Agenda item

Enabling residential development of 16 dwellings to facilitate restoration of listed farmhouse and mill building.

The Lead Project Officer presented the application, which was for the erection of 16 dwellings to facilitate the restoration of a Grade II farmhouse and mill. The location of the site was highlighted on a site plan and an aerial photograph of the area. Photographs were also provided of the site, showing the current buildings in a poor state of repair. Members were shown photographs looking across the site, to give an indication of the topography of the site.

 

It was explained that the proposal was for the development of 16 dwellings with associated parking, to enable the restoration of the two listed buildings. The proposed site plan and elevations of the dwellings were shown, giving an indication of the design and scale of the development, which would have a traditional design in keeping with the rural setting. Members were advised of the site history and pre-application advice that had been given in respect of the proposals.

 

Officers advised that the development was considered as inappropriate in the green belt. The restoration of the mill and farmhouse weighed in favour of the proposal. Photos of the mill and farmhouse were provided and it was noted that several of the original features of the listed buildings were set to be retained.

 

Alternative solutions for funding of the restoration works had been considered and discounted due to the significant cost associated with repairing the listed buildings. An independent District Valuer had conducted an assessment and determined the proposed development represented the minimum level of development required to overcome the conservation deficit, which had been established through pre-application discussions.

 

It was explained that a planning obligation was proposed to secure a delivery plan ensuring that the dwellings could not be occupied until the works to the listed buildings were completed to the satisfaction of a conservation officer.

 

The key planning issues were summarised. There were not considered to be harmful impacts on heritage assets. Members were advised that the scheme represented a high quality of design. Highways impacts were considered to be acceptable subject to conditions to ensure safe access would be provided and retained and concerns around flood risk had been addressed through a flood risk plan. No affordable housing contribution was sought due to the enabling development justification for the development. The overall planning balance was summarised and it was considered that very special circumstances had been identified to justify inappropriate development in the green belt.

 

Public representation was received in opposition to the application from Mrs Mathers, Cllr Clews, who spoke as a representative of Morden Parish Council and Cllr Brenton, who spoke as the Ward Member. They raised concerns about the need for the development, the limited benefits of the development to Morden, the self-contained nature of the proposal, the level of traffic that would be entering and exiting the site, parking provision on the site and the potential for flooding on the site. It was also noted that there was a need for smaller properties in the area and this development would not help to address the local housing needs.

 

Mr Parke spoke as the agent for the application, noting the importance of restoring the listed mill and farmhouse and that the restoration of these historic buildings met the parameters of very special circumstances. It was explained that the cost of restoration would be significant and that the dwellings were required to enable the restoration of the listed buildings.

 

Cllr Brenton left the room at 10:59.

 

The Lead Project Officer addressed points made by the public speakers. It was explained that the need for the development did not have to be identified by the applicant, as the application was proposed on the need for enabling development of the listed buildings. Flood risk mitigation works were included in the proposal and addressed flooding concerns.

 

The Engineer explained that highways concerns had been addressed and the applicant had submitted a transport statement and an independent road safety audit had been carried out and determined that highways impacts were satisfactory. Trip generation figures had been calculated using industry standard tools and were accepted. The access would be modified to allow larger vehicles to enter the site and the visibility splay was considered acceptable.

 

In response to members questions the Lead Project Officer, Senior Conservation Officer and Engineer provided the following responses:

·       A viability assessment had been undertaken to determine the minimum level of development that would be required to facilitate the restoration of the listed buildings.

·       There was a difference of approximately £1.2 million between the District Valuers appraisal and the applicant’s appraisal and a profit margin of 17.5% was included in the final figures.

·       Affordable housing was not being provided as to do so would result in an increase in the overall amount of development required, but that a viability review mechanism would be included in the proposed planning obligation agreement

·       There was no proposal to include an element of hydropower from the mill restoration as part of the application.

·       The A35 was within Dorset Council’s responsibility and the road works included in the proposal would be at the applicant’s expense.

·       There were not concerns about the archaeological impact of the proposal and the Archaeology Officer had stated that the site was a sufficient distance from any sites of interest.

·       Funding grants for the restoration of the heritage assets were not considered to be sufficient to fund the works to restore the listed buildings.

·       Enabling development had been considered on other sites within Dorset Council and predecessor authorities, at Stapehill Abbey Parnham House.

·       It was not necessary to include additional community benefits to justify enabling development.

·       It was not necessary to provide a proof of funds for the works as the legal agreement would secure the timely delivery of the listed building works and a draft legal agreement would only be prepared if the committee resolved to grant permission.

·       The proposed list of conditions had not included a condition to remove permitted development rights but that it would be reasonable to add this if members were minded to do so.

 

Having had the opportunity to debate the merits of the application, several members raised concerns with the proposal. Members considered that the proposal consisted of inappropriate development in the green belt and that the benefit of restoring the heritage assets did not represent very special circumstances to justify the development, which was contrary to planning policy.

 

The meeting adjourned at 12:12 – 12:20.

 

Proposed by Cllr Ezzard and seconded by Cllr Trite.

 

Decision: That the application be refused for the reasons set out in the appendix to these minutes.