Reference number:
R15/0862
Site address:
Buildings at Priory Road (Priory Farm),
Priory Road,
Wolston,
CV8 3FX
Description :
Prior notification of intention to convert 3 existing agricultural buildings to form 3 no. Residential units
Case Officer Name & Number:
Ruari McKee – 01788 533489
Site description
The site is located towards the edge of the village of Wolston. The site sits between the listed Wolston Priory and an associated Scheduled Ancient Monument, but the appropriate checks have revealed the site to be separate from both. The barns are a much later addition than the Priory. There are a number of farms in and around Priory Road.
The site consists of three barns arranged around a courtyard. The site is enclosed to the eastern edge by the barn that has already been converted and is in a different ownership. To the sites northern and western boundary are open fields. To the sites southern elevation is a housing estate, from where the site has direct vehicular access and 80 houses are being built on a field diagonally opposite. A vehicular access runs through the adjacent field and serves to provide a boundary between the barns and the Ancient Monument.
The site is currently used for agricultural purposes in support of cattle farming. The buildings are of traditional construction of some character, but have fallen into a state of disrepair.
Proposal Description
Conversion of three agricultural barns to residential usage under a Prior Approval Application. This will largely involve refurbishment consisting of internal and external alterations as would be expected of such a proposal. The proposed materials are in keeping with the original.
Each property will have two parking spaces; for barn 1, this will be within the main courtyard itself and for barn 2s and 3 parking provision will be provided through 2 adjoining garages
Barn 1 – external footprint 83 sqm, curtilage shown 83sqm
Barn 2 – external footprint 200 sqm, curtilage shown 157 sqm
Barn 3 – external footprint 168 sqm, curtilage shown 97.3sqm.
Relevant Planning History
N/A
Technical Consultation Responses
WCC Highways- No objection with condition
RBC Environmental Health – No objection with condition
RBC Ecology – No objection subject to bat note
Environment Agency- No objection as barns are in Flood Zone 1
Third Party Responses
Historic England – WCC Archaeology (a non-statutory consultee for a Prior Approval Application) stated that they wished to comment on 01/05/2015. No comments were received so they were asked for any comments on 18/05/15. Received comments from Historic England on 20/05/2015, which is after the consultation period ended (19/05/2015). The end of the 56 day determination period was 21/05/2015 after which the applicant could proceed with the works by default. Please note that there is no requirement to consult Historic England for a prior approval application and they were consulted to ensure compliance with Q.1 (l) only and their concerns were addressed.
Neighbours – No objections received
Councillors- No objections received
Relevant Planning Policies and Guidance
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 No. 596 Class Q
Determining Considerations
The application is for Prior Approval under Class Q of the Order, it is not a Planning Application and as such must be assessed against specific criteria to establish whether or not prior approval is required.
Assessment of proposals
Q1 (a) The building is currently in agricultural usage (as confirmed by site visit)
(b-k)- Following engagement with the agent, the proposal is confirmed to be compliant with the legislation.
(l)
The site itself is not an Ancient Monument and the site does not contain an Ancient Monument. An ancient monument is adjacent to the site. WCC Archaeology were consulted to confirm the relationship to the Ancient Monument. They suggested Historic England were consulted. Historic England raised concerns that the proposed curtilage of barn 2 crossed over the Ancient Monument to the North West. The applicant’s agent sent in amended plans on 21/05/2015 to resolve this, thus addressing their concern. The proposed curtilages are a sufficient distance away from the Ancient Monument to not conflict with it and are a similar distance as gardens for other properties surrounding the monument. Therefore, Historic England’s concern was addressed.
This was confirmed through conducting a Fastplanning cartology search and through consulting the original Historic England map showing the extent of the Ancient Monument. (Screenshots and the original Historic England map have been uploaded to the application folder to demonstrate this.) According to these maps the track that runs through the field provides the boundary between the Ancient Monument and the proposed curtilage, therefore the application is compliant.
In summary, the proposed is compliant with the requirements for a Prior Approval Application.
(m)
The ‘Prior Approval’ legislation states that Prior Approval is required if “The building is a listed building”. This is deemed to refer to the barns themselves (it is not listed), although consideration has also been given as to whether the barns are curtilage listed. The barns are not within the curtilage of the nearby listed building.
Nearby barns closer to the Priory have been demolished, suggesting they are not protected but this was investigated further. In consideration of whether the barns are curtilage listed- this has been investigated by checking RBC and Heritage England records, through engagement with the agent in regards to site history and ownership and through a thorough examination of case law from the IHBC website.
Case law defines three specific criteria for defining a curtilage listed building: ownership, physical relationship and usage. The key test of curtilage listing is deemed to be whether the buildings are ancillary to the listed building. This is because, in case law, the Heritage England ‘1947 rule’ on curtilage listing only applies if the building is ancillary to the main listed building at the time of listing (and potentially 1969- an issue unresolved in case law) and if it affects the character of the listed building.
It is believed that the barns were in agricultural usage (for a separate landowner) at the time of the Priory’s listing in 1951 (and therefore 1969), thus in case law they are not considered to be curtilage listed because they were not ancillary- defined as ‘serving the main house’- to the listed building at the time of listing.
There is substantial physical separation between the barns and the Priory. When viewed from above, the topography of the barns are more closely related to the adjacent field than the Priory, especially as the barns have a direct access point to the adjacent field but no link to the Priory. The barns have a non-linear relationship to the Priory- the barns are orientated towards the road, not the Priory. There is a neighbouring barn which is curtilage listed because it is deemed ancillary to the Priory as it is believed to have been previously used as storage for the Priory (and is currently being used as offices). This is in contrast to the agricultural usage of the barns this Prior Approval Application concerns, which is not ancillary.
The converted barn has a physical and visual connection to the Priory through a shared vehicular access, the building only being accessible on foot via the Priory’s curtilage and its orientation faces the Priory, thus it is listed as alterations to it would affect the setting of the Priory due to the land the converted barn and Priory share. A Prior Approval Application does not consider the setting of a listed building, even so as the curtilage listed barn has been converted to residential then the change of use from agricultural use of the barns to be converted will not affect the setting of the barn but bring the surroundings more into line with the converted barn.
The barns have their own courtyard and associated grassed areas to the north (separated from the Priory by a tall wall), west and south which in case law is deemed to make them independent from the listed building because they are deemed to be enclosed within their own curtilage. Even if the barns were considered as previously part of the original grounds: “A subsidiary building that might have been within the curtilage of a principle building in large grounds will probably be considered to not be within that curtilage once it has been enclosed within its own curtilage” (IHBC, 2015). The barns this application relates to have no direct pedestrian or vehicular access to the Priory, are not clearly visible from the Priory and are physically separated from the Priory by the tall wall to the north of the barns thus they are within their own curtilage and have no physical relationship which would affect the character or setting of the Priory. Therefore, based on the different ownership, usage and physical separation the barns are not deemed to be curtilage listed.
Prior approval does not take account of any effect on the setting of a listed building and as the barns are physically separate and not considered ancillary to the listed building based on usage and ownership, this application is deemed to be compliant.
(a) transport and highways impacts of the development,
Compliant. WCC Highways raised no objection but recommended standard conditions for a development of this sort.
(b) noise impacts of the development
Compliant. Environmental Health requested a standard advisory note with regards to noise during the construction period.
(c) contamination risks on the site
Compliant. The Environment Agency had no comment to make
(d) flooding risks on the site,
Compliant. The Environment Agency has no comment to make as the site is within Flood Zone 1
(e) whether the location or siting of the building makes it otherwise impractical or undesirable for the building to change from agricultural use to a use falling within Class C3 (dwellinghouses) of the Schedule to the Use Classes Order.
The site is located on the edge of a residential area. With residential development opposite the Priory in progress, the area could be deemed to be more residential than rural. This location is deemed to be appropriate, especially as an adjacent barn closer to the Priory has already been converted.
Historic England’s response was received after the end of the consultation period and they did not undertake a site visit but their concerns have been addressed in line with Prior Approval regulations. Historic England raised concerns that the proposal is undesirable as it will affect the character of the area. After consulting senior officers, there is no set definition of ‘undesirable’ within a Prior Approval Application as the legislation doesn’t specify what it includes. The Prior Approval legislation covers the issues of listed buildings and ancient monuments in sections l and m. In case law an ‘impractical or undesirable’ location is deemed to refer to issues of residential amenity i.e. when the buildings proposed for conversion are too close to intensive agricultural uses such as next to poultry barns, storage of chemicals or waste expected of a working farm.
There is extensive residential development surrounding the listed building and ancient monument- such as the new housing estate being constructed opposite the Priory-, there is already a converted barn closer to and visible from the Priory (which provides a direct comparison and could be seen as a precedent) and the footprint of the buildings are not being increased (Prior Approval only allows minor works).
As this is not a planning application and Historic England are not considered to be a statutory consultee for Prior Approval Applications, Historic England can only advise. The barns are not themselves listed or an ancient monument and are therefore deemed compliant with the regulations. Historic England’s concerns have been addressed to the extent that a Prior Approval Application allows and anything else is beyond the scope of a Prior Approval application.
(f) the design or external appearance of the building,
As the proposal only involves cosmetic improvements expected of a refurbishment, there are no design alterations of note, therefore it is compliant. The proposal will be of an appropriate appearance as the proposed materials are in keeping with the original.
Due to the dilapidated state of the barns, this proposal will enable their refurbishment and therefore will substantially enhance the appearance of the buildings.
In summary, based on the evidence available the proposal is deemed to be compliant with the wording of the Class Q legislation and all factors which can be considered within the scope of a Prior Approval Application have been investigated and satisfied. Therefore, the application is compliant with Class Q.
Recommendation:
Prior approval required and approved
Report prepared by: Ruari McKee
Report Sheet