Agenda item

COLBY - PF/19/1974 - Conversion of barn to 2no.dwellings (part retrospective); Heppinn Barn, North Walsham Road, Banningham, NORWICH, NR11 7DU for Mrs Jones

Decision:

Refusal.

Minutes:

Public Speakers

 

Mo Anderson-Dungar (Colby and Banningham Parish Council)

Dr Ken Craig (supporting)

 

The Senior Planning Officer (CR) presented the report.  He displayed plans and photographs of the site, including plans that had been approved under Class Q of the General Permitted Development Order (GDPO) and photographs of the building prior to development and as currently existing.  He also displayed photographs of conversion works being carried out at Brick Kiln Farm, North Walsham, which had been permitted in 2019, to show the extent of original fabric which was required for conversion in comparison with the application site.  He recommended refusal of this application as set out in the report.

 

Councillor J Toye, the local Member, gave a detailed account of the circumstances that had led to the current situation.  He stated that the applicant and her builder had decided that replacing the walls with the same materials in the same position amounted to maintenance, which the applicant had previously been told she could carry out.  The building had not been demolished and as much as possible of the original fabric had been retained.  He referred to Policies EN8 and HO9, and considered that the fact that the conversion of the building had been approved twice under Class Q represented an acceptable plan.  He referred to the amount of local support for the proposal, and considered that it would improve the environment both visually and environmentally.  He considered that there would be no change to the final result if this application were approved as the proposal had the same footprint and visual appearance.  He requested the approval of this application under Policy HO9 as the proposal was for conversion with maintenance being carried out during the process.

 

In response to a question by Councillor N Lloyd regarding Brick Kiln Farm, North Walsham, the Interim Development Manager confirmed that although an application had been refused by the Committee in 2018, the most recent application had been approved under delegated powers.  There had been an appeal at some stage but he did not know when.

 

Councillor Lloyd stated that the principle of development of the application site had been set on two occasions and he considered that it was common sense to allow the applicant to complete the build.  He considered that refusal of the application would result in a further application and involve much time and expense for both the Authority and the applicant.

 

The Interim Development Manager explained that the principle had been established under the GDPO for conversion of the building, but not rebuilding.  If the applications had come originally forward for the building as now existing they would not be acceptable.  Policy SS2 sought sustainable patterns of development, whereas the GDPO did not.

 

The Principal Lawyer stated that the concept of conversion in this case was difficult.  He advised the Committee with regard to Class Q, and referred to a recent appeal decision where the Planning Inspector had determined that the totality of works required in that case constituted rebuilding and could not be considered a conversion as the building as it stood was not capable of functioning as a dwelling.

 

Councillor N Pearce referred to the Officer’s report which demonstrated compliance with a number of Local Plan policies.  He supported the application.

 

The Head of Planning advised the Committee that the application had to be considered on the basis of its compliance with Policy HO9 and referred the Committee to the policy requirements set out on page 4 of the Officer’s report.

 

Councillor P Heinrich considered that the prior approvals had clearly been based on inaccurate information and it was a pity that the applicant had not commissioned her own survey.  He stated that many buildings of this nature had been erected cheaply for a short term purpose, and were never intended for long-term use or conversion.  He considered that the building had not been suitable for conversion in the first place, it was not a replacement barn, and the proposal amounted to a new residential building.  Whilst he had sympathy with the applicant, he proposed refusal of this application as recommended.

 

Councillor Mrs W Fredericks asked what proportion of the building should remain to meet the requirements for conversion.

 

The Principal Lawyer stated that there was no definitive case law which defined how much amounted to conversion and what did not.  It was a matter of planning judgement for the Committee.

 

Councillor R Kershaw seconded the proposal to refuse this application.

 

On being put to the vote, 6 Members voted in favour and 6 against, and on the casting vote of the Chairman it was

 

RESOLVED

 

That this application be refused in accordance with the recommendation of the Head of Planning.

Supporting documents: