Agenda item

Planning application documents

Officer introduction

GD introduced the application at Glenfall Farm Stables in Ham, to redevelop three barns as dwellings, and demolish and replace the existing farmhouse with a new dwelling.  A previous scheme was refused in March, due to the scale of the replacement dwelling and the  harm to the AONB.  This scheme has a reduced footprint and more traditional design.  The recommendation is to permit.  It is at committee because the Parish Council has objected to the scheme. 

Public speaking

Mr Maloney, neighbour, in objection

Is speaking in against the application on behalf of Ham residents. Their prime objection relates to the demolition of a partial Cotswold stone house, which is good enough to have be occupied until April this year, and replacing it with a modern new-build dwelling.  The previous application was rejected by Planning Committee, as over-development in the AONB, and contravening JCS policies SD6, SD7 and paragraph 172 of the NPPF.  This application has not mitigated these reasons; urges Members to be consistent and refuse the scheme on the same grounds.

The courtyard farm buildings, originally part of Glenfall Farm, have a development history covering a 200-year period as shown on historic survey maps. It is the only courtyard complex of stone barns in Ham and should be preserved, not partially demolished needlessly. The new-build would have a footprint approximately 10sq m bigger, sited in a position that will move the dwellings’ extent about 9.8 m to the east of the original farmhouse’s approved extension. In this new location it would be overpowering and dominate the area, require extensive soil removal and terracing to achieve the lowered roof line, with possible ramifications on site drainage, raising concerns that it could lead to downstream flooding in Ham Lane.

Believes there is no justification for demolition rather than conversion of the existing dwelling;  the new-build will expand the area of visible development and not sit comfortably within the landscape, to the detriment and urbanisation of the AONB. Therefore, respectfully asks the committee to protect the character of Ham and the AONB, by refusing this application.

Diana Jones, agent, in support

The NPPF requires local planning authorities to work alongside applicants to achieve sustainable development; this is a result of that process, in which the Committee has taken part, with the applicant responding to Members’ comments and coming back with a different scheme.  The applicants accept that the original scheme for three dwellings from the converted stable buildings was challenging, and continued to work to respect the character of the buildings.  The removal of existing farmhouse has not been taken lightly; the original intention was to improve and extend it, but it proved too difficult to overcome previous flooding damage, and this was no longer a  feasible option.  The intricacies of planning policy mean that a replacement dwelling in the AONB is acceptable, and this reduced scheme is east of existing lay-out, with a floor level above the existing , and a 1.5 storey design which sits comfortably and is not dominant – the new dwelling will be a distinct part of the group of dwellings, and built of natural stone.  The water table and drainage has been considered and the scheme will result in betterment across site, with less hardstanding overall.    The Architects Panel and officers are supportive, members’ concerns have been taken into consideration, the proposal complements the area and doesn’t conflict with policy.  It is evidently a successful rural conversion scheme in the making.

Councillor Babbage, in objection

This site is well known to members, and the key concerns have all been highlighted by the speaker.  The applicant already has permission for a more sensitively-designed scheme, but the last application was refused.  The site is in the AONB, and must therefore conserve the landscape; the replacement dwelling is over development and fails to respect the existing landscape character.  Would ask Members to refuse this scheme for the same reasons as they refused the previous one. 

Member debate

PB:  it is always great when applications come back to Committee and the applicant has clearly listened to what Members have said.  It doesn’t always happen but this time it has – this is a better scheme.  Last time, the proposal was much bigger and an over-development of the site; this is a super scheme in its entirety, and the new design complements its surroundings.  Appreciates residents’ concerns but the applicant has gone as far as he can and come back with an application we can support.  Will vote in support of the officer recommendation. 

RH:  PB has said most of what she was going to say.  Is  glad that the Architects Panel has been consulted and is now supportive.  On Planning View, members went into the house, which is now empty – it would have been very difficult to make it habitable for a family.  Is glad that the applicants have listened, and is now supportive of the scheme. 

DB:  actually likes the present farmhouse although many don’t agree, and feels it could have been developed sensitively.  Is concerned about the AONB, believing it very important to conserve it.  Feels very torn  – can see some attraction in the replacement house, but there are clearly concerns about drainage.    Different people are saying different things about the effect if the development is built;  feels more clarification is needed.

PM:  would have said similar.  Is disappointed that the highways officer has now gone – would have wanted to discuss experience of water run-off from agricultural land, which results in the Harp Hill gulleys being full of silt.  Is anyone else able to advise on this?  Otherwise, overall, in view of where this application started, the revised building is more in keeping.  Does not agree with the Parish Council’s comments on the old farmhouse – it is a grotty hole, and the replacement will be a blessing

GB:  highways officers were not asked to comment on this item, but will be available if they are needed in future.  

BF:  is perturbed that we are prepared to allow development in the AONB so glibly.  There isn’t a lot of it left in the borough, but the recent application at Cromwell Court was permitted and there is currently a scoping scheme on Oakley Farm.  There is protection for the AONB, and we should treat it with more respect than we do.

PB:  notes the neighbour’s flooding concerns but it is good to see there is a condition for this.    What decides whether a proposal is considered by our own CBC drainage officer or the county’s local lead flood authority? 

GD in response

-       regarding drainage, it is important to remember that this was a brownfield site before the stables were built, and in terms of landscaping the proposal will result in 10% betterment in terms of natural drainage.  The land drainage officer is happy with the scheme – it includes a drainage channel linked to the existing watercourse; this cannot be connected without permission and will need land drainage consent; there is an informative to planning decision to make sure this the case;

-       rain and foul waste drainage is covered under approved Document H of the 2010 Building Regulations – to make sure that drainage is adequate;

-       to PB, whether or not site is in the flood zone determines whether it is dealt with by our local drainage officer or the LLFA.

SW:  it is up to the experts to work out the drainage system, and we shouldn’t look for them to better what’s there, but it is a cause for concern quite regularly to hear it stated that the drainage will go into the existing watercourse.  This is a problem in itself – if rain lands in a field, it takes a long time to get to the watercourse.  Realises it can’t affect our decision on this, as we must be guided by the experts, but would like it noted, that in spite of our expert’s comment. Is still worried about existing watercourse.

DO, in response: 

-       as GD has said, the hardstanding on site will be reduced, and more soft landscaping will be introduced.  The sub-system will hold water for a while – it will not immediately flow into the to water course – and it is this controlled flow that reduces the risk of flooding.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

12 in support

1 in objection

1 abstention

PERMIT