Self-build countryside house at Owl Barn, Terrington St Clement, King's Lynn

The site and its history

The countryside site was about 870 metres from the village boundary, and an earlier Class Q consent could no longer be carried out after the barn collapsed.

“The application site approximately 0.22ha in size, located within the countryside, approximately 870m (straight line distance) north of the development boundary of Terrington St Clement. Terrington St Clement is classified as a Tier 4 settlement, under the settlement hierarchy of LP01 of the Local Plan 2021-2040.”

“The site has recent planning history which is material to the determination of the application. The site had consent under Class Q to convert a barn on the site to a dwellinghouse. However, it was discovered during a site visit that large part of the former agricultural barn on this site has collapsed. Therefore, the permitted development right granted under 22/01019/PACU3 has fallen away and can no longer be carried out. The development is therefore for a new dwellinghouse.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the proposal conflicted with countryside and sustainable-development policies and its flood-risk benefits did not outweigh the risks.

“The proposal would effectively constitute the residential re-development of a parcel of countryside which would be contrary to the development plan. Given the agricultural building has been demolished to a large extent, the prior approval consent 22/01019/PACU3 can no longer provide a fall-back position and in the officer's opinion, there are no material considerations that would outweigh the in-principle policy objection.”

“The agricultural building has been demolished, in part, and is therefore incapable of conversion without substantial rebuilding. Therefore, this proposal would result in a new dwelling sited within the countryside and in an isolated location. Isolated dwellings are generally not supported in national and local plan policies.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The parish council and consultees raised no objections, while highways highlighted the remote location and reliance on private cars, and the Environment Agency required flood mitigation.

“The proposed development site is however 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 is shown to be within Flood Zone 3 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map for Planning (Rivers and Sea) and is therefore at high risk of flooding. In addition, the site is shown to flood to depth of up to 100mm in the event of a breach of the flood defences of the tidal River Ouse, as shown on the Environment Agency's tidal hazard mapping.”

Officer report

Public support

Two comments supported the proposal because the grounds had improved, wildlife had increased and the site was being maintained.

“TWO comments received in SUPPORT. The comments are as follows:”

“Increase of wildlife due to improving the property and the grounds. • The land on which the barn sits is kept tidy and maintained. • The application is a good alternative to the barn falling into disrepair.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A supporting speaker and Councillor Squire addressed the committee in support of the application.

What members debated

Members discussed the previous Class Q consent, the barn’s structural collapse, differing flood-risk treatment and the benefits of self-build.

“The Committee made reference to the planning history, noting previous Class Q consent for two dwellings on the site and the subsequent collapse of the barn due to structural issues. Members debated the difference in policy considerations between Class Q and the current application, with several Councillors highlighting the inconsistency in flood risk acceptance between the two routes.”

“Several Members expressed support for the application, citing the precedent set by previous approvals, the lack of objections from statutory consultees, and the benefits of self-build.”

Minutes

The vote

The proposal to approve the application with conditions was carried unanimously.

“It was proposed by Councillor de Winton and seconded by Councillor de Whalley that the application should be approved on the grounds that significant weight had been given to the previous Class Q approval, and it met the need of self-build.”

“The Democratic Services Officer then carried out a roll call on the proposal to approve the application, with conditions to be imposed following consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair and, having been put to the vote was carried unanimously.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee approved the application against the officer recommendation because the site’s planning history and the self-build provision outweighed the policy objections.

“RESOLVED: That the application be approved, contrary to recommendation, for the following reasons:”

“Significant weight is given to the planning history of the site along with the provision of custom and self-build which together outweigh the policy objections to the proposal.”

Minutes