Agenda item
25/01566/FUL Land At Church End
Minutes:
Land at Church End Swerford Chipping Norton Oxfordshire
Conversion of storage building to holiday let, with associated landscaping
The Planning Officer conducted a presentation which was noted by Members. The Officer’s presentation made the following points:
- The application site was located within Swerford and within the Swerford Conservation Area
- There were a number of heritage assets within close proximity of the site including listed and locally listed buildings, Swerford registered park & garden to the west and Swerford Castle Scheduled Monument
- The site was accessed from Back Lane, a Public Right of Way
- The existing building had a traditional design including materials which were considered to positively contribute to the character of the area
- A certificate of existing lawful use was granted in September 2017 for the use of the site for B8 storage of materials and equipment on the site. The certificate confirmed the use of the entire application site for the 'storage of materials and equipment falling within use class B8.’ More recently, an application was submitted for the change of use of the building to a dwelling, which was dismissed at appeal. The Inspector considered that the proposal would preserve the CA and setting of listed and non-listed buildings. This application differs in that the proposed use is for a holiday let not a dwelling.
- The proposed development included the conversion of the building to a holiday let, with associated landscaping. The existing trees shown on the plan were to be retained and 2 car parking spaces were provided to the front.
- The proposal included the insertion of timber casement windows and doors in order to use the building as a holiday let. The mass, scale and footprint would remain the same.
Two bedrooms were proposed at first floor and living and kitchen space on ground floor.
Speaking as the applicant/supporter: Joanna Lishman
Members asked the following questions of clarification:
- if vehicle use would increase with a holiday let use. The speaker clarified that with a B8 storage use vehicle types are likely to be larger and could be intensified.
- by whom the building was currently used by and how often the owner needed to come and go from the site. The speaker confirmed that the storage unit was operated by a builder for storage of machinery and materials and he came and went as per his business requirements and owns the land.
The Planning Officer went onto summarise the merits of the application and made the following points:
- In terms of the principle of development, for the reasons set out in the report, the proposal was considered to comply with the key policies of the adopted local plan for the conversion of buildings to tourist accommodation.
- In terms of design, subject to conditions securing details of windows and doors, the proposal was considered to be acceptable and comply with key design policies.
- Regarding impact on heritage assets, as confirmed by the Inspector in the recent appeal, Officers considered that the proposal would preserve and conserve the character or appearance of the Swerford Conservation Area and would preserve the setting of listed and non-listed buildings in the vicinity of the site.
- There are no objections regarding impact on ecology, highway safety and amenity, and the main issues raised in the recent appeal have been addressed.
- There would still be loss of employment, but due to the lawful use of the site, it could in theory be used by anyone for any storage (such as the storage of belongings), not providing any or very little employment benefit. Further, the proposed use would benefit local facilities through visitation afforded by tourists, and other employment would ensue from such a use.
- Therefore, providing the holiday let was restricted to short stays only, in this case, the benefits of the proposed development were considered to outweigh the loss of employment use and so there were other material considerations that indicated that the application should be approved otherwise than in accordance with the development plan, and so the application is recommended for approval, subject to the conditions set out in the report.
Members asked the following questions of clarification:
- whether the previous application which was refused on the basis of adverse impacts to the Conservation Area, historic setting of non-designated heritage assets and in what way did this application differ from that in terms of the physical building proposed compared to the previous proposed building.
- The Planning Officer stated that the proposed external alterations did not differ from the previous application, however the Inspector for the recent appeal concluded that heritage assets would be preserved. Officers had to take that into account as a material planning consideration and so that is why, whilst the external alterations proposed are largely the same, Officers have concluded that heritage assets would be preserved.
-
Members voted in favour of the officer`s recommendation to approve the application by majority decision.
It was proposed by the Chairman and seconded by Cllr Poskitt
RESOLVED: That the application be approved in line with officer`s recommendations.