SP1 – Outside the Built-up Area, planning permission will only be given for (among other things) development appropriate to the countryside and, where it meets an identified need. In this instance, the site accommodates a pair of substantial industrial / storage sheds. Neither of the structures has any intrinsic merit and the proximity of the shed to the existing house could be problematic in amenity terms if the use of the shed intensified. As it is, however, the current use of the shed is not resulting in any unreasonable loss of amenity to nearby residents. The erection of a well-designed, traditionally formed residential development to provide 4 new homes to replace both structures is considered more appropriate to the site and to the wider built context. SP2 – Development should make the most efficient and effective use of land, energy, water resources and buildings. New development should secure the highest viable resource efficiency in terms of the re-use of existing land and buildings. In this instance, it is noted that the existing shed on site is in commercial use and capable of still being used for commercial purposes. The replacement of an entirely useable structure is not considered to represent the most efficient and effective use of the land, but, in this instance, the planning history of the site is pertinent in that previous determinations have not considered the loss of the sheds as being unacceptable. SP3 – A sequential approach to the assessment of development proposals will be taken in order to support a more sustainable pattern of development and the more efficient and effective use of land, energy and buildings. The sequential approach favours development within the Built-up Area and seeks to dissuade unnecessary or inappropriate development within the Green Zone. In this instance, a balance has to be struck between the siting of two large commercial sheds, which themselves would be better suited to an Industrial Site within the Built up Area, and the erection of a less intense form of development like the submitted proposals. The Department considers that the balance tips in favour of allowing a well-designed and modest residential development to replace the sheds. Policy SP3 is, accordingly, not considered to be unreasonably conflicted. GD 1 – Outlines the material considerations against which all development proposals will be tested, including the need for the highest standard of design and construction and the need to prevent unreasonable harm to neighbour amenity or to the character of an area. In this instance, the proposed new dwellings are orientated and designed in such a way as to minimise the potential for any unreasonable impact upon neighbour amenity. The design standard is considered to be good. GD 2 – In the case of replacement buildings, the new buildings must enhance the appearance of the site and surroundings and should be seen to replace a building that is not appropriate to repair or refurbish. In this instance, it is clear that the new buildings would be a substantial improvement over the design and appearance of the existing structures on site. GD7 - Requires a high quality of design that respects, conserves and contributes positively to the landscape and built context. In this instance, the quality of design is of a good standard. NE7 – Presumption against the redevelopment of commercial sites, but that exceptions may be made where it would give rise to substantial environmental gains and a significant contribution to the character of the area. This is considered to be case here, with substantial improvements to the site and landscape restoration being an integral part of the proposal. NE7 is not, therefore considered to be unreasonably compromised by the proposal. E1 – Presumes against the loss of employment land unless it is demonstrated that the site is inappropriate for any employment use to continue or where the existing use is generating environmental problems such as noise, pollution or unacceptable levels of traffic. In this instance, the Department accepts that the site is not currently operating as a ‘bad-neighbour’ and that the loss of employment land is contrary to Policy E1. However, as outlined in the remainder of this report, the Department does consider that there are substantial mitigating circumstances surrounding both the detail of this application and the history that has led to its submission. The loss of employment land is, therefore, not considered to be the determinative factor in this case. |