1

Appeal Statement

Planning appeal against the refusal by Rossendale Borough Council for

the Conversion of existing building plus extension to form 1 dwelling at

Goodshawfold, Rossendale , Lancs

GR 380781; 426585

APPLICATION NO: 2014/0276

The above planning application was validated on the 17th July, 2014 following

the requested receipt of an amended red edge to allow for vehicles to enter

and leave the site (as they do now) in forward gear

The full planning application was refused by the Borough Council on the 11th

September, 2014 for the following reason:-

1.The application site lies within an area of Countryside, as identified in the

Council's adopted Core Strategy DPD (2011), and lies just beyond the

boundary of the Goodshawfold Conservation Area.

The application building is of modest size, of design appropriate to its

intended function for the storage of hay & straw for horses kept for hobby-

purposes in the adjacent stables (Planning Permission1997/328) and its

facing materials ensure it is of un-assuming appearance.

The Application Form does not indicate the application building to be vacant

and the stables building it is associated with continues to be used for the

keeping of horses and it is intended that this remain so. It has not been

demonstrated that there is not a continuing need to retain the application

building for its intended purpose and it has not been demonstrated that the

resulting dwelling is to meet an identified need for additional housing in the

area, or should be permitted as it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural

communities or for special circumstances.

Furthermore, the proposal entails erection of an extension adding significantly

2

to the size of the building, the proposed extension to take the form of a

domestic conservatory, at odds with the 'traditional' design and facing

materials of the existing rural building. The proposed extension, together with

the residential use of the resulting building and its associated parking & other

domestic paraphernalia, will unacceptably erode the essentially open and

rural character of the Countryside.

The proposal also affects the setting of the Conservation Area, and does so

in a way that cannot be said to be "preserving and enhancing the character

and appearance of that [conservation] area". Indeed, by reason of size/form

of the extension and the residential use of the resulting building and its

associated parking & other domestic paraphernalia, the proposal will

unacceptably impact on views into the Conservation Area to be seen by the

public when moving northwards up the lane towards the village.

The proposal is considered to be contrary to national and local guidance.

Most particularly, the proposal does not accord with the principles of 'good

design' of Section 7 or Sections 11 & 12 of the National Planning Policy

Framework (2012) (nor Paragraphs 28,51& 55), Policies AVP4 / 1 /2 / 3 / 16 /

21 / 24 of the Council's adopted Core Strategy DPD (2011) and its

Conversion & Re-use of Buildings in the Countryside SPD (2010) and the

Goodshawfold Conservation Area Character Appraisal (2011).

The proposed development

The proposal is to convert an existing single storey stone built building with its

blue slate roof into a one bedroom dwelling. The intention is to retain the

existing building, with the same walls and height. A small extension is

proposed which adds 29% to the volume of the existing building

The proposed dwelling will be for the occupation of the applicant who owns

the adjoining stables buildings and menage.

3

The applicant is a lecturer at the agricultural department within the University

of Central Lancashire where she specialises in equestrian issues and is thus

well versed in the needs of stabling. Her expertise includes practical horse

care, riding and road safety and health and safety issues including yard visits.

She is a British Horse Society Trainer and Examiner.

She holds a Degree in Equine Science and Management.

Planning application no 97/328 for the retention of the barn and for an outdoor

riding arena was approved on the 22nd October, 1997 subject to conditions

including no 4, restricting uses to domestic purposes only

The existing building has a floor are of 28.8m2 and it has a proposed

extension comprising a glazed area of 8.5m2. By volume the extension adds

20.5% to the existing building

The appeal building is underused to the point of being vacant and the

applicant wishes to convert it for her own occupation.

The stabling comprises 4 stables and there is also an adjoining outbuilding.

The applicant now has only 2 horses. The adjoining outbuilding and the two

remaining stables are underused and there is spare capacity for the storage

of feed, tack and other materials.

The appeal building is not needed for such purposes

The Council’s adopted Core strategy has “saved” the land allocations in the

previous Rossendale District Plan for development control purposes, the latter

plan having been approved in 1996 approved in 1996. The District Plan

contains an Urban Boundary, denoted by a red line and within which the LPA

wishes most development to be located. The appeal building lies on the red

edge of the Urban Boundary.

Goodshawfold Village is a Conservation Area. The appeal site lies outside the

boundary of the Conservation Area.

4

Access to the appeal site is along a track which leads to a commercial

transport company and then beyond that to Crawshawbooth.

The refusal by the LPA is NOT made by it on the following grounds

A copy of the officer file report is submitted with the appeal and states

as follows:-

a) There are no objections from the County Council highway authority

b) There are no objections from residents in the area

c) The building is considered to be structurally sound

d) Satisfactory means of access, off-street parking, bin storage and servicing

are/can be provided and mains services are/can be made available;

e) The proposal does not require the removal of, or damage to, significant or

prominent trees, hedges, watercourses, ponds or any other natural

landscaped features;

f) The conversion will not require unnecessary expenditure by public

authorities and utilities on the provision of infrastructure;

g) The proposal will not have an unacceptable impact on nature conservation

interests or protected species;

h) the development is sustainable in terms of its location and access to

public transport and local services;

i) The building was originally created for genuine purposes.

j) Neighbour Amenity. The proposed dwelling is sufficiently well away from

buildings occupied by others. Consequently, the proposal will not adversely

affect any neighbours by reason of the use/works intended. Nor is the

additional traffic associated with the proposed dwelling likely to unduly affect

neighbours.

k) It is not in a flood risk area

l) National and development plan policy is supportive of re-use of existing

vacant buildings in the Countryside. It is acknowledged that the application

site is not in a remote location, being near to the village of Goodshawfold. As

the lawful use of the application building is associated with the adjacent

stables, rather than for agriculture, the site can also be said to be ‘brownfield’.

5

The grounds for objection

The LPA’s grounds for objection are concerned with the following matters

1. Land use policy

2. The current use of the building

3. Lack of marketing for commercial uses

4. A condition requiring the building to be occupied by the applicant

5. Design matters and the impact on the nearby Conservation area

6. The domestication of the site

7. Lack of special circumstances

Land use policy issues

In its decision Notice the LPA maintains that:-

That is not the case.

The Building lies within the Urban Boundary albeit right on its red edge.

The following is taken from the paper copy of the District Plan (and which the

LPA maintains is the “official” version) as distinct from any electronic version,

copied from it – but with mistakes.

Appeal building

6

Policy 1 of the Council’s adopted Core Strategy states:-

General Development Locations

The greatest amount of new development should take place in Rawtenstall

with the majority of other development taking place in Bacup and Haslingden.

Urban Boundary

Development within Rossendale should take place within the defined urban

boundary (Local Plan Saved Policy DS1), unless it has to be located in the

countryside, and should be of a size and nature appropriate to the size and

role of the settlement.

The appeal site is within the Urban Boundary and being part of stables is

previously developed land. The LPA concludes in its officer report that the site

is sustainably located. There can be no reasonable objection therefore to the

land use principle of the proposed conversion, in accordance too with the

National Planning Policy Guidance which advises as follows:-

14. At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption

in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden

thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking.

For decision-taking this means:

• approving development proposals that accord with the development plan

without delay; and

• where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of

date, granting permission unless:

––any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably

outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework

taken as a whole; or

––specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be

restricted

The LPA, unreasonably contends that the appeal building lies outside the

Urban Boundary. But even if that was the case land use policy is supportive of

the conversion of buildings in the countryside.

7

Even within the generally more restrictive policies applicable in the Green Belt

(and it is acknowledged that the appeal site is not within Green Belt) the

NPPF (para 89) advises that the following is appropriate:-

The partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed sites,

whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which

would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the

purpose of including land within it than the existing development”

And also

●the extension or alteration of a building provided that it does not result in

disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building;

It seems unreasonable to assume that land use policy regarding conversions

in Countryside locations lying outside the Green Belt should be judged in a

harsher light

Equally the Government’s permitted development changes with regard to the

conversion of agricultural buildings to dwellings under 56 day prior notice

rules indicates a general land use approach to conversions.

Notwithstanding such matters existing local and national policy supports the

conversion of the building – even if it is considered that it is not within the

Urban Boundary.

Policies in the adopted Core Strategy state as follows:-

Core strategy

Policy 1: General Development Locations and Principles

Green Belt & Countryside

Proposals outside the urban boundary will be determined in accordance with

the relevant national and local planning guidance

Overall Development Approach

The Council will seek to enhance the quality and sustainability of places and

individual developments by taking into account the following criteria when

preparing LDF documents and considering individual planning applications:

8

• Make best use of under-used, vacant and derelict land and buildings

(My highlighting)

Policy 2: Meeting Rossendale’s Housing Requirement

The net housing requirement for the period 2011-2026, will be achieved

through:

1. Providing at least 3700 net additional dwellings over the plan period 2011-

2026 equating to 247 dwellings per year

2. Allocating greenfield and previously developed land to meet the

requirement for the period 2011-2026 to meet identified type, size and tenure

needs; including indicative phasing where appropriate

3. Delivering an overall amount of 65% of all new dwellings on previously

developed land (PDL) across the Borough. Rawtenstall will have a lower PDL

figure, with substantially higher levels in Bacup, Haslingden and Whitworth

4. Supporting the reuse and conversion of appropriate buildings for

housing (My highlighting)

5. Encouraging higher density developments (50+ dwellings per hectare) in

sustainable locations, such as within and adjacent to Rawtenstall, Bacup,

Haslingden and Whitworth and where well served by public transport, with a

minimum density of 30dph across the Borough

6. Safeguarding the character of established residential areas from over-

intensive and inappropriate new development; and

7. Prioritising the development of previously developed land.(My

highlighting) However, development of un-allocated greenfield land will be

permitted where:

i. It is for 100% affordable and/or supported housing schemes; or

ii. It forms a minor part (up to 15% of the overall site size) of a larger mixed

use scheme or a major housing proposal (10+ dwellings) on previously

developed land or

iii. It delivers a significant social, economic, or environmental benefit, or

iv. The application is for a barn conversion and it can be demonstrated that

the site has been marketed for economic uses for 12 months, to the

satisfaction of the Council, and is not viable for these purposes

9

The NPPF advises:-

NPPF

51. Local planning authorities should identify and bring back into residential

use empty housing and buildings in line with local housing and empty homes

strategies and, where appropriate, acquire properties under compulsory

purchase powers. They should normally approve planning applications for

change to residential use and any associated development from commercial

buildings (currently in the B use classes) where there is an identified need for

additional housing in that area, provided that there are not strong economic

reasons why such development would be inappropriate.

55. To promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be

located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. For

example, where there are groups of smaller settlements, development in one

village may support services in a village nearby. Local planning authorities

should avoid new isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special

circumstances such as:

a. where such development would represent the optimal viable use of a

heritage asset or would be appropriate enabling development to secure

the future of heritage assets; or

b. where the development would re-use redundant or disused buildings

and lead to an enhancement to the immediate setting

The Council’s Supplementary Planning Document. Conversion and re-use of

buildings in the Countryside, March 2010

We show how the proposed conversion complies with the above policy in the

Planning Statement which was submitted with the application. It is repeated

here for completeness

Proposal in the SPD Comments re the application

1 The conversion of an existing building in the countryside will be

The single storey building is clearly

10

permitted where: • The building is shown to the

satisfaction of the Council to be structurally sound; and

• Conversion works are in keeping with the style of the building and respect the character of the landscape; and

• The building is of sufficient size

to be capable of conversion without requiring substantial extensions or alterations; and

• Satisfactory means of access, off-street parking, bin storage and servicing can be provided and mains services are available for connection into the scheme; and

• The development does not

require the removal of, or damage to, significant or prominent trees, hedges, watercourses, ponds or any other natural landscaped features; and

• The development will not require unnecessary expenditure by public authorities and utilities on the provision of infrastructure; and

• The development would not have an unacceptable impact on nature conservation interests or protected species; and

• The development is sustainable in terms of its location and access to public transport and local services; and

• The Council is satisfied that the building was originally created for genuine purposes.

structurally sound. The conversion will still retain the essential elements of the building as it now exists – built in natural stone and with a pitched blue slate roof The building converts satisfactorily to a house The existing access will be used and adequate parking provision can be made available. Bin storage is provided. All services - water, power, sanitation – are already in place There would be no adverse impact to any prominent or significant trees No such expenditure is required No such impact will occur The site is in the countryside but it is not in a remote location being close to Goodshawfold village Conservation area

2 In addition to meeting the criteria listed above, proposals to convert an existing building in the countryside to residential use will need to

The NPPF and Core Strategy policy (these have more weight in decision making terms) do not require marketing for such a building.

11

demonstrate that: • Every reasonable attempt has

been made to secure business/commercial re-use and that these uses are not viable; or

• The building is unsuitable for business use;

or • The residential conversion is

required to meet a proven need for a dwelling for a full-time agricultural or forestry worker.

• The building (or group of buildings) is of permanent and substantial construction is of a form, bulk and general design in keeping with its surroundings and can be converted without extensive alteration, rebuilding or extension.

All planning applications to convert an existing building in the countryside to residential use will normally be required to submit a report undertaken by an independent Chartered Surveyor to demonstrate why business uses would not be suitable or viable. Details should be provided of conversion costs, the estimated yield of the commercial uses and projected eventual income. Evidence should be presented of the efforts that have been made to secure business re-use during the previous 12 month period. Consideration could also be given to whether there are a significant number of vacant purpose-built and converted premises in the area with better proximity to local centres and services, which would be more suitable to prospective tenants. Evidence to Support Conversion to Residential: • Conversions costs for employment

In addition the Council’s Business Property Register contains a vast range of buildings for sale and rent, of varying sizes, in every part of Rossendale. .

12

uses vs residential; • Estimated yield of commercial uses and projected eventual income; • Marketing history of the building for employment uses for a period of no less than 6 months; o Site notices, newspaper adverts, estate agent bills and invoices, no and frequency of information requests from interested parties/ number of visits • List of other vacant/ available purpose-built and converted premises in the area with better proximity to local centres and services for both residential and employment uses

3 The building should be capable of conversion without the need for demolition and/or rebuilding of more than 30% of the surface wall area of the building. This may include the total rebuilding of not more than one of the external walls

No such rebuilding is required.

4 The building must be capable of conversion without the need for significant extension. The addition of any extension which exceeds the volume of the original building by a third (30%) will normally be considered to be unacceptable. Any garaging or storage that is required should normally be provided by the adaptation of existing buildings on the site.

The proposed extension adds 29% to the existing dwelling

5 Where practicable proposals should:

• Retain the eaves height and gradient of the original roof;

and • Undertake any required re-

roofing using materials to match the original.

Chimney stacks are acceptable above the ridge height where this is an internal stack.

The eaves height and roof gradient will remain as now The proposal is to use the existing blue slate roof. N/A

13

Proposals to convert or re-use an existing building in the countryside should pay particular regard to the roof form and pitch. In order to retain the character of the existing building, proposals should not involve any additions or alterations to the shape or height of the roof of the building. Re-roofing will normally be acceptable as part of the upgrading and conversion works. Nevertheless, the use of inappropriate or unsympathetic materials can detract from the appearance of the building and will not normally be permitted.

6 Proposals for conversion should make the maximum use of existing openings. New openings should be kept to a minimum and be of traditional design and character. The introduction of roof lights will only be acceptable where they are essential to provide light to rooms, are positioned as unobtrusively as possible and would not have a disproportionate coverage. Features such as dormer windows and patio doors will not normally be permitted. The Council will expect external timber to be painted rather than stained.

The design uses existing openings and new openings are kept to the minimum. See submitted plans

7 All curtilages created should be confined to the areas immediately surrounding the building. The creation of domestic curtilages which extend into the countryside to provide extensive areas for garden use, external storage, hard standing, car parking etc will not normally be acceptable either as part of a conversion scheme or as a later amendment to the scheme.

The curtilage is drawn closely round the building as per this requirement

8 Existing traditional boundary treatments should be retained and extended where appropriate. Boundaries should normally be defined by stone walling or hedging. Hedging must be of a traditional type and rows of conifers of Leylandii will not normally be acceptable. Ornate entrance features will not be

See above

14

acceptable.

9 Satisfactory access to the building must be capable of being provided without the need for new lengths of track or road or alterations to the point of access. The use of gravel will be preferred to tarmacadam for access road

The existing access is proposed

Proposals will not be permitted where they would require unnecessary expenditure by public authorities and utilities for the provision of infrastructure. If a mains electricity supply is not already on site, any new supply should be underground so that no further overhead lines are necessary, unless there are no reasonable alternatives. Other services that are normally brought to the site by overhead lines, such as telephone or cable television, should also be underground. The building must be capable of being serviced with water and sewerage/drainage to the satisfaction of the Council. Oil, gas and other service tanks should be sited unobtrusively and, where necessary, screened by landscaping.

All necessary services are already in place

10 The original materials used in the construction of the building should be retained and restored where practicable. Where this is not possible, new materials must be natural and match the existing in all respects. If inappropriate materials have been introduced since the building was built then the conversion should include the reinstatement of the original materials. The use of traditional materials to attempt to make a building suitable for conversion where it does not contribute to the character of the area will not be acceptable.

The existing stone walls to the building will clearly remain and the roof will remain as a natural blue slate

11 Proposals should retain open areas without introducing new fencing or

See above comments

15

walls. Prominent trees and other landscape features that make a contribution to the character of the area should be retained. Where necessary and appropriate, existing natural paved surfaces and other hard surfaces should be retained and repaired. The introduction of new soft landscaping to be used for domestic purposes will not normally be acceptable

12 Proposals to convert an existing building in the countryside should seek to:

• Retain significant internal features of historic interest; and

• Ensure internal partitioning does not mask existing features and, in particular, does not split arched and vaulted roof supports; and

• Retain any large single storey volumes without the insertion of new floors or partition walls.

N/A

13 Re-pointing work should normally be carried out using a lime mortar mix in line with the Guidance issues by the Society of the Protection of Ancient Buildings. Joints should be finished flush with the brick stonework and then brushed back to expose the edges of the brick / stonework. Existing joints should be raked out by hand and no bolsters or cutting discs should be used.

Not applicable to this building

14 Satellite dishes and television aerials should be sited away from prominent elevations and not above the ridgeline. If the proposal involves the conversion of more than one building, consideration should be given to the potential for sharing a single satellite dish and television aerial mast sited in an unobtrusive position. Additional lighting should be kept to a minimum and should use lamps of

Noted

16

a simple design

15 All existing rainwater goods in cast iron should be retained or replaced with matching items in cast iron or other suitable cast metal products. The replacement of cast iron rainwater goods with uPVC, for example, will not normally be acceptable. Vent and soil pipes should be sited internally and should not project above the level of the roof space. Appropriately designed and coloured ridge and tile vents should be used to disguise the ends of the pipe.

Noted

16 Existing walls, fences, drinking troughs and other features associated with the use of the building should be retained in situ wherever possible. Any new features should respect the character and appearance of existing features on the site

Noted

The current use of the building

The LPA objects on the ground that the building is not vacant and that no

information has been forthcoming to show otherwise. It therefore relies on

planning policy which requires such buildings to be vacant before their

conversion can be permitted

Our appellant comments are as follows:-

i. The building is indeed unused and largely vacant. It is not needed in

connection with the adjoining stabling and is redundant. The applicant

would not have put forward the proposal for its conversion had the case

been otherwise. The underuse/vacant use of the building is implicit in the

application

ii. The stabling comprises 4 stables and there is also an adjoining utbuilding.

The applicant now has only 2 horses. The adjoining outbuilding and the

two remaining stables are underused and there is spare capacity for the

17

storage of feed, tack and other materials. The appeal building is not

needed for such purposes

iii. At no time has the LPA requested information as to the use of the existing

building and when , had it done so, this matter could easily have been

clarified

iv. It would be a novel approach to planning policy if a building’s use must

forever remain unaltered.

v. Current planning policy (assuming for the moment that the building is not

regarded as being in the Urban Boundary but instead is in a Countryside

area) does not require such buildings to be always vacant:-

a. Policy 1: General Development Locations and Principles states that it

will

• Make best use of under-used, vacant and derelict land and buildings

(my highlighting)

b. Policy 2 of the Core Strategy: Meeting Rossendale’s Housing

Requirement states the Council will support

the reuse and conversion of appropriate buildings for housing

and that it will be

Prioritising the development of previously developed land

c. Paragraph 55 of the NPPF encourages uses where the development

would re-use redundant or disused buildings and lead to an

enhancement to the immediate setting

18

Lack of marketing for commercial uses

The LPA objects that no such marketing for commercial purposes has been

undertaken

Appellant comments

1. The Council adopted its Core Strategy on the 8th of November, 2011, i.e.

prior to the publication of the NPPF in March, 2012. If there is any conflict

between the two documents then it is the latter which prevails.

The NPPF (unlike the PPS which it superseded) no longer requires rural

buildings (assuming again, for the sake of the argument, that the appeal

building is outside the Urban Boundary) to be marketed for commercial

purposes before residential uses can be considered

The LPA will be aware of the Local Government Association’s advice to LPAs

to ensure that Local plans and policies are compatible with the NPPF. Its

document contains the following on its page 9:-

What NPPF expects local plans to include to deliver its objectives

Questions to help understand whether your local plan includes what NPPF expects

In rural areas housing should be

located where it will enhance or

maintain the vitality of rural

communities.

Examples of special

circumstances to allow new

isolated homes listed at para 55

(note, previous requirement

about requiring economic use

first has gone).

2. The Borough Council produces a Business Property Register containing a

vast range of buildings for sale and rent, of varying sizes, in every part of

Rossendale. A copy was submitted with the application dated 2014. The

Council, like many Local Authorities, is far more desirous to see commercial

enterprises locating in its town centres and which need such enterprises

19

3. The LPA has not required such marketing with regard to other applications

to change the use of buildings. An example at Martin Croft, Haslingden, is

quoted as an example

A condition requiring the building to be occupied by the applicant

In the officer file report it refers to the following correspondence:-

Having regard to the proximity of the application building to the stables

building, and their shared access, the Agent was asked “whether the

proposed dwelling will be occupied by those making use of the adjacent

stables (and can any permission be conditioned to this effect)?”

The Agent has responded as follows:

“So far as occupation is concerned the owner/applicant does indeed intend to

live there herself. However, is it necessary to condition it that occupation must

be related to the stabling? I can’t see any planning reason to limit it in this

way. I’d be grateful to know however if this would be a sticking point for any

approval.

Appellant comments

It seems as though the LPA would have looked more favourably on the

application had we agreed to a condition that the proposed house should only

be occupied by those making use of the adjoining stables.

No reply was received from the LPA to my question:-

I can’t see any planning reason to limit it in this way. I’d be grateful to know

however if this would be a sticking point for any approval

In spite of the above we would accept such a condition if it was deemed to be

essential as it is the appellant’s intention to occupy the dwelling

Design and conservation issues

The proposal is to keep the building essentially as it is now with minimal

changes to the walls and leaving the roof unaffected

The LPA in its file report notes that:-

20

The scheme of conversion for the existing building entails formation of no new

openings other than a bedroom window in that elevation facing the existing

drive, which will continue to be shared with the stables & associated riding

arena. The doors will be removed from the existing opening on the SW

elevation and an extension erected here having the appearance of a

conservatory with hipped-roof. The extension is to have a width of 5m,

projection of 1.8m and height of 3.2m.

Consultation Responses RBC Conservation The site is on the southern boundary of the Goodshawfold conservation area

which is characterised by buildings with low densities, and a strong

agricultural character. The existing building contributes positively to the setting

of the conservation area. It is sandstone with a slate roof, square on plan and

single storey, reflecting the other modest and simple buildings that

characterise the conservation area. The building faces west into a field.

The Conservation officer notes:-

The proposal to convert this store to a dwelling involves the creation of a

glazed extension and insertion of an opening into the southeast elevation. The

conservation area appraisal states that low building densities contribute to the

character of the conservation area and this should be protected from future

development (p16). Further, use of modern materials is highlighted as a

negative feature of the conservation area (page 26). The proposed

development will erode the remaining agricultural character of the area by

creating a domestic appearance to the building through the introduction of the

glazed extension. It will also spoil the low, modest scale of the building, and

impact negatively on the setting of the conservation area.

Appellant comments

1. The building was not considered important enough to be included within the

Goodshawfold Conservation Area

2. The existing building will remain largely unchanged, externally apart from:-

21

a. The insertion of 1 bedroom window

b. The removal of the existing doors and the inclusion of a glazed extension

which extends along the width of the building by 1.8m only

3. The glazed extension faces away from the lane and will be largely hidden

from view

4. The LPA in its file report notes that:-

This addition will not impact on views out of the Conservation Area but will, to

a degree, be evident to the public when moving northwards up the lane

towards the village

But the reality is that the glazed extension, because of its very limited size and

its position in facing away from the lane, will have very little, if any, impact.

5. The building is somewhat removed from the core of the Conservation Area

which is centred round the Spewing Duck.

6. The Conservation Appraisal Document produced by the LPA notes that all

the buildings in the Conservation Area are in domestic use. The proposed

change of use will be compatible with this.

The proposed effect on the setting of a Heritage asset (i.e. the Conservation

Area) will be minimal in the extreme

The domestication of the site

The LPA in its officer file report considers that the residential use of the

resulting building and its associated parking and other domestic paraphernalia

to unacceptably erode the open and rural character of the Countryside.

The same report also states that The proposal is also likely to result in more

frequent parking of a car and other domestic paraphernalia being visible

through the access-point.

Appellant comments

1. It is our view that the appeal site is within the Urban Boundary and not

within an area designated as Countryside

22

2. Even if it is held that it is in a countryside area any domestic paraphernalia

and other undesirable domestication would be inconsequential for the

following reasons :-

a. The appellant visits the site more or less continuously when she is not

lecturing. Thus any increase in car parking or the number of trips would be

minimal. The actual space taken up by parking would remain unchanged

b. The proposal is for a 1 bedroom house. It will be occupied by the appellant.

The amount of domestic paraphernalia associated with such a situation will be

minimal. It will not include trampolines or bouncy castles

c. While the application requires a red edge to be shown on the plans it is not

the intention for the curtilage to be sectioned off by fencing. The space will

remain as it is now.

d. The appellant is content to accept a condition removing all permitted

development rights

Lack of special circumstances

The LPA maintains in its decision Notice that no special circumstances have

been submitted to warrant a new dwelling.

Appellant comments

It is not necessary for such special circumstances to exist in order to permit

the proposed conversion.

Even in the Green Belt it is not necessary to show that very special

circumstances exist when an application concerns the conversion of an

existing building to a dwelling where the location is a sustainable one and

where there will be no adverse impact on the openness of the Green Belt or to

its purpose

In this case we maintain that the site is within the Urban Boundary where the

Council wishes to concentrate most development. Even if it is considered to

be outside the Urban Boundary both local and national policy is supportive of

the conversion of vacant or underused building s which are sustainably

located – conditions which exist with regard to the appeal site. The LPA

concludes in its file report that the building is sustainably located

23

Summary

1. The appeal building lies within the saved Urban Boundary as shown on the

Rossendale District Local Plan and which has been saved as part of the

adopted Core Strategy. As such it within an area where the LPA wishes to

encourage most development

2. As it complies with the above the NPPF advises that there should be a

presumption in favour of sustainable development. The LPA concedes in its

file report that the site is sustainably located

3. Even if, for some reason, the site is deemed to be outside the Urban

Boundary and within a Countryside area both local and national policy is

supportive of the conversion. The building is underused and essentially

vacant and is not required as part of the adjoining stabling. There is space

available within the 4 stables and in the adjoining outbuilding to provide for

the needs of the two horses

4. There is no longer any requirement, as indicated in the NPPF, for the site

to be marketed for commercial purposes. Nor has such a requirement been

required with regard to other approved conversions for buildings in rural areas

(such as for the storage workshop at Martin croft, Haslingden approved for

conversion to a dwelling). Nor is there any shortage of commercial property

available to buy or lease in all parts of the borough, both rural and urban.

5. External changes to the building are minimal and will have an

inconsequential impact on the setting of the conservation area (of which the

building was not considered important enough to be included within it) the

building is not Listed

6. Even if it is considered that the site is outside the Urban Boundary and

within a Countryside allocation the degree of domestication of the site will be

extremely minimal because of the size of the conversion, the lack of changes

to its boundaries and the current car journeys to and from the site

7. The appellant will accept, as necessary conditions relating to:-

a. The removal of permitted development rights

b. If necessary, a condition tying the occupation of the converted building to

the adjoining use of the stables