4
The Committee received and considered the report from the Planning Officer.
The Planning Officer reported that the site comprises an unused pasture field with a single structure, a disused agricultural barn, adjacent Hemsby Road at its eastern end. The site measures an area of 0.77ha. Mill Barn is an early 19th century red brick barn located on the west of Martham Road in Hemsby. The brick barn is situated at the frontage of the site adjacent to the highway edge and immediately abutting a bend in Hemsby Road. Whilst inside the Parish of Martham, the barn lies outside of the village development limits and is within the open countryside. The site is approximately 1km from the village centre. To the south of the barn is Mill Farm House, and to the north is a small cluster of dwellings with a mix of circa 1930s semidetached dwellings to the west and a smattering of bungalows closer to the barn.
The Planning Officer reported that the application is an outline application (with full details of access only) for the demolition of the existing barn on the site and for the erection of a new dwelling. The application also proposes to create a new access to the north of the existing barn, to serve the new dwelling, and associated realigning of the carriageway. The existing access to the south of the barn would be used only for access to the existing dwelling neighbour to the south (notwithstanding that there is an existing access serving that dwelling already). Being an outline application with full details of access only, the details of landscaping, design, scale and layout are not being assessed as part of this application and would remain as reserved matters.
The Planning Officer reported that the application was Outside Development Limits as defined by GSP1, was within the ‘Nutrient Neutrality’ Catchment Area of the Trinity Broads SAC network and was within the Orange 400m to 2.5km Indicative Habitat Impact Zone for purposes of GIRAMS. The Planning Officer detailed the relevant planning history of the application site to the Committee.
The Planning Officer reported that having considered the details provided, the application is considered to fail to comply with policies CS01, CS02, CS09, CS10 and CS11 from the adopted Core Strategy, and policies GSP1, H8, E4 and E5 from the adopted Local Plan Part 2. This is not disputed by the applicant’s agent.
The highways works proposed are considered to be negligible and not a public benefit which would be sufficient to outweigh the conflict with policy and harm to the landscape and historic environment. There are no other material considerations to suggest the application should be recommended for approval contrary to the provisions of the adopted development plan and national guidance and the expectations of the national planning policy framework.
The Planning Officer advised the Committee that application 06/22/0197/O should be refused, for the following reasons:
1) The application has been submitted as a replacement dwelling. The existing barn has not been converted to a residential dwelling and is not in a habitable condition. As a result, the proposal cannot be considered as a replacement dwelling and thus fails to comply with Policy H8 of the Great Yarmouth Local Plan Part 2 (2021).
2) The site is located in an unsustainable location remote from schooling, town centre shopping, health provision, and has restricted employment opportunities with limited scope for improving access by foot and public transport. The distance from service centre provision precludes any realistic opportunity of encouraging a modal shift away from the private car towards public transport. The site has a lack of safe pedestrian access to the local amenities within the village and therefore it is considered that there would be a reliance on the private car for future occupants of the proposed development. The site is not, therefore located to minimise the need to travel and is not in a sustainable location for new development. As a result, the proposed development is contrary to policy, conflicts with the aims of sustainable development and does not satisfy the requirements of Policies CS1 and CS2 of the Great Yarmouth Local Plan Core Strategy (2015) and Policy GSP1 of the Great Yarmouth Local Plan Part 2 (2021).
3) The barn is of local historic and architectural value and is a prominent feature in the landscape; its location, positioning, historic materials, and vernacular design contribute to the local character and distinctiveness, and it can be considered as a non-designated heritage asset. The loss of the barn would contribute to eroding the rural character, and a new dwelling would be out of keeping with the character and appearance of the surrounding rural area, and would represent an unacceptable intrusion of built form in this countryside location. It would not make a positive contribution to the local character and distinctiveness of the area. Its removal therefore would result in the loss of this historic value which would not be mitigated by the recycling of the existing materials in a new dwelling on the site. The minor highways improvements proposed in the application do not outweigh the level of harm cause to the non-designated heritage asset. The proposal is, therefore, contrary to Policies CS9 and CS10 of the Great Yarmouth Local Plan Core Strategy (2015) and Policies E4 and E5 of the Great Yarmouth Local Plan Part 2 (2021).
4) The site is located outside of any defined settlement boundary, is not allocated and is not supported by any specific Development Management policy which allows for development outside of the development boundary. As such, the application is contrary to the adopted development plan and the proposal does not offer overriding benefits or other material considerations to suggest that the application should be determined positively contrary to the conflict with the development plan.
Mr Harper, applicants agent, outlined the salient areas of the application to the Committee and urged them to approve the application which would result in a new building being erected on the site which would be set back from the road and improve road safety in this area. Mr Harper raised the issue that the Howes Percival legal assessment which he had submitted had not been included in the agenda report which detailed a recent successful legal challenge against a council in Hampshire, whereby a former church building in Monkton had been demolished and a new building been built to replace it and set back from the road. The applicant had been awarded substantial costs form the council.
Councillor Myers asked Mr Harper to explain why, if works had started on site in 2008 by digging out the footings and a trench, works had not been completed by 2022.
P Cllr Hooper, Chairman of Martham Parish Council, addressed the Committee and spoke in support of the application. The barn was not listed, was not of historic importance and was a blot on the landscape and its demolition would eliminate a blind corner and be of assistance to motorists. P Cllr Hooper urged the Committee to approve the application.
Councillor Grant, Ward Councillor, addressed the Committee and informed them that he, and the majority of the residents of Martham, were in favour of the application, as it would result in the removal of an eyesore of a derelict barn, improve road access and open up the entrance to the village for traffic approaching from Hemsby.
Councillor Mogford reported that he agreed with the views of the parish & ward councillors and he could not support the officer recommendation to refuse the application. Councillor P Hammond reported that he agreed with Councillor Mogford.
Councillor Myers reported that just because the barn was considered to be a blot on the landscape by certain individuals, that this was not a material planning consideration. Councillor Williamson agreed with Councillor Myers and that the application must be considered carefully to preserve the heritage and landscape of the village of Martham.
The Monitoring Officer reminded the Committee that if they were minded to vote against the officer recommendation that they would require intelligible planning reasons which the public would understand and these would need to be stated prior to any vote as they would be required to be submitted as evidence at any subsequent challenge.
Proposer: Councillor Williamson
Seconder: Councillor Wainwright
Following a vote, it was RESOLVED:-
That application number 06/22/0197/O be refused for the following reasons:-
1) The application has been submitted as a replacement dwelling. The existing barn has not been converted to a residential dwelling and is not in a habitable condition. As a result, the proposal cannot be considered as a replacement dwelling and thus fails to comply with Policy H8 of the Great Yarmouth Local Plan Part 2 (2021).
2) The site is located in an unsustainable location remote from schooling, town centre shopping, health provision, and has restricted employment opportunities with limited scope for improving access by foot and public transport. The distance from service centre provision precludes any realistic opportunity of encouraging a modal shift away from the private car towards public transport. The site has a lack of safe pedestrian access to the local amenities within the village and therefore it is considered that there would be a reliance on the private car for future occupants of the proposed development. The site is not, therefore located to minimise the need to travel and is not in a sustainable location for new development. As a result, the proposed development is contrary to policy, conflicts with the aims of sustainable development and does not satisfy the requirements of Policies CS1 and CS2 of the Great Yarmouth Local Plan Core Strategy (2015) and Policy GSP1 of the Great Yarmouth Local Plan Part 2 (2021).
3) The barn is of local historic and architectural value and is a prominent feature in the landscape; its location, positioning, historic materials, and vernacular design contribute to the local character and distinctiveness, and it can be considered as a non-designated heritage asset. The loss of the barn would contribute to eroding the rural character, and a new dwelling would be out of keeping with the character and appearance of the surrounding rural area, and would represent an unacceptable intrusion of built form in this countryside location. It would not make a positive contribution to the local character and distinctiveness of the area. Its removal therefore would result in the loss of this historic value which would not be mitigated by the recycling of the existing materials in a new dwelling on the site. The minor highways improvements proposed in the application do not outweigh the level of harm cause to the non-designated heritage asset. The proposal is, therefore, contrary to Policies CS9 and CS10 of the Great Yarmouth Local Plan Core Strategy (2015) and Policies E4 and E5 of the Great Yarmouth Local Plan Part 2 (2021); and
4) The site is located outside of any defined settlement boundary, is not allocated and is not supported by any specific Development Management policy which allows for development outside of the development boundary. As such, the application is contrary to the adopted development plan and the proposal does not offer overriding benefits or other material considerations to suggest that the application should be determined positively contrary to the conflict with the development plan.
(It was noted that Councillor G Carpenter abstained from the vote on this item).