval
Application and would be
subject to a planning application subsequently. This was clearly
marked on the Plan and
confirmed in the Application.
Second Prior Approval Application
2.2 The Second Prior Approval Application (reference
15/01104/COUPA) was submitted
without the illustrative “link” shown on the plan but proposed
the change of the two
barns into a single residential unit (Appendix C). Although this
was acceptable to the
Council it advised that it required a building condition survey
of the barns. It was agreed
with the Council that the application would be withdrawn (15
January 2016) to enable
condition surveys to be prepared for the barns. The condition
survey for the Chicken
Coop was submitted with the appeal application.
-
Planning Appeal Statement Mr J Harris Chicken Coop June 2016
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
CC/1726 Page 4
3.0 THE PLANNING ISSUE
3.1 The Delegated Officer’s Report confirms the principle of the
development is acceptable
save that the Council considers the extent of works “is not
conducive to a residential
conversion without substantial reconstruction or replacement of
the existing fabric” by
reference to Class Q.1(i) of the Town and Country Planning
(General permitted
development) (England) Order 2015 (“GPDO”). This states:
(i) The development under Class Q(b) would consist of building
operations other than:
(i) the installation or replacement of:
(aa) windows, doors, roofs, or exterior walls, or
(bb) water, drainage, electricity, gas or other services,
to the extent reasonably necessary for the building to function
as a dwellinghouse; and…”
3.2 The National Planning Practice Guidance (“NPPG”) at
Paragraph 105 provides some
further clarity on the interpretation of Class Q as follows:
Building works are allowed under the change to residential use.
The permitted development right under Class Q assumes that the
agricultural building is capable of functioning as a dwelling.
However, it recognises that for the building to function as a
dwelling some building operations which would affect the external
appearance of the building, which would otherwise require planning
permission, should be permitted. The right allows for the
installation or replacement of windows, doors, roofs, exterior
walls, water, drainage, electricity, gas or other services to the
extent reasonably necessary for the building to function as a
dwelling house; and partial demolition to the extent reasonably
necessary to carry out these building operations. It is not the
intention of the permitted development right to include the
construction of new structural elements for the building.
Therefore, it is only where the existing building is structurally
strong enough to take the loading which comes with the external
works to provide for residential use that the building would be
considered to have the permitted development right.
3.3 The nature of the Council’s concern that relates to the
refusal in the Decision Notice
is set out in the Officer’s Delegated report at 6.4(i) which
states:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/596/schedule/2/part/3/crossheading/class-q-agricultural-buildings-to-dwellinghouses/made
-
Planning Appeal Statement Mr J Harris Chicken Coop June 2016
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
CC/1726 Page 5
“In support of this Prior Notification, a Building Control
Assessment (BCA) produced by The JTS Partnership LLP dated 4
February 2016 has been submitted to accompany the application
submission. In the BCA, it highlights the proposed works to make
the Chicken Coop habitable, whilst it has been concluded the
building is sound, secure and robust, but no reference has been
whether the replacement roof and works to the external walls could
hold the additional weight without impacting on the structure of
the building. Unlike, the Goat Pen, this building has two open
sides and is supported by steel posts. Advice from the Building
Control Department has been sought and cannot confirm this due to
the absence of a full structural engineer report. Further, due to
the open nature of the building to the north and east, and minus a
solid base/foundation, it is considered that the proposed works to
make the building habitable would exceed the scope of building
operations as described in this sub-paragraph and going beyond what
is ‘reasonable necessary’ for the building to function as a
dwelling house. As such, it is considered that the
requirements of Q.Q.1(i) are not met”
3.4 The Building Condition Assessment (“BCA”) made clear in its
conclusions that:
“The building is currently in a fair state of repair given its
current use but if the building is to remain in a water tight and
serviceable condition, it would require some remedial works and the
sycamore tree in close proximity removed. However, this building is
a sound and robust structure, which is typical of many post war
agricultural buildings.
It will be appreciated that I have prepared this report in the
content of the planning constraints and that this firm has acted
for many clients who have pursued the conversion of derelict
buildings of a similar type but in many cases have been larger and
in a poorer state of repair.
This building could be successfully converted into a small
single domestic dwelling and as with most farm buildings; the
conversion would require major upgrading, alteration and
refurbishment works. However, in my opinion, the barn is of a
construction similar of that used in post war steel frame house
design (BISF) and given its size and shape could convert into a
spacious one bed detached bungalow (see Appendix One drawing 2228
03).
This building has elements that are in need of repair and
strengthening, however these repair works themselves can be
incorporated within the conversion project in a cost effective
manner.
It is a building that is of some permanence, as it has been on
site assumed for 60 years so if the foundations and walls were
stabilised, the floor was renewed and general upkeep works were
carried out periodically, it could remain on the site for at least
a further 60 years.
-
Planning Appeal Statement Mr J Harris Chicken Coop June 2016
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
CC/1726 Page 6
In my experience, it is very often the case that when carrying
out major conversion and refurbishment projects where for, listed
building conservation or for other reasons, a building structure is
to be retained the total build costs are very diff icult to
predict.
Having regard to the building regulation requirements for
habitable floor space and current condition it is probable that it
would be more economical to demolish and rebuild the structure.
However, to carry out the conversion as proposed by the Designer
does not require complete reconstruction. I believe the Designer's
approach to the building is sympathetic in scale and design and in
my opinion can be achieved as a conversion”.
3.5 The Chartered Building Surveyor, Jason Green MRICS, the
author of the BCA, has
confirmed in a letter dated 23 May 2016 (Appendix D) that the
existing roof structure is
capable of taking a new light-weight roof and that infill frames
can be added to the
Chicken Coop as part of the conversion. Both the BCA and letter
(Appendix D) confirm
the existing Chicken Coop is capable of conversion without any
structural work.
3.6 The NPPG at paragraph 105 seeks to limit conversions where
they “include the
construction of new structural elements for the building.
Therefore, it is only where the
existing building is structurally strong enough to take the
loading which comes with
the external works to provide for residential use that the
building would be considered
to have the permitted development right”. The appeal proposal
requires no structural
works and accordingly the proposal benefits from permitted
development rights.
3.7 The GPDO allows replacement of roof, walls, doors windows
and this is proposed in the
Prior Approval Application. Provision of utilities to the
Chicken Coop would be provided
as necessary. The floor is not a structural component and can be
repaired and replaced
as necessary. This is often the case with the insertion of
utilities below the ground to
serve the building.
3.8 Notwithstanding this, Section 55(2) (a) of the Town and
Country Planning Act 1990,
(“1990 Act”) as amended provides for the carrying out, for
maintenance, improvement
or other alteration of any building, of works which affect only
the interior of the
building, or do not, materially affect the external appearance
of the building, are to be
taken for the purposes of the 1990 Act not to involve
development of the land.
Therefore, works of repair to the floor benefit from permitted
development rights
outside Class Q. These works are not structural for the purposes
of Class Q. It is not the
intention of the Government, implied or express for Class Q to
remove any other
permitted development rights or override the 1990 Act at Section
55(2) (a).
-
Planning Appeal Statement Mr J Harris Chicken Coop June 2016
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
CC/1726 Page 7
4.0 CONCLUSION
4.1 In conclusion, it is necessary to consider the approach
adopted by the Council. It
correctly requested a Building Condition Assessment. This
demonstrated that the
Chicken Coop was structurally sound. The roof and walls would be
replaced and new
doors and windows inserted as appropriate and as permitted under
Class Q. The Council
has produced no evidence to the contrary and the Council’s
Building Control
Department did not recommend refusal. In fact, the consultation
identified those
matters for Building Control approval not planning
considerations.
4.2 Paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework
require that sustaible
development should benefit from a presumption in favour of the
grant of permission.
The Council in refusing permission for the Prior Approval has
made an assessment
contrary to the evidence provided by the Appellant’s Chartered
Surveyors.
4.3 The analysis of the planning issue above clearly indicates
that the Prior Approval should
be permitted. For these reasons the Appellant contends the
application accords with the
provisions of GPDO and requests the appeal be allowed.
-
Planning Appeal Statement Mr J Harris Chicken Coop June 2016
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
CC/1726 Page 8
APPENDIX A
-
Planning Appeal Statement Mr J Harris Chicken Coop June 2016
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
CC/1726 Page 9
APPENDIX B
-
Planning Appeal Statement Mr J Harris Chicken Coop June 2016
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
CC/1726 Page 10
APPENDIX C
-
Planning Appeal Statement Mr J Harris Chicken Coop June 2016
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
CC/1726 Page 11
APPENDIX D
-
OFFICER REPORT
Application No: 16/00225/COUPA
Location: Goat Pen, The Paddock, Ulting Lane, Ulting, Essex
Proposal: Notification for prior approval for a proposed change
of use of a goat pen to a one bedroom dwelling
Consultation Expiry Date: 11.03.2016
Application Expiry Date: 06.05.2016
Parish Response: Object
Case Officer: Yee Cheung
Recommendation Prior Approval Refused
1 Site Description1.1 The site is located north of Ulting Lane
within a Special Landscape Area and outside the defined
settlement
boundary of Langford and Ulting. The boundary of Langford
Conservation Area lies to the south side of Ulting Lane, a single
track road within a rural location.
1.2 Access to the site is via a shingled driveway which leads in
a northerly direction from Ulting Lane to the dwelling house ‘The
Paddock’. This driveway expands to provide off-street vehicular
parking to the north east side of the dwelling. The gravel drive
extends further north to an access gate leading to a stable, and
two outbuildings namely ‘The Goat Pen’ and ‘Chicken Coup’ which are
located approximately 10 metres to the north of the dwellinghouse
and approximately 160 metres from the highway.
1.3 The Goat Pen is a single-storey building with a shallow
pitched roof and is constructed using concrete breeze block and for
the walls and galvanised metal sheeting for the roof. To provide
natural light for the building, polycarbonate sheets have been
incorporated into roof slope. Within the building, there are small
pens previously used for rearing lambs. The position of the
fenestration includes two existing doors on both gableends (east
and west elevation) of the building and windows on the north
elevation.
1.4 Southlands Farm, a Grade II listed building is located some
165 metres distance away to the south west of the site.
1.5 The application site does not fall within a Flood Zone.
However, the front garden of the dwellinghouse and a section of the
existing access from Ulting Lane falls within Flood Zone 2.
2 The Proposal2.1 Notification for prior approval for a proposed
change of use of a goat pen to a one bedroom dwelling (Class
C3 Use) and for associated operational development consisting of
a new roof structure with light weight tileseffect roofing system;
block work walls to be cladded; insulation to be installed
internally; new window frames; new rainwater goods and downpipes;
install damp proof membrane into floor; electrical services; water
supplies; and foul drainage system also to be installed.
2.2 The Goat Pen, measuring approximately 4.6 metres wide and
15.2 metres in length would comprise of a lounge, kitchen, bedroom
and a bathroom.
3 Relevant Planning History
15/00820/COUPA - Prior approval for a proposed change of use of
agricultural building to a dwellinghouse. Refused: 30 September
2015
-
16/00227/COUPA - Prior approval for a proposed change of use of
agricultural building (Chicken Coup) to a dwellinghouse. Pending
Consideration
4 Consultation RepliesLangford and Ulting Parish Council –
Recommends Refusal for the following reasons:-
‘The Building Condition Assessment states that “the roof will be
fitted with further steel framing and bracing to provide additional
stability to the existing steel framework”, the existing concrete
floor is to be removed, lowered and replaced, and the foundations
are to be repaired and stabilised. The GPDO 2015 does not include
the construction of new structural elements; it is only where the
existing building is structurally strong enough to take the loading
which comes with the external works to provide for residential use,
that the building would be considered to have the permitted
development right. In addition the buildings are not part of an
established trading agricultural unit/business as previously
mentioned’.
ECC SUDs Team – This application is not considered major and
therefore we will not be commenting on the surface water drainage
scheme at this site.
ECC Highways – No objection subject to conditions in relation to
and informative
Environmental Health Services - This service has no adverse
comments.
5 Letters of Representation5.1 No letters of representation
received at the time of writing this report
6 Site Visit Notes and Assessment
6.1 Relevant Legislation Prior approval is sought for the change
of use of a Goat Pen into a dwelling house under Schedule 2, Part
3, Class Q of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted
Development) Order 2015 (as amended) and states the following as
permitted development:-
(a) a change of use of a building and any land within its
curtilage* from a use as an agricultural building to a use falling
within Class C3 (dwelling houses) of the Schedule to the Use
Classes Order; and
(b) building operations reasonably necessary to convert the
building referred to in paragraph (a) to a use falling within Class
C3 (dwelling houses) of that Schedule.
6.2 Paragraph W sets out the procedure for applications for
prior approval under Part 3 of the GPDO and it states that:-
Sub-paragraph (3) The local planning authority may refuse an
application where, in the opinion of the authority— (a) The
proposed development does not comply with, or (b) The developer has
provided insufficient information to enable the authority to
establish whether
the proposed development complies with, any conditions,
limitations or restrictions specified in this Part as being
applicable to the development in question.
6.3 Further sub-paragraph (10) states that:- The local planning
authority must, when determining an application—(a) take into
account any representations made to them as a result of any
consultation under sub-paragraphs (5) or (6) and any notice given
under sub-paragraph (8);
(b) have regard to the National Planning Policy Framework issued
by the Department for Communities and Local Government in March
2012(a), so far as relevant to the subject matter of the prior
approval, as if the application were a planning application;
and
-
(c) in relation to the contamination risks on the site—(i)
determine whether, as a result of the proposed change of use,
taking into account any proposed mitigation, the site will be
contaminated land as described in Part 2A of the Environmental
Protection Act 1990(b), and in doing so have regard to the
Contaminated Land Statutory Guidance issued by the Secretary of
State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in April 2012(c),
and(ii) if they determine that the site will be contaminated land,
refuse to give prior approval.
6.4 Therefore, before determining whether or not prior approval
from the Council will be required for the prior approval matters,
the Council must first determine whether the proposed works comply
with the permitted development criteria of Class Q.
The Class Q permitted development criteria are listed below:
Q.1 Development is not permitted by Class Q if—
a. the site was not used solely for an agricultural use as part
of an established agricultural unit— (i) on 20th March 2013, or
(ii) in the case of a building which was in use before that date
but was not in use on that date, when it was last in use, or (iii)
in the case of a site which was brought into use after 20th March
2013, for a period of at least 10 years before the date development
under Class Q begins;
In the Planning Statement produced by Collins & Coward Ltd
dated February 2016, it states that the Goat Pen has been used
continuously for agricultural use. Annual hay crop is taken and
stored in the building. Previously, livestock sheep were reared on
the land and livestock pens is visible within the Goat Pen. At the
time of the site visit (21 March 2016), no livestock can be seen on
the land and within the building. Whilst the use of the building
under this application is not clear, there is no evidence to
suggest that the Goat Pen has not been used as part of the
agricultural unit.
b. the cumulative floor space of the existing building or
buildings changing use under Class Q within an established
agricultural unit exceeds 450 square metres;
The cumulative floorspace of the existing building totals
70m².
c. the cumulative number of separate dwellinghouses developed
under Class Q within an established agricultural unit exceeds
3;
One, one bedroom dwelling is proposed.
d. the site is occupied under an agricultural tenancy, unless
the express consent of both the landlord and the tenant has been
obtained;
The application forms declare that the site is not occupied by
an agricultural tenancy.
e. less than 1 year before the date development begins— (i) an
agricultural tenancy over the site has been terminated, and (ii)
the termination was for the purpose of carrying out development
under Class Q, unless both the landlord and the tenant have agreed
in writing that the site is no longer required for agricultural
use;
Not applicable
f. development under Class A(a) or Class B(a) of Part 6 of this
Schedule (agricultural buildings and operations) has been carried
out on the established agricultural unit— (i) since 20th March
2013; or (ii) where development under Class Q begins after 20th
March 2023, during the period which is 10 years before the date
development under Class Q begins;
-
There is no evidence or planning history to show development
under Class A(a) or Class B (b) of this Scheduletaking place since
20 March 2013
g. the development would result in the external dimensions of
the building extending beyond the external dimensions of the
existing building at any given point;
The Planning Statement states that the building would be
cladded. Whilst cladding added onto the existing external walls
would result in a building which extends beyond its existing
external dimensions, the net difference to the footprint from
cladding would be negligible. Additionally, the cladding would be
unlikely to extend beyond the existing roof overhang at the eaves
level and as such the re-cladded building would be generally
contained within the envelope of the original building. It is
therefore considered that, on balance, that external cladding
proposed in this case would not contravene the limitation at
paragraph Q.1(g) and would accord with the intention of Class Q to
re-use suitable rural buildings, which includes for the replacement
of exterior walls.
h. the development under Class Q (together with any previous
development under Class Q) would result in a building or buildings
having more than 450 square metres of floor space having a use
falling within Class C3 (dwellinghouses) of the Schedule to the Use
Classes Order;
The floorspace of the proposed dwelling is 70m².
i. the development under Class Q(b) would consist of building
operations other than— (i) the installation or replacement of— (aa)
windows, doors, roofs, or exterior walls, or (bb) water, drainage,
electricity, gas or other services, to the extent reasonably
necessary for the building to function as a dwellinghouse; and (ii)
partial demolition to the extent reasonably necessary to carry out
building operations allowed by paragraph Q.1(i)(i);
The comment from the Langford and Ulting Parish Council has been
noted. The building operations consist of a new roof structure with
light weight tiles effect roofing system; block work walls to be
cladded; insulation to be installed internally; new window frames;
new rainwater goods and downpipes; install damp proof membrane into
floor; electrical services; water supplies; and foul drainage
system also to be installed. Whilst the proposed work appears
extensive, it is considered that these works meet the above
criteria.
In support of this Prior Notification, a Building Condition
Assessment (BCA) produced by The JTS Partnership LLP dated 4
February 2016 has been submitted to accompany the application
submission. In the BCA, it highlights the proposed works to make
the Goat Pen habitable, whilst it has been concluded the building
is sound, secure and robust, but no reference has been whether the
replacement roof and works to the external walls could hold the
additional weight without impacting on the structure of the
building.
In Paragraph: 105 Reference ID: 13-105-20150305 (Revision date:
05 03 2015) of the National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) it
stipulates that:-
‘Building works are allowed under the change to residential use.
The permitted development right under Class Q (i) (i) assumes that
the agricultural building is capable of functioning as a dwelling.
However, it recognises that for the building to function as a
dwelling some building operations which would affect the external
appearance of the building, which would otherwise require planning
permission, should be permitted. The right allows for the
installation or replacement of windows, doors, roofs, exterior
walls, water, drainage, electricity, gas or other services to the
extent reasonably necessary for the building to function as a
dwelling house; and partial demolition to the extent reasonably
necessary to carry out these building operations. It is not the
intention of the permitted development right to include the
construction of new structural elements for the building. Therefore
it is only where the existing building is structurally
-
strong enough to take the loading which comes with the external
works to provide for residential use that the building would be
considered to have the permitted development right’.
A letter dated 16 March 2016 has been submitted to the Council
from the Applicant in support of the Prior Approval application.
Whilst the Council is satisfied that the walls, floor, joinery,
rainwater goods and services of the Goat Pen would be acceptable
under Class Q(i)(i) (aa). With regard to the proposed alterations
to the roof, the BCA states that ‘it is assumed that a lightweight
tile effect sheet roofing system is to be used …The roof will be
fitted with further steel framing and bracing to provide additional
stability to theexisting steel frame structure’. As such, the
Council does not consider such work falls within the tolerance
ofClass Q.(i)(i) (aa).
Advice from the Building Control Department was sought and
cannot confirm this due to the absence of a full structural
engineer report. In this instance, the proposal would fail to
accord with Q.(i)(i)(aa) of the Town and Country Planning (General
Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015.
j. the site is on article 2(3) land; Not applicablek. the site
is, or forms part of—
(i.) a site of special scientific interest; Not applicable(ii.)
a safety hazard area; Not applicable(iii.) a military explosives
storage area; Not applicable
l. the site is, or contains, a scheduled monument; Not
applicablem. the building is a listed building. Not applicable
* ’curtilage’ means, for the purposes of Class Q;(a) the piece
of land, whether enclosed or unenclosed, immediately beside or
around the agricultural building, closely associated with and
serving the purposes of the agricultural building, or (b) an area
of land immediately beside or around the agricultural building no
larger than the land area occupied by the agricultural building,
whichever is the lesser;
The area of ‘curtilage’ has been outlined on the submitted site
plan (Drawing No: 2228/01/A) and extends to an area of
approximately 70m². This area would be able to accommodate
off-street parking for one vehicle. The area of curtilage as shown
on the site plan is not enclosed, but is immediately next to the
agricultural land.
Q.2 Conditions
6.5 Development under Class Q is permitted subject to the
condition that before beginning the development, the developer must
apply to the LPA for a determination as to whether the prior
approval of the authority will be required as to:
(a) transport and highways impacts of the development;
The application site is accessed from the main private access
point to ‘The Paddock’. There is no availability for
through-traffic in the site. Due to the minor level of vehicle
movements required from the one dwelling and the existing access on
site, it is not considered that the development would have an
adverse effect on pedestrian or highway safety. This criterion
Q.2(a) is therefore complied with.
(b) noise impacts of the development;
The dwelling would be located within a rural location where
noise is minimal. In terms of the impact from nearby agricultural
practices, the site is not located nearby to any sources of noise.
Similarly, it is considered that noise resulting from the one
proposed residential use would not result in a general noise or
disturbance. This criterion Q.2(b) is therefore complied with.
-
(c) contamination risks on the site;
The history of the application site does not indicate any
contaminated land. Whilst no livestock, machinery or chemicals is
kept within the barn at present, due to the agricultural uses of
the site there is the potential for a risk of harm from land
contamination. To ensure the site is suitable for conversion and
human habitation, Environmental Health Services was consulted
regarding the conversion and has raised no objection to the
application.
(d) flooding risks on the site;
The site is located in Flood Zone 1 as categorised by the
Environment Agency and therefore there are no issues in relation to
flooding.
(e) whether the location or siting of the building makes it
otherwise impractical or undesirable for the building to change
from agricultural use to a use falling within Class C3
(dwellinghouses) of the Schedule to the Use Classes Order, and;
The Council acknowledges the recent government guidance and in
particular, paragraphs 108/109 of the National Planning Practice
Guidance, which advises that LPA’s should not be applying a test of
sustainability. This is deliberate as the right recognises that
many agricultural buildings will not be in village settlements and
may not be able to rely on public transport for their daily needs.
Instead, the Council can consider whether the location and siting
of the building would make it impractical or undesirable to change
use to a house.
The Goat Pen would be located approximately 4 metres to the
north of the Chicken Coop. Due to the scale and open nature of the
existing Chicken Coop structure (no walls on the northern and
eastern elevation of the structure), it is considered that the
level of activity or storage involving the use of the building
would be limited thus the development would not cause general noise
or disturbance to the future occupiers of the Goat Pen.
In this instance, it is considered that there are no issues as a
result of the proposed dwelling in terms of flooding,
contamination, noise or highways/transport. Further, there are no
other considerations or issues which make the site undesirable or
impractical for the proposed dwelling.
(f) the design or external appearance of the building.
Based on the information submitted, the Goat Pen would not
undergo dramatic alterations to substantially change its
appearance. The exterior timber cladding to sections of the
building and the introduction of windows and doors would give the
building a more residential character. No objection is raised with
regard to the external appearance of the dwelling.
Furthermore, the dwelling would not be exposed to views from the
public vista and therefore it is considered that the design and
appearance of the proposed dwelling is acceptable in this
location.
-
OFFICER REPORT
Application No: 15/00820/COUPA
Location: The Paddock, Ulting Lane, Ulting
Proposal: Prior approval for a proposed change of use of
agricultural building to a dwellinghouse
Consultation Expiry Date: 04.09.2015
Application Expiry Date: 01.10.2015
Parish Response:
Case Officer: Anne Cook
Recommendation Prior Approval Refused
Site DescriptionThe site is located north of Ulting Lane within
a Special Landscape Area and outside of adefined settlement area.
The boundary of Langford Conservation Area lies on the south sideof
Ulting Lane which is a single track road within a rural
location.
A shingled driveway leads in a northerly direction from Ulting
Lane to the dwelllinghousewhere the shingle area expands to provide
vehicular parking. The gravel drive extendsfurther north to an
access gate leading to the application site.
The agricultural barns to which this application relates are
located approximately 10m northof the dwellinghouse and
approximately 100m from the highway.
The agricultural barns are single storey with low pitched roofs
and are set perpendicular toeach other. Barn No.1, nearest to the
dwellinghouse, is an open structure with east and westgable
elevations constructed of breeze block, with a roof of corrugated
steel profiledsheeting. The barn is currently used to store a small
number of hay bales and wood fordomestic use. The barn is attached
to a stable block at the east elevation. Barn No.2 isenclosed and
constructed of breeze block with a felted roof with entrance doors
at both eastand west gable elevations. Internally there are small
pens previously used for rearing lambs.
Listed buildings are located some distance away to the west and
north east of the site.
The application site does not fall within a Flood Zone. However,
an area south of thedwellinghouse and a section of the proposed
access from Ulting Lane falls within Flood Zone2. The ProposalPrior
notification of a proposed change of use from two agricultural
buildings to one dwelling house (Use Class C3) under Schedule 2,
Part 3, Class Q of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted
Development) (England) Order 2015.
1
-
Relevant Planning History 00/00188/FUL - Proposed erection of a
conservatory. Approved 31.03.2000 07/01178/FUL - Alterations and
single storey extension to side plus conversion of
existing garage to recreation room. Approved 10.12.2007
Consultation RepliesUlting Parish Council – No response at time
of writing
Environmental Health – No adverse comments
Highways – No objection as the application is not contrary to
relevant transportationpolicies contained within the Highway
Authority’s Development Management PoliciesFebruary 2011 and policy
T2 of the Local Plan.
Environment Agency – The Environment Agency advised that
Standard Adviceapplied to sites within Flood Zone 2, available at
www.gov.uk/guidance/flood-risk-assessment-standing-advice
Letters of RepresentationNone received at the time of
writing.
Site Visit Notes and AssessmentRelevant LegislationThis
application is for prior approval under Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q
of the Town andCountry Planning (General Permitted Development)
Order 2015 and states the following aspermitted development;
(a) a change of use of a building and any land within its
curtilage* from a use as anagricultural building to a use falling
within Class C3 (dwellinghouses) of theSchedule to the Use Classes
Order; and
(b) building operations reasonably necessary to convert the
building referred to inparagraph (a) to a use falling within Class
C3 (dwellinghouses) of that Schedule.
Case law has established that Q(a) and Q(B) should be read as a
whole; “The legislationclearly indicates that, for development to
be permitted, it must satisfy both criteria.Moreover, the criteria
are not only linked semantically but also operationally. This is
becauseagreeing to a change of use without the necessary works to
make a building habitable wouldbe nonsensical.”
*’curtilage’ means, for the purposes of Class Q;(a) the piece of
land, whether enclosed or unenclosed, immediately beside or around
theagricultural building, closely associated with and serving the
purposes of the agriculturalbuilding, or (b) an area of land
immediately beside or around the agricultural building no larger
than theland area occupied by the agricultural building, whichever
is the lesser;
2
-
The application site edged in red measures approximately 3,930
sq.m and is confirmed bythe applicant in Paragraph 2.1 of the
Planning Statement and shown on the location plansubmitted as part
of this application. The area of land which would change to
residential usewould be no larger than the land occupied by the
agricultural building and complies withClass Q (X) of the General
Permitted Development Order 2015.
AssessmentThe Town and Country Planning (General Permitted
Development) (England) Order 2015states that a Council may refuse
an application for prior approval under Class W where, inthe
opinion of the Council, the proposed development does not comply
with, or, thedeveloper has provided insufficient information to
enable the authority to establish whetherthe development complies
with, any conditions, limitations and restrictions specified in
therelevant class within Part 3, in this case Class Q -
agricultural buildings to dwellinghouses.
Therefore, before determining whether or not prior approval from
the Council will berequired for the prior approval matters, the
Council must first determine whether theproposed works comply with
the permitted development criteria of Class Q.
The Class Q permitted development criteria are listed below:
Q.1 Development is not permitted by Class Q if— (a) the site was
not used solely for an agricultural use as part of an
established
agricultural unit— i. on 20th March 2013, or ii. in the case of
a building which was in use before that date but was not in
use on that date, when it was last in use, or iii. in the case
of a site which was brought into use after 20th March 2013, for
a
period of at least 10 years before the date development under
Class Qbegins;
The application form and Planning Statement state that on or
prior to March 2013 the useof the barns was for the purposes of
agriculture, specifically for the storage of hay,machinery and
other materials and for rearing livestock, namely sheep, and whilst
noevidence to confirm an agricultural use has been submitted, the
Council has no overridingevidence to dispute otherwise. During the
site visit the barns to which this applicationaffects were being
used to store hay bales, small machinery and logs.
(b)the cumulative floor space of the existing building or
buildings changing use underClass Q within an established
agricultural unit exceeds 450 square metres;
The cumulative floorspace of the existing barn totals 140m² and
accords with thisstipulation.
3
-
(c) the cumulative number of separate dwellinghouses developed
under Class Qwithin an established agricultural unit exceeds 3;
One dwelling is proposed and accords with this stipulation.
(d) the site is occupied under an agricultural tenancy, unless
the express consent ofboth the landlord and the tenant has been
obtained;
The application form states that the site is not occupied under
an agricultural tenancy andaccords with this stipulation.
(e) less than 1 year before the date development begins— i. an
agricultural tenancy over the site has been terminated, and ii. the
termination was for the purpose of carrying out development
under
Class Q, unless both the landlord and the tenant have agreed in
writing thatthe site is no longer required for agricultural
use;
The application form states that an agricultural tenancy has not
been terminated less than1 year before the date development will
begin and accords with this stipulation.
(f) development under Class A(a) or Class B(a) of Part 6 of this
Schedule (agriculturalbuildings and operations) has been carried
out on the established agricultural unit—
i. since 20th March 2013; or ii. where development under Class Q
begins after 20th March 2023, during the
period which is 10 years before the date development under Class
Q begins;
There is no evidence or planning history to show development
taking place since 20 March2013 and accords with this
stipulation.
(g) the development would result in the external dimensions of
the building extendingbeyond the external dimensions of the
existing building at any given point;
The submitted plans and Planning Statement identify that there
would be no changes tothe external dimensions of the existing
barns. However, a glazed link is shown on thesubmitted plans that
would link the barns together and by nature of its location would
beexternal to the existing elevations of the barns. Whilst it is
indicated that this element ofthe proposal would be sought under a
separate planning permission, it is evident that thebarns would not
exist separately as a dwellinghouse and the proposed works will
result inthe building extending beyond the external dimensions of
the existing building. Theproposed development would go beyond
those building operations considered to bepermitted development in
the terms set out in the General Permitted Development Order
4
-
and the National Planning Practice Guidance, contrary to
stipulation (g) of Class Q, Part 3of Schedule 2.
(h) The development under Class Q (together with any previous
development underClass Q) would result in a building or buildings
having more than 450 square metresof floor space having a use
falling within Class C3 (dwellinghouses) of the Scheduleto the Use
Classes Order;
The proposal is less than 450m2 and accords with this
stipulation.
(i) the development under Class Q(b) would consist of building
operations other than-i. the installation or replacement of-
i.i.aa) windows, doors, roofs or exterior walls, ori.i.ab)water,
drainage, electricity, gas or other services,
ii. partial demolition to the extent reasonably necessary to
carry out buildingoperations allowed by paragraph Q.1(i)(ii);
The building operations consist of the construction of external
walls, infilling existingdoors and windows and the introduction of
replacement windows and a door. An upgradein roof finish is also
indicated on the submitted plan (Drawing No.03). As discussed
above(g) the proposal also includes the construction of a glazed
link. Whilst the buildingoperations proposed to the existing
structures would comply with stipulation (i)i, it isconsidered that
the proposed link would go beyond those building operations
consideredto be permitted development in the terms set out in the
General Permitted DevelopmentOrder and the National Planning
Practice Guidance, contrary to stipulation (i) of Class Q,Part 3 of
Schedule 2.
(j) the site is on article 2(3) land;
The application site is not on article 2(3) land and accords
with this stipulation.
(k) the site is, or forms part of— i. a site of special
scientific interest; ii. a safety hazard area;
iii. a military explosives storage area;
The site is not a site of special scientific interest, a safety
hazard area or a militaryexplosives storage area and accords with
this stipulation.
(l) the site is, or contains, a scheduled monument; or
The site is not, or does not contain, a scheduled monument and
accords with thisstipulation.
5
-
(m) the building is a listed building.
The buildings associated with this application are not Listed
Buildings and accords withthis stipulation.
Concerns are raised regarding access to the proposed development
as this would be a shared access with the main dwellinghouse” The
Paddock”.
ConclusionThe proposed development does not constitute permitted
development as theCouncil considers that the proposed development
does not comply with limitations(g) and (i) of Schedule 2 Part 3
Class Q of the Town and Country Planning (GeneralPermitted
Development) Order 2015.
There is no further requirement for the Council to determine
whether prior approval isrequired for the matters listed at Q.2 of
Class Q, as per Paragraph W of Schedule 2, Part 3The Town and
Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order
2015.
Recommendation
Prior Approval Refused
6
-
From: Anne CookTo: "Tony Collins"Subject: RE: COUPA/15/01104 -
land adjacent to The Paddock, Ulting Lane, UltingDate: 31 December
2015 16:28:00Attachments: image001.png
Dear Mr Collins, RE: COUPA/15/01104 - land adjacent to The
Paddock, Ulting Lane, Ulting
Following our telephone conversation on 22nd December 2015
further discussions have takenplace with my team manager Matt
Leigh. Please appreciate these views represent the opinion of an
individual officer following discussionand do not necessarily
reflect the view that might be taken by the Council itself.
Consequentlyany opinion expressed will not bind the Council.
Concerns are raised regarding barn 2 as it is not considered to
accord with permitteddevelopment requirements under paragraph
Q.1(i) of the GPDO as the building operations areconsidered to be
extensive. In addition the application is for prior approval and
the Councilconsiders that there are no facilities to reduce the
application to only 1 barn, therefore, theapplication would fail on
the basis that barn 2 does not accord with the criteria. As
discussed previously there are some concerns as to whether the
existing barn one canaccommodate the alterations proposed. You
advised that you intend to submit an engineer’sreport in support of
the proposal. The council would be able to advise on the
suitability of barn 1and give a clear indication of whether this
would meet the criteria but would not approve thecurrent
application for the reasons given above. The options available to
you are: (i) allow the application to proceed as it stands, which
would be recommended for refusal. Youwould have the right to
appeal. (ii) allow the application to proceed with the addition of
an engineer’s report, which would berecommended for refusal. You
would have the right to appeal and you would also have a
clearindication for the likelihood of a subsequent application,
solely on barn one, being supported. (iii) withdraw the application
and submit a new application for the change of use for barn 1 only.
I trust this is of assistance. Kind regards Anne CookTechnical
Plannerwww.maldon.gov.uk
mailto:/O=MALDON DISTRICT COUNCIL/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE
GROUP
(FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=ANNE.COOKmailto:[email protected]://www.maldon.gov.uk/
-
cid:[email protected]
Our Vision: Working in partnership to make the Maldon District a
better place tolive, work and enjoy.
Our Vision: Working in partnership to make the Maldon District a
better place tolive, work and enjoy.
-
From: Anne Cook Sent: 25 January 2016 17:16 To: Emily Hall;
Melonie Waumsley Subject: FW: COUPA/15/01104 - land adjacent to The
Paddock, Ulting Lane, Ulting FYI From: Tony Collins
[mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 15 January 2016
07:05 To: Anne Cook Subject: RE: COUPA/15/01104 - land adjacent to
The Paddock, Ulting Lane, Ulting
Dear Anne,
My client has decided to withdraw the current Prior Approval
application whilst we
undertaken the necessary structural assessment. We will
re-submit on Barn 1 shortly.
I trust this is satisfactory to process the application.
Kind Regards
Tony Collins MRICS MRTPI MCIT MILT MEWI Director
T: 01376 538533 F: 01376 563240 M: 07825 633573 E:
[email protected]
Collins & Coward Ltd The Courtyard 9A East Street Coggeshall
Essex CO6 1SH www.collinscoward.co.uk
From: Anne Cook [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday,
December 31, 2015 4:29 PM To: Tony Collins Subject: RE:
COUPA/15/01104 - land adjacent to The Paddock, Ulting Lane, Ulting
Dear Mr Collins, RE: COUPA/15/01104 - land adjacent to The Paddock,
Ulting Lane, Ulting Following our telephone conversation on 22nd
December 2015 further discussions have taken place with my team
manager Matt Leigh. Please appreciate these views represent the
opinion of an individual officer following discussion and do not
necessarily reflect the view that might be taken by the Council
itself. Consequently any opinion expressed will not bind the
Council. Concerns are raised regarding barn 2 as it is not
considered to accord with permitted development requirements under
paragraph Q.1(i) of the GPDO as the building operations are
considered to be extensive. In addition the application is for
prior approval and the Council considers that there are no
facilities to reduce the application to only 1 barn, therefore, the
application would fail on the basis that barn 2 does not accord
with the criteria.
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.collinscoward.co.uk/mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]
-
As discussed previously there are some concerns as to whether
the existing barn one can accommodate the alterations proposed. You
advised that you intend to submit an engineer’s report in support
of the proposal. The council would be able to advise on the
suitability of barn 1 and give a clear indication of whether this
would meet the criteria but would not approve the current
application for the reasons given above. The options available to
you are: (i) allow the application to proceed as it stands, which
would be recommended for refusal. You would have the right to
appeal. (ii) allow the application to proceed with the addition of
an engineer’s report, which would be recommended for refusal. You
would have the right to appeal and you would also have a clear
indication for the likelihood of a subsequent application, solely
on barn one, being supported. (iii) withdraw the application and
submit a new application for the change of use for barn 1 only. I
trust this is of assistance. Kind regards Anne Cook Technical
Planner www.maldon.gov.uk
http://www.maldon.gov.uk/
-
Collins & Coward Ltd www.collinscoward.co.uk Directors: A
Collins MRICS MRTPI MCIT MILT MEWI S Collins Dip TP MRTPI I Coward
BA Hons MA MRTPI
Registered in England No. 6023726 Registered Office: Windsor
House 103 Whitehall Road Colchester Essex CO2 8HA
DD: T: M: F: E:
01376 538533 01376 538538 07825 633573 01376 563240
[email protected]
Our Ref: CC/1770 16 March 2016
Yee Cheung Planning Department Maldon District Council Council
Offices Princes Road Maldon Essex CM9 5DL
The Courtyard 9A East Street
Coggeshall Essex CO6 1SH
By email: [email protected]
Dear Yee
THE PADDOCK - CHICKEN COOP AND GOAT PEN – APPLICATIONS
COUPA/MAL/16/00227 & 00225 I refer to the above applications
for Prior Approval. I note the Langford & Ulting Parish Council
has comment on both applications. The Parish Council on the
previous application supported the development. Its current reason
for recommending refusal comes from a misreading of the Town and
Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (“2015
GPDO”). The Building Condition Survey confirms that the buildings
are both structurally sound and capable of conversion. No
structural work is necessary for the conversion. The fact that the
applicant may wish to add to the building and undertaking internal
alterations is covered by Class Q(b). Notwithstanding this, Section
55(2)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, (“1990 Act”) as
amended provides for the carrying out, for maintenance, improvement
or other alteration of any building, of works which affect only the
interior of the building, or do not, materially affect the external
appearance of the building, are to be taken for the purposes of the
1990 Act not to involve development of the land. Therefore,
internal works are not development requiring planning permission
and can be undertaken at any time to any building for any purpose.
The current prior approval applications confirm the two buildings
are structurally sound and are capable of being converted to
residential use. This is all that is relevant to the District
Council in terms of its determination. The Parish Council has also
misdirected itself as to the matter of a trading business. The 2015
GPDO does not require the property to be currently trading as an
agricultural unit. The relevant reference is contained at Class
Q.1(ii)… “in the case of a building which was in use before that
date [20 March 2013] but was not in use on that date, when it was
last in use”. There is no question the buildings were part of a
trading farm in the past. The two buildings are in use for
agricultural purposes taking and storing a hay crop and storing
agricultural machinery, albeit not as a trading company. This has
been accepted by the District Council in the past.
http://www.collinscoward.co.uk/mailto:[email protected]
-
Collins & Coward Ltd www.collinscoward.co.uk Directors: A
Collins MRICS MRTPI MCIT MILT MEWI S Collins Dip TP MRTPI I Coward
BA Hons MA MRTPI
Registered in England No. 6023726 Registered Office: Windsor
House 103 Whitehall Road Colchester Essex CO2 8HA
I trust this clarifies matters. Yours sincerely
Tony Collins MRICS MRTPI MCIT MILT MEWI Director
http://www.collinscoward.co.uk/
-
Chicken Coop Appeal Statement 7.6.2016Appendix A - Officer's
Delegated Report - 225OFFICER REPORT
Appendix B1 - Officer ReportOFFICER REPORT
Appendix B2 - Propsoed PlansAppendix C1 - Proposed PlansAppendix
C2 - Council EmailAppendix C3 - Applicant EmailAppendix D - Council
Letter 16.3.2016Letter from Building Surveyor 23.5.2016