STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT APPEAL BY Mr J Harris …msptclive.maldon.gov.uk/Planning/StreamDocPage/obj?DocNo=... · Ulting, Essex CM9 6QY. The appeal is submitted on behalf

____________________________________________________________________________

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.


____________________________________________________________________________

CC/1726 Page 2

The Agricultural Barns (Chicken Coop and Goat Pen) © Google


____________________________________________________________________________

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.


____________________________________________________________________________

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


____________________________________________________________________________

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.


____________________________________________________________________________

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).


____________________________________________________________________________

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.


____________________________________________________________________________

CC/1726 Page 8

APPENDIX A


____________________________________________________________________________

CC/1726 Page 9

APPENDIX B


____________________________________________________________________________

CC/1726 Page 10

APPENDIX C


____________________________________________________________________________

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

Documents

STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT APPEAL BY Mr J Harris …msptclive.maldon.gov.uk/Planning/StreamDocPage/obj?DocNo=... · Ulting, Essex CM9 6QY. The appeal is submitted on behalf