1

Convert and alter stables building to form dwelling Land off New Barn Lane, Balladen, Rawtenstall

Planning Statement

H P

D A

April 2014

Prepared by Hartley Planning and Development Associates Ltd

2

Introduction

The following statement is to accompany a full application for the conversion and

alteration of an existing redundant stables building to form a dwelling at land off New

Barn Lane, Rawtenstall.

Application for a stable block for the keeping and breeding of horses was approved

under no 2005/363 on the 30 August, 2005

Planning history

Application no 2012/0400 for the same development as is now proposed was

validated by the LPA on the 17 September, 2012 but was subsequently withdrawn

on the 9 October, 2012 because of uncertainties at the time with regard to the actual

construction of the stables under planning approval 2005/0363.

Application no 2013/0246 for the same development as is now proposed was

validated on the 31 May 2013. The 5 week update given by the LPA was that the

proposed development was acceptable and later the case officer advised that her

recommendation was for the approval of the application. At the eleventh hour,

however, the LPA – taking into account a photograph in its possession purported to

be dated 23 March, 2010 – took the view that the stable block had not been

constructed in accordance with the approved plans and that as 4 years had not

elapsed since the photograph was taken this was taken to be evidence that the

existing development had no lawful planning use. Accordingly the application was

refused on the 24 July, 2013 for the following reason:-

3

We had at the time concerns with regard to the accuracy of the date of the above

photograph. Be that as it may, it is now the case that over 4 years have now elapsed

since the photograph was purportedly taken and since the completion of the building.

The stable building is now, therefore, lawful through long usage and is classed as

previously developed land.

Reasons for the application

The applicant no longer has a requirement for the building for stabling. Over the last

few years the horses have been sold due to the difficult financial climate. The

application building has been marketed by Weale and Hitchen for a significant period

of time without any interest shown for commercial / stabling purposes.A letter to that

effect is included by the agents who are in the process of writing an update to

confirm that there has been no interest in the commercial use of the property since

its last letter in 2013.

The site is located close to Balladen Primary School and in convenient walking

distance of local shopping facilities on Bury Road. New build houses have recently

been built on Lomas Lane in very close proximity to the site.

4

Determination of the Planning Application

In the event that the application is determined at officer level would you please let

me know, prior to any decision being made, if there is any part of the application

proposal which requires amendment?

Should the application eventually fall to be determined by committee would you

please let me know of that fact in a timely manner?

Site & Proposal

The site falls within land classified as countryside. The building has been used for

the stabling of horses but is no longer required for that purpose. The applicant has

marketed the building for sale and rent for commercial purposes and marketing

information accompanies the application.

The building is stone built and with a blue slate roof. The intention is to retain the

existing building, with the same walls and height. There are no extensions proposed

for the building.

Relevant Planning policies

National Planning Policy - National Planning Policy Framework

55. To promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located

where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. For example,

where there are groups of smaller settlements, development in one village may

support services in a village nearby. Local planning authorities should avoid new

isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances such as:

●●where the development would re-use redundant or disused buildings and lead to

an enhancement to the immediate setting

5

Rossendale Core Strategy

Policy 1: General Development Locations and Principles

Green Belt & Countryside

Proposals outside the urban boundary will be determined in accordance with the

relevant national and local planning guidance.

In this case the proposal accords with the NPPF. The proposal is for the conversion

of an existing rural building of substantial stone construction.

Overall Development Approach

The Council will seek to enhance the quality and sustainability of places and

individual developments by taking into account the following criteria when preparing

LDF documents and considering individual planning applications:

• Make best use of under-used, vacant and derelict land and buildings

• Complement and enhance the surrounding area(s) of the development

through the use of inclusive design and locally distinctive materials which

enhances the character and heritage of Rossendale

• Minimise negative impacts upon existing infrastructure capacities by

considering its capacity levels and plans for future upgrades and expansion

• Taking a precautionary approach to flood risk

• The need to ensure that mineral resources are not needlessly sterilised by

new development

• Maximise energy efficiency and demonstrate effective use of low carbon

technologies

• Maximise access by public transport, walking and cycling in a manner that

promotes safe and inclusive communities and promote co-location of services

and facilities

• Enhance and protect the countryside, geodiversity and biodiversity resources

including habitats and species

• Wherever possible, improve the amount of, links to and the quality of the

local network of open spaces and green infrastructure

• Contributes to maintaining and creating sustainable and inclusive

communities

6

This proposal would accord with the overall development approach. It would

make use of an underused and vacant building. It would not cause harm to

the essentially rural and open character of the countryside and the provision

of a family dwelling would assist in re-balancing the housing stock in

Rossendale (including Rawtenstall) characterised by predominantly terraced

properties. This is a material consideration that weighs in favour of this

proposal.

Policy 2: Meeting Rossendale’s Housing Requirement

The net housing requirement for the period 2011-2026, will be achieved through:

1. Providing at least 3700 net additional dwellings over the plan period 2011-2026

equating to 247 dwellings per year

2. Allocating greenfield and previously developed land to meet the requirement for

the period 2011-2026 to meet identified type, size and tenure needs; including

indicative phasing where appropriate

3. Delivering an overall amount of 65% of all new dwellings on previously

developed land (PDL) across the Borough. Rawtenstall will have a lower PDL figure,

with substantially higher levels in Bacup, Haslingden and Whitworth

4. Supporting the reuse and conversion of appropriate buildings for housing

5. Encouraging higher density developments (50+ dwellings per hectare) in

sustainable locations, such as within and adjacent to Rawtenstall, Bacup,

Haslingden and Whitworth and where well served by public transport, with a

minimum density of 30dph across the Borough

6. Safeguarding the character of established residential areas from over-intensive

and inappropriate new development; and

7. Prioritising the development of previously developed land. However, development

of un-allocated greenfield land will be permitted where:

i. It is for 100% affordable and/or supported housing schemes; or

ii. It forms a minor part (up to 15% of the overall site size)of a larger mixed use

scheme or a major housing proposal (10+ dwellings) on previously developed land or

iii. It delivers a significant social, economic, or environmental benefit, or

iv. The application is for a barn conversion and it can be demonstrated that the site

has been marketed for economic uses for 12 months, to the satisfaction of the

Council, and is not viable for these purposes

7

The proposal is to convert a stable building and not a barn/agricultural building. The

NPPF defines brownfield land as follows:

“Previously developed land: Land which is or was occupied by a permanent

structure, including the curtilage of the developed land (although it should not be

assumed that the whole of the curtilage should be developed) and any associated

fixed surface infrastructure. This excludes: land that is or has been occupied by

agricultural or forestry buildings; land that has been developed for minerals

extraction or waste disposal by landfill purposes where provision for restoration

has been made through development control procedures; land in built-up areas

such as private residential gardens, parks, recreation grounds and allotments; and

land that was previously-developed but where the remains of the permanent

structure or fixed surface structure have blended into the landscape in the process

of time”

In this case the proposal is for the re-use of a building on a brownfield site in

countryside. In approving this scheme this proposal would accord with No. 7 of

Policy 2 of the Rossendale Core Strategy that encourages the release of brownfield

sites before greenfield sites.

As this is not a barn conversion there is actually no up to date local (ie Core

Strategy) or national policy requirement to show that there is no interest in re-using

the building for commercial/equestrian purposes. Nonetheless this proposal follows

extensive marketing by a commercial agent. Separate information relating to

marketing accompanies the planning application.

Rossendale Council Supplementary Planning Document: use of buildings in

the countryside

The introduction to the SPD states “this SPD does not have the same status as the

development plan, but, once adopted, will be an important material consideration in

the determination of planning applications”. The LPA is therefore required to give

this document very limited weight when compared to the Core Strategy policy and

NPPF.

8

The following comments are made with regard to its contents in so far as they relate

to the current application.

Proposal in the SPD Comments re the application 1

The conversion of an existing building in the countryside will be permitted where:

• The building is shown to the satisfaction of the Council to be structurally sound; and

• Conversion works are in keeping with the style of the building and respect the character of the landscape; and

• The building is of sufficient size to

be capable of conversion without requiring substantial extensions or alterations; and

• Satisfactory means of access, off-street parking, bin storage and servicing can be provided and mains services are available for connection into the scheme; and

• The development does not require

the removal of, or damage to, significant or prominent trees, hedges, watercourses, ponds or any other natural landscaped features; and

• The development will not require unnecessary expenditure by public authorities and utilities on the provision of infrastructure; and

• The development would not have an unacceptable impact on nature conservation interests or protected species; and

• The development is sustainable in terms of its location and access to public transport and local services; and

• The Council is satisfied that the building was originally created for genuine purposes.

The single storey building is clearly structurally sound - see structural survey accompanying the application. The conversion will still retain the essential elements of the building as it now exists – built in natural stone and with a pitched blue slate roof The building converts satisfactorily to a family house The existing access will be used and adequate parking provision can be made available. Bin storage is provided. All services - water, power, sanitation – are already in place There would be no adverse impact to any prominent or significant trees No such expenditure is required No such impact will occur The site is in the countryside but it is not in a remote location being close to the defined settlements of Rawtenstall and local shops/schools. The building has permission for stables and has been used for such a purpose.

2 In addition to meeting the criteria listed above, proposals to convert an existing building in the countryside to residential use will need to demonstrate that:

• Every reasonable attempt has been made to secure

The NPPF and Core Strategy policy (these have more weight in decision making terms) do not require marketing for such a building. (See also later) However, the building has been marketed for sale or rent for commercial

9

business/commercial re-use and that these uses are not viable; or

• The building is unsuitable for business use;

or • The residential conversion is

required to meet a proven need for a dwelling for a full-time agricultural or forestry worker.

• The building (or group of buildings) is of permanent and substantial construction is of a form, bulk and general design in keeping with its surroundings and can be converted without extensive alteration, rebuilding or extension.

All planning applications to convert an existing building in the countryside to residential use will normally be required to submit a report undertaken by an independent Chartered Surveyor to demonstrate why business uses would not be suitable or viable. Details should be provided of conversion costs, the estimated yield of the commercial uses and projected eventual income. Evidence should be presented of the efforts that have been made to secure business re-use during the previous 12 month period. Consideration could also be given to whether there are a significant number of vacant purpose-built and converted premises in the area with better proximity to local centres and services, which would be more suitable to prospective tenants. Evidence to Support Conversion to Residential: • Conversions costs for employment uses vs residential; • Estimated yield of commercial uses and projected eventual income; • Marketing history of the building for employment uses for a period of no less than 6 months; o Site notices, newspaper adverts, estate agent bills and invoices, no and frequency of information requests from interested parties/ number of visits • List of other vacant/ available purpose-built and converted premises in the area with better proximity to local centres and services for both residential and employment uses

purposes by Weale and Hitchen for several months but no interest in its commercial/employment use has come forward. The marketing activity is continuing. This is a single storey building constructed from stone and with a pitched slate roof. It is in keeping with the area. Very few changes are required to the appearance of the building. There has been no interest shown in the conversion or use of the premises for commercial/employment purposes. Thus, its use for such purposes is not viable. The site is well located in terms of proximity to a primary school, neighbourhood shopping centre and Town Centre.

10

3 The building should be capable of conversion without the need for demolition and/or rebuilding of more than 30% of the surface wall area of the building. This may include the total rebuilding of not more than one of the external walls

There is no requirement for re-building.

4 The building must be capable of conversion without the need for significant extension. The addition of any extension which exceeds the volume of the original building by a third (30%) will normally be considered to be unacceptable. Any garaging or storage that is required should normally be provided by the adaptation of existing buildings on the site.

There is no extension proposed

5 Where practicable proposals should:

• Retain the eaves height and gradient of the original roof;

and • Undertake any required re-roofing

using materials to match the original.

Chimney stacks are acceptable above the ridge height where this is an internal stack. Proposals to convert or re-use an existing building in the countryside should pay particular regard to the roof form and pitch. In order to retain the character of the existing building, proposals should not involve any additions or alterations to the shape or height of the roof of the building. Re-roofing will normally be acceptable as part of the upgrading and conversion works. Nevertheless, the use of inappropriate or unsympathetic materials can detract from the appearance of the building and will not normally be permitted.

The eaves height and roof gradient will remain as now The proposal is to use the existing blue slate roof. N/A

6 Proposals for conversion should make the maximum use of existing openings. New openings should be kept to a minimum and be of traditional design and character. The introduction of roof lights will only be acceptable where they are essential to provide light to rooms, are positioned

The design uses existing openings and new openings are kept to the minimum. See submitted plans

11

as unobtrusively as possible and would not have a disproportionate coverage. Features such as dormer windows and patio doors will not normally be permitted. The Council will expect external timber to be painted rather than stained.

7 All curtilages created should be confined to the areas immediately surrounding the building. The creation of domestic curtilages which extend into the countryside to provide extensive areas for garden use, external storage, hard standing, car parking etc will not normally be acceptable either as part of a conversion scheme or as a later amendment to the scheme.

The curtilage is drawn closely round the building as per this requirement

8 Existing traditional boundary treatments should be retained and extended where appropriate. Boundaries should normally be defined by stone walling or hedging. Hedging must be of a traditional type and rows of conifers of Leylandii will not normally be acceptable. Ornate entrance features will not be acceptable.

See above

9 Satisfactory access to the building must be capable of being provided without the need for new lengths of track or road or alterations to the point of access. The use of gravel will be preferred to tarmacadam for access road

The existing access is proposed

Proposals will not be permitted where they would require unnecessary expenditure by public authorities and utilities for the provision of infrastructure. If a mains electricity supply is not already on site, any new supply should be underground so that no further overhead lines are necessary, unless there are no reasonable alternatives. Other services that are normally brought to the site by overhead lines, such as telephone or cable television, should also be underground. The building must be capable of being serviced with water and sewerage/drainage to the satisfaction of the Council. Oil, gas and other service tanks should be sited unobtrusively and, where necessary, screened by landscaping.

All necessary services are already in place

10 The original materials used in the

12

construction of the building should be retained and restored where practicable. Where this is not possible, new materials must be natural and match the existing in all respects. If inappropriate materials have been introduced since the building was built then the conversion should include the reinstatement of the original materials. The use of traditional materials to attempt to make a building suitable for conversion where it does not contribute to the character of the area will not be acceptable.

The existing stone walls to the building will clearly remain and the roof will remain as a natural blue slate

11 Proposals should retain open areas without introducing new fencing or walls. Prominent trees and other landscape features that make a contribution to the character of the area should be retained. Where necessary and appropriate, existing natural paved surfaces and other hard surfaces should be retained and repaired. The introduction of new soft landscaping to be used for domestic purposes will not normally be acceptable

See above comments

12 Proposals to convert an existing building in the countryside should seek to:

• Retain significant internal features of historic interest; and

• Ensure internal partitioning does not mask existing features and, in particular, does not split arched and vaulted roof supports; and

• Retain any large single storey volumes without the insertion of new floors or partition walls.

N/A

13 Re-pointing work should normally be carried out using a lime mortar mix in line with the Guidance issues by the Society of the Protection of Ancient Buildings. Joints should be finished flush with the brick stonework and then brushed back to expose the edges of the brick / stonework. Existing joints should be raked out by hand and no bolsters or cutting discs should be used.

Not applicable to this building

14 Satellite dishes and television aerials should be sited away from prominent elevations and not above the ridgeline. If the proposal involves the conversion of more than one building, consideration should be given to the potential for

Noted

13

sharing a single satellite dish and television aerial mast sited in an unobtrusive position. Additional lighting should be kept to a minimum and should use lamps of a simple design

15 All existing rainwater goods in cast iron should be retained or replaced with matching items in cast iron or other suitable cast metal products. The replacement of cast iron rainwater goods with uPVC, for example, will not normally be acceptable. Vent and soil pipes should be sited internally and should not project above the level of the roof space. Appropriately designed and coloured ridge and tile vents should be used to disguise the ends of the pipe.

Noted

16 Existing walls, fences, drinking troughs and other features associated with the use of the building should be retained in situ wherever possible. Any new features should respect the character and appearance of existing features on the site

Noted

Marketing

The Local estate agents, Weale and Hitchen, have been advertising the property for

sale for several months since when there has been no interest. It is also by no

means clear what commercial uses would be acceptable to the LPA here.

Despite the attempts to sell or rent the property for commercial purposes it is

noteworthy that the Government’s National Planning Policy framework contains no

such requirement. In addition the Council’s Core Strategy policy requires only

marketing to take place in terms of barns. The application building is not a barn. No

doubt one reason for the lack of interest in re-use for commercial purposes is the

very large amount of alternative space both in the Valley generally (see

accompanying document).

The Borough Council produces a Business Property Register containing a vast

range of buildings for sale and rent, of varying sizes, in every part of Rossendale.

14

But in any event the NPPF makes it clear that the preferred use of rural buildings for

commercial purposes is now no longer Government advice. The LPA will also be

aware of the Local Government Association advice to LPAs to ensure that Local

plans and policies are compatible with the NPPF. Its document contains the

following:-

What NPPF expects local

plans to include to deliver its

objectives

Questions to help understand

whether your local plan

includes what NPPF expects

In rural areas housing should be

located where it will enhance or

maintain the vitality of rural

communities.

Examples of special

circumstances to allow new

isolated homes listed at para 55

(note, previous requirement

about requiring economic

use first has gone).

Similar approvals

The LPA has approved similar conversions to residential use in recent years. The

following are some approved within the last 4 years and when the LPA operated a

far more restrictive policy than now.

Application no Details Approval date Allocation Decision

2005/526 Conversion of barns at Cock Hall farm, Whitworth

2006. Feb Green belt committee

2006/248 Conversion of agricultural repair building to dwelling, Tunstead

2006. June Green Belt Committee (contrary to officer recommendation)

2006/587 Lower Stack Farm, off New Line, Bacup Conversion of barns to dwellings

2006. 5Dec Countryside Committee

2007/764 White Horse public Countryside Committee

15

house to 2 dwellings

2007/737 Pack Horse former garage, Edenfield to 10 residences

2007. 12 Dec Countryside Committee

2008/0022 Crawshaw Hall barn

2008. 2 June Countryside Delegated

2008/0156 Pack Horse Barn, Edenfield to 9 residences

2008. 2 Dec Countryside Delegated

2008/241 Conversion of barn to dwelling, Hargreaves Fold Farm North, Burnley Road East

2008. 23 May Countryside Delegated

2008/0394

Honey Hole farm and barns

2008 Countryside

2008/0366 Lower Barn, Clough End, Rising Bridge. Conversion of dwelling into two

2008. 22 Dec Green Belt Inspectorate

2008/0778 Kirk Hill, Haslingden. Barn conversion to dwelling

2009. 6 Aug Countryside Inspectorate

2008/0704 Reddish Hill Farm, Shawforth. Conversion of buildings inc former dairy to dwellings

2009. 6 Feb Green Belt Delegated (After earlier consideration by committee)

2009/0019 Hedges Barn, Broadclough, Bacup Conversion to dwelling

2009. 1 May Countryside Committee

2009/0165 Crawshaw Hall pump house

2009. 20 Oct Countryside delegated

2012/0117 Stables at Hud Hey Road, Rising Bridge

2012. 27 April Countryside Committee

2012/0304 Dyke Barn Farm, Broadclough, Bacup

2012 13 July Countryside Delegated

The following references from the above are particularly pertinent to the application

2006/248. Conversion of agricultural repair building to dwelling, Tunstead

The approval relates to a then fairly recently built agricultural repair building,

constructed in coursed stone and with a slate roof. Its use for agricultural repairs had

recently ceased. Members took the view that it was better to find a new use for the

building rather than allow it to fall into disrepair. The circumstances are very similar

to the current application excepting that the agricultural repair building is in Green

Belt where more stringent policy constraints normally apply: the former equestrian

building is in a Countryside area as delineated on the District Plan.

The approval notice contains the following reason for the decision:

16

The conversion of a building is in accordance with Greenbelt policy and the creation

of one additional unit will not materially add to the oversupply of housing within the

borough. The proposed development will not impact adversely upon the amenity of

the neighbouring residents in accordance with Policy DC1 of the Rossendale District

Local Plan

2007/764 Change of use of former White Horse public house to 2 dwellings

Reason for approval of this change of use in a Countryside area:

The Council considers that the circumstances exist to warrant permitting the

proposed conversion to two dwellings as an exception to Policies 5 and 12 of the

Joint Lancashire Structure Plan and the Council's Interim Housing Policy Statement

as the application provides for the sympathetic conversion of a building that may

otherwise become further dilapidated, to the detriment of visual and neighbour

amenity. Nor will the proposed development result in significant detriment to highway

safety or in respect of any other material planning consideration.

2008/0778. Conversion of barn to dwelling, Kirk Hill, Haslingden

The Planning Inspector, when allowing this appeal in August, 2009, opined:-

Government advice in Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in

Rural Areas (PPS7) supports the re-use of appropriately located and suitably

constructed existing buildings in the countryside where this would meet sustainable

development objectives. In this instance the appeal site is accessible to services in

Haslingden. The barn is physically suitable for conversion, its character would be

retained in the proposed design and there would be no harm to the appearance of

the surrounding countryside. I consider therefore that the proposal would accord with

the guidance in PPS7 and LP Policy DS5.

Existing planning policies and guidance focus new housing and associated

physical and community infrastructure within areas of low demand and poor

quality housing but they do not go so far as to seek a blanket ban on

development outside these areas. Indeed, in this particular instance, PPS7, LP

Policy DS5 and the IHPS all give positive support to the proposal. From a

practical point of view a single dwelling would have an insignificant impact on

overall housing supply….

17

2009/0019 Hedges Barn, Broadclough, Bacup

The Decision Notice, issued as recently as May 2009, gives the following reasons for

approval:-

It is considered that the development satisfies the requirements of policies DS5,

DC1, and DC4 of the Rossendale District Local Plan. It is considered,

notwithstanding the Council's policies with regard to Housing Supply and Interim

Housing Policy Statement (July 2008) that the creation of additional dwelling can be

justified in this instance in the interests of the archaeological/historic significance of

the building and maintenance of the surrounding countryside. Furthermore, it is

considered that the proposed dwelling would help retain the character of the building

and would be in keeping with the character of the area. It is considered that the

proposed development would not unduly affect the amenities of neighbouring

properties or highway safety. It is therefore considered that the proposal accords

with the SPD - Alterations and Extensions to Residential Properties and the criteria

of the saved Policy DS5, DC1 and DC4 of the Rossendale District Local Plan

2008/704. Conversions at Reddish Hill farm, Shawforth

The Decision Notice gives the following reasons for this approval in Green Belt:

The Council considers that, on balance, it is appropriate to grant permission for the

proposed development in light of prevailing housing policy and Green

Belt/Countryside policy. The Council is satisfied that, subject to conditions, the

proposed development will not result in unacceptable detriment to the landscape,

neighbour amenity, highway safety or any other material consideration

Planning appeal decision. High Valley stables, Conway road, Rawtenstall

APP/B2355/A/10/2126708

The Planning Inspector concluded, in her decision of 10 August, 2010:-

Location of a dwelling / Housing land provision

13. The appeal site is located within the countryside and as discussed above policy

DS. 5 restricts development outside the urban boundary although in some

circumstances it accepts the re-use of buildings. The Council has also produced an

Interim Housing Policy Statement, dated May 2010. This has been produced to

18

provide guidance on how the Council intends to manage the release of housing land

prior to the adoption of its Local Development

Framework (LDF). This updates an earlier Interim Housing Policy Statement

dated July 2008. The Interim Policy Statement follows the thrust of LP policy

DS.5 in terms of restricting new residential development outside the urban

boundary of settlements in Rossendale for agricultural or forestry workers and

also for affordable or supported housing.

14. The appellant argues that the Council has not got a five year supply of housing

land as required by PPS3. The actual provision required was set out in the North

West of England Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021 but Regional

Strategies have now been revoked. The Council indicates that it monitors its

supply through the LDF Annual Monitoring Report and its housing targets have been

consulted on as part of the Core Strategy consultation process.

15. However, whether the Council has a five year supply of housing land is not, in

my view, a determining factor in this case, at this time. Whilst I have

considered this as a material consideration, the proposal would be for just one

dwelling and I do not consider that it would undermine the Council’s ability to

plan, monitor and manage its supply of housing across the Borough in

accordance with PPS3.

16. The site is outside the urban area and there is no suggestion that the dwelling

would accommodate agricultural or forestry workers or provide affordable and/or

supported housing. However, the Interim Housing Policy Statement accepts that

small scale Greenfield proposals will be considered and supported on their merits in

appropriate and sustainable locations. Although this site is outside a settlement, the

Council has not argued its unsustainability.

Furthermore, as discussed above, the Council’s SPD accepts conversion of rural

buildings subject to establishing that a non-residential use is not needed or unviable.

17. In conclusion on this issue, whilst the proposal would introduce a dwelling in the

countryside I do not consider that it would be inconsistent with local and

national policies in terms of the Council’s ability to manage the supply of

housing land. Furthermore, I do not consider that it would set any kind of

precedent for new dwellings in the countryside.

19

Planning approval for conversion to a dwelling. High Valley stables, Conway road,

Rawtenstall

Application 2011/0050 was subsequently approved for the following stated reason:-

Planning approval for conversion of stables to a dwelling at Hud Hey Road, Rising

Bridge

Application 2012/0117 was approved for the following reasons:

Planning approval for conversion of former garage to a dwelling at Dyke Barn Farm,

Bacup

Application 2012/0304

The LPA file report concludes as follows:-

Policy 1 of the adopted Core Strategy DPD states that as part of the Council’s overall

development approach:

The Council will seek to enhance the quality and sustainability of places and

individual developments by taking into account the following criteria when preparing

LDF documents and considering individual planning applications:

• Make best use of under-used, vacant and derelict land and buildings

Policy 2 supports the conversion of rural ‘barn’ buildings if it can be demonstrated

that the site has been marketed for economic uses for 12 months, to the satisfaction

of the Council and is not viable for these purposes

20

The development is not considered inappropriate in principle and, subject to the

conditions, will not detract to an unacceptable extent from the essentially open and

rural character of the Countryside, nearby Listed Building, neighbour amenity or

highway safety. It is considered that the development is in accordance with Section 6

/ 7 / 11 OF THE National Planning Policy Framework, Policies RDF2 / RT2 / RT4 /

EM1 of the Regional Spatial Strategy, Policies 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 8 / 16 / 23 / 24 of

the adopted Core Strategy DPD 2011, and the Council’s Conversion and Re-Use of

Existing Buildings in the Countryside SPD (2010)

Layout

The design has been influenced by the following factors and aims:-

To ensure that the proposed new dwelling does not unduly affect the simple

nature of the existing rural building;

To provide for adequate car parking and turning areas;

To ensure that the proposed dwellings has a reasonable and proportionate

curtilage but not at the expense of the amenities of the locality.

To provide for an area for bins;

To utilise the existing access.

Scale

The proposal is a conversion of an existing single storey building. All external walls

would remain as existing. The roof would remain untouched. There are no

extensions proposed.

Appearance and Privacy

There are no properties close enough to be affected by the proposal from an

adverse impact on privacy point of view.

21

The proposal deliberately seeks to retain existing openings. The building would

continue to appear as a “rural building” and its character as a building previously

used for the stabling of horses would be retained. Natural stone walls and a blue

slate roof for the extension would match the existing building.

Landscaping and Boundaries

Garden areas would include top soil and would be seeded. Paths around the

property would be natural stone flags.

Access & Car Parking

The proposed vehicular access is from New Barn Lane and is as existing. Car

parking spaces are proposed adjacent to the building in accordance with car parking

standards.

Conclusions

The building has been marketed for commercial purposes without any

interest. The NPPF and Rossendale Core Strategy policies do not require

any marketing (the SPD has limited weight in decision making terms).

The site is brownfield taking into account the definition in the NPPF

There is an opportunity in this instance to re-use the building as a dwelling

with minimal alteration.

The site is in an accessible location. It is not in a remote countryside location

and is close to the settlement boundary for Rawtenstall and close to a

neighbourhood centre on Bury Road, a primary school off Lomas Lane,

leisure and employment facilities at New Hall Hey, Rawtenstall Town Centre &

a supermarket off Bury Road.

The building is structurally sound.

The Council have approved other conversions for residential purposes in

other parts of Rossendale in recent times particularly in instances where

22

residential use was the only feasible option from a retention and re-use point

of view

The proposal accords with national, regional and local policies.

The proposal is acceptable in all respects and therefore the Council is asked

to approve planning permission having regard to the “presumption in favour of

sustainable development”.