Planning Application No: 22/2014/14822
7 Day Notice: NO
1.
Site Description
1.1
‘H. A. McEwen Boiler Repairs’ is a long established business (the first application
for boiler repairs was approved 28 years ago) which services and fabricates
industrial and heritage boilers and services traction engines in addition to carrying
out cast iron repairs.
1.2
The business is located at Farling Top, to the south east of Cowling.
1.3
The site is located outside of development limits and the dwelling and traditional
buildings at the eastern end of the site including the application building are within
Cowling Conservation area.
1.4
The application relates to a stone built storage building known as the ‘Engine
House’ which is located to the rear of Farling Top Farm
Officer note: The western elevation of the building has been partially removed and
there is an internal skin of blockwork supported at eaves level by a steel RSJ. The
removed stonework exposes a rectangular opening in the external shell of the
building which is blanked off by a timber frame with plywood panels.
1.5
The land surrounding the site to the north, west and south is undeveloped and to
the north and south is within the applicant’s ownership.
2.
Proposal
2.1
It is proposed to convert the ‘Engine House’ building into residential
accommodation. The proposals would also entail construction of a porch to the east
elevation and a single-storey dining room extension to the southern elevation.
2.2
The ‘Engine House’ is a traditionally constructed stone building in a gable ended
design with a blue slate roof. The building has a large arched window opening on
the north elevation and a smaller vertical rectangular opening to the south and is
characterised by prominent quoins with rectangular slabbed coping stones to the
roof.
2.3
The proposed development would comprise a living room and dining area at ground
floor and a single bedroom with bathroom at the first floor. Externally, other than the
extensions, the building would not be altered, a sizeable arched window opening on
the north elevation providing much of the light to the interior of the building. An
existing vertical opening on the south elevation would be closed off in order to
accommodate the proposed extension and a roof light is proposed on the eastern
roof plane.
2.4
It is proposed to construct the extensions in materials to match the existing building
including stained timber doors and windows and black UPVC rainwater goods and
to replicate the construction details of the original building.
2.5
No specific curtilage or parking spaces have been identified for the site although it is
stated in supporting information that the proposal will not generate additional
vehicle movements and that the existing access and parking spaces are adequate
to serve the proposed development.
2.6
The proposed use of the building is as a residential annexe to provide
accommodation for family members of the applicant, Mr Alisdair McEwan. In a
supporting statement it is explained that the conversion would serve as ancillary
residential accommodation for the applicant’s mother and that it would not be
capable of separate use. It is also stated that there would be no means of preparing
meals within the conversion ‘depending instead on the farmhouse kitchen’, although
this does seem to be slightly odd given that the proposed extension is to provide a
dining area.
Officer note: The building has been described in the agent’s supporting statement
as a ‘detached domestic building’ in which case planning permission for a
residential conversion would not be needed. It is stated however that the building
has been used to house a restored steam engine which, given the existing use of
the site, would raise a question as to whether or not the building has in fact been in
commercial use. It is proposed to deal with the application as submitted.
3.
Planning History
3.1
5/22/138/A: Change of use of old barn into light industrial workshops; conversion of
former midden to study and improvement to access. Approved January 1981.
3.2
5/22/265: Erection of new workshop building for expansion of boiler making/repair
business. Approved January 1984 (outline application)
3.3
5/22/265/A: Erection of new workshop for boiler repair business. Approved
March1987 (reserved matters)
3.4
22/2004/4668: Partial demolition and extension to office building. Approved
November /2004.
3.5
22/2012/12294: Retrospective application for change of use of agricultural land to
industrial and proposed replacement of existing temporary buildings with a new
permanent workshop. Approved February 2012.
4.
Planning Policy Background
4.1
The National Planning Policy Framework
4.2
National Planning Policy Guidance
4.3
Saved Local Plan Policies:
ENV1:
Development in the Open Countryside
ENV2:
Requirements for Development in Open Countryside.
H8:
Rural Buildings for Residential Use.
T2:
Road Hierarchy.
5.
Parish/Town Council Comments
5.1
Cowling Parish Council: No comments.
6.
Consultations
6.1
CDC Environmental Health: There are no environmental protection or
contaminated land issues associated with the site.
6.2
The Environment Agency: The proposal falls outside of the scope of matters upon
which the EA wish to be consulted.
6.3
NYCC Highways: Does not wish to impose restrictions on the grant of permission
but recommends that an informative is attached to any planning approval to advise
the applicants of the need to prevent obstruction of the adjacent PROW.
Officer note: The PROW is located approximately 10m to the south of the building
proposed for conversion.
7.
Representations
7.1
None received.
8.
Summary of Principal Planning Issues
8.1
Principle of development.
8.2
Design and visual impact.
8.3
Impact on heritage assets.
8.4
Highways issues.
9.
Analysis
Principle of development:
9.1
As the site is located outside of development limits the proposal would ordinarily be
assessed against the criteria for development set out in Saved Local Plan Policies
ENV1 and ENV2.
9.2
Policy ENV1 is only permissive of ‘appropriate’ small scale development whilst
ENV2 sets out detailed criteria which apply when such criteria are met. However,
neither of these policies is directly applicable to changes of use.
9.3
Whilst the works associated with this proposal are small scale the broad principle of
residential development in the open countryside is not supported by Policy ENV1.
In this case the proposal is for an ancillary domestic use which would not result in
the creation of a new residential unit and the proposal is not therefore considered to
be entirely contrary to this policy.
9.4
Notwithstanding the above it is more appropriate to consider the application against
Saved Local Plan Policy H8 which applies specifically to the conversion of
traditional rural buildings to residential use. In coming to this view it is noted that the
building to which this application relates is clearly of some age and comprises a
rural outbuilding that would once have been part of the original farm complex.
Additionally, the use of the building to house a steam engine is somewhat
ambiguous in terms of assigning a lawful domestic use therefore it is considered
that, on balance, planning permission is needed in this instance and that policy H8
is relevant.
9.5
Policy H8 permits conversion of traditional rural buildings for residential use in
principle but is primarily concerned with the creation of new independent residential
units and not ancillary residential use as is the case here. Additionally it is noted
that the Saved Local Plan policies must now be assessed against NPPF policy
which would take precedence where there is any disparity.
9.6
The NPPF maintains a prohibitive approach to new residential development in the
open countryside but is supportive of sustainable development in principle.
Additionally the NPPF advocates an approach that ‘should identify and bring back
into residential use empty housing and buildings’.
9.7
In summary it is considered that conversion of the building would be consistent with
the NPPF and that, whilst not wholly applicable, the criteria of Saved Local Plan
Policy H8 are of some relevance. The criteria essentially require that a building
proposed for conversion should be structurally sound, worthy of retention and
capable of conversion without detriment to the character and appearance of the
area and that no highway safety issues would arise. Although Policy H8 seeks to
limit the need for extensions and alterations it is considered that converted buildings
can be extended provided the proposals are of an appropriate scale and design.
9.8
It is considered that the proposed conversion to ancillary residential use and
extensions are consistent with the NPPF and the relevant criteria of Policy H8 and
that the proposal is therefore acceptable in principle.
Officer note: The use of the building as ancillary residential accommodation would
preclude any independent occupation and the creation of a new residential unit. It is
proposed to condition planning approval to tie occupation of the building to the
existing house. In this case it is not considered that the building would be
appropriate for independent occupation given its location in close proximity to the
main house and the associated business/workshops. Equally, it is likely that the
close relationship of the building with the existing house and commercial activity on
the site would make independent occupation by anyone not connected with the
existing use of the site unviable.
Design and visual impact:
9.9
The proposed alterations to the existing building are minimal and would have little
impact externally other than the proposed extensions. In this case it is considered
that the extensions are of an appropriate scale and design and that they would not
be excessive, overly dominant or alter the overall character of the building or its
surroundings to an unacceptable degree. The detailing and use of materials are
compatible with the existing structure and are also acceptable.
9.10
The building sits to the rear of an existing house and is well screened from
immediate public views. From wider vantage points the building sits as part of an
established group and it is considered that the dining room extension would not
present an incongruous addition or that the porch would be in any way visually
intrusive.
9.11
The NPPF sets out a general requirement for good design and it is considered that
in this case the proposed extensions do not conflict with this policy requirement.
Impact on heritage assets:
9.12
The site lies within the Cowling conservation area and therefore it is necessary to
consider the impact of the proposal on this heritage asset. Specifically, the NPPF
requires that development proposals should not adversely impact upon the
significance of heritage assets and that great weight should be given to the asset’s
conservation.
9.13
In this case the existing building has a particular character of its own and is part of a
cluster of traditional stone buildings that are long established and contribute to the
overall significance of this part of the conservation area. The proposal seeks to
preserve the existing building and re-use it in a manner that would be compatible
with the existing land use whilst undertaking extensions which it is considered
would contribute in a positive way to the conservation area.
9.14
The development and proposed alterations are considered to be beneficial in terms
of the built environment and quality of the conservation area and the development
is therefore consistent with the NPPF policy requirements.
Highways issues:
9.15
As the proposal is to be used as ancillary residential accommodation in connection
with the existing residential dwelling and business on the application site it is not
considered that any highway issues would arise.
9.16
The site has an access with good visibility and there is ample hard standing
throughout the larger site to accommodate parked vehicles. The proposed use
would not give rise to any significant increases in vehicular activity on the site and it
is noted that there are no objections to the proposal from NYCC Highways.
10.
Recommendation
10.1
That planning permission is granted subject to the following conditions:
11
Conditions
1.
The development hereby permitted shall be begun not later than the expiration of
three years beginning with the date of this permission
Reason: To ensure compliance with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning
Act 1990.
2.
The development shall not be carried out other than wholly in accordance with the
drawing No: 0614/001 revision A received by the Local Planning Authority on 29th
August 2014 and the Planning Statement received 4th July 2014..
The development shall be completed in accordance with the approved plans except
where conditions attached to this planning permission indicate otherwise or where
alternative details have been subsequently approved following an application for a
non-material amendment.
Reason: To specify the permission for the avoidance of doubt.
3.
The development hereby approved shall be used wholly in conjunction with and
ancillary to the use of the adjacent Farling Top Farm as a single dwelling house. In
particular it shall not be occupied, sold, disposed of or otherwise let as a separate
dwelling.
Reason: An independent dwelling would be inappropriate in this open countryside
location particularly when regard is paid to the proximity of the existing residential
property and associated commercial use of the site.
Informative:
No works are to be undertaken which will create an obstruction, either permanent or
temporary, to the Public Right of Way adjacent to the proposed development.
Statement of Positive Engagement: In dealing with this application Craven District Council has sought to approach the decision
making process in a positive way, in accordance with the requirements of paragraphs 186
and 187 of the NPPF. In particular the Council has: 


engaged in pre-application discussions
requested amended design approaches / information to address the planning issues
which have arisen in relation to dealing with this application.
accepted additional information / changes to the scheme post validation