Agenda item

Carry our external alterations to barn and change of use to office - Use Class E (g) (i).

With the aid of a visual presentation including plans and aerial photographs, the Case Officer identified the site and explained the proposal and relevant planning policies to members. Photographs of application site and existing buildings shown, street scene and site history displayed.

Public Participation

Joules Baldock read out statement on behalf of hermitage and Hilfield Parish Hall Management Committee.

The rear of the structure in question was approximately 10 m in front of the village hall. The Committees objections to previous planning applications and the subsequent appeal relating to this structure had already been submitted online to Dorset Council. The appeal at D1265W243350867 following the refusal of Pful 202401720, only approved external alterations to take place. What was now being proposed was a rebuild, not a conversion. Resulting in a building of materially greater height, scale and permanence adjacent to the village hall. This would have a lasting and harmful impact on the setting and character of this important community facility. The planning officers view, of that permission would tidy the site, was not accepted. The committee was concerned that the proposed use of the building described as an office, was not supported by sufficient detail regarding its operation. Including hours of use, and the nature of activity that would take place. Given the close proximity to the village hall raises concerns about the potential impact on amenity and quiet enjoyment of this important community facility. Cllr Kippax had visited the site and recorded his objections. Which supported those of High Stoy Parish Council and local residents.

Joules Baldock

Spoke as a near neighbour, but also as someone who had followed the site’s planning history very closely and engaged constructively with the previous applications and appeal. This application had been referred to Committee and reflected the seriousness of the issues already identified by the Parish Council and by Members during the consultation process. She informed that this application was not a minor alteration and was an attempt to create a new building envelope that had already been ruled out. The Planning Inspector was very clear that the appeal allowed external alterations only. Class R provided a fallback position allowing change of use only. The Inspector expressly confined the permission to what was shown and assessed, and excluded extension, rebuilding, or modification of the building envelope. So, while the principle of use may have been accepted, the Inspector placed clear limits on what was permitted, and those limits explicitly excluded rebuilding or alteration of the building envelope. She stated that the application crossed the line. A full pitched roof, with increased height was not an external alteration but an operational development. Once the Class R boundary was crossed, that fallback position disappeared. Without the Class R fallback, the proposal must be judged as new development in a rural village located outside defined development boundaries — and the principle of a new dwelling on this plot had already been tested and refused in the past. More recent attempts to pursue new residential development on the site had also failed to secure permission. The concern was not the scale of this application taken on its own, but that approving incremental changes of this nature would effectively re-open a principle of development that had already been found unacceptable. It was requested that the inspector’s decision be upheld and to protect the integrity of the Development Plan and refuse this application.

Diccon Carpendale – Agent for the applicant.

The site benefited from full planning permission for the building to be converted to either holiday accommodation or office use. Those approvals included external alterations to the building. As such, there were only two methods that are material to the determination of this application. Firstly, correcting the condition which imposed the wrong restriction on office use. Secondly, the main issue was to enhance the appearance of the building by adding a traditional pitched roof. The other matters raised, were at this point no longer relevant to the determination of the application and had been addressed at previous submissions. With the proposed correction to the wording, with the wording of the office restriction being a formality. He suggested that it was up to the Committee to decide whether it supported the provision of a pitched roof to the building. He explained that this would enhance the simple vernacular of the structure. It would appear more in keeping with the rural surroundings, and there would be no detriment to local character. There was no intention to use the site or its surroundings for other commercial purposes. Change of use had been permitted under the previous application and there was extent permission for this to be used either for office or for holiday accommodation. Alterations had already been approved to this building and would enable the building to be brought into a viable economic use.

Cllr Kippax – read out a statement on behalf of Highstoy Parish Council. 

The Parish Council had already responded to the previous applications and appeal at this site and to the current application. Each time it has attempted to reflect local concerns and challenge the applicant’s submission based on local knowledge. Whilst our concerns and objections were well documented elsewhere, members of this committee must appreciate our well-founded concerns of the conclusions expressed by the applicant’s structural engineer which were given in our recent submission. Our view was that the derelict shed was incapable of conversion using the existing structure whether a pitched roof was permitted or not. Furthermore, to describe the structure as a barn, questions a previous description as a derelict shed. Photographs submitted by the adjacent eastern neighbour demonstrated this. The Parish Council appreciated the sequence of applications made so far and their roots in alleged historic agricultural use but the officers view that permission would tidy the site was not accepted. If members were minded to grant permission for the current application for an office with or without a pitched roof, please consider making a site inspection. The local Dorset Council member Cllr Kippax had visited the site and recorded his objections as part of the consultation process and also supported the Parish Council’s submission and objections. Hermitage was often described as a pleasant rural Dorset village with a strong community spirit, lying as it does adjacent to an area of outstanding natural beauty. The parish council did not consider the. proposal suitable for such a location.

Members questions and comments

• A member asked if there was a way to ensure that the site was only used for office use.
• Questions were asked if permission granted, what restrictions were there on the use of the site.
• Do offices have to meet the requirements of housing regulations for heating.
• There were no material planning reasons to refuse the application, the application was well screened and reusing a building. 

Planning Officer, Cass Worman responded to questions - the original application was supported by a structural survey and the structure was able to withstand the proposed changes shown in the plans. All offices needed to obey building requirements, insulated cladding, and internal alterations to meet the requirements. There would be a mini kitchen, which was sufficient for office accommodation.

Having had the opportunity to discuss the merits of the application and an understanding of all this entailed; having considered the officer’s report and presentation; the written representatives; and what they had heard at the meeting, a motion to APPROVE the officer’s recommendation to GRANT planning permission as recommended, was proposed by Cllr Ridout, and seconded by Cllr Vitali.

Decision: To grant planning permission with conditions set out in the officer’s report and outlined in the appendix of the minutes.