DCS Ref: 100-066-516 Written reps Year of Decision: 2010 Inspector: B WILKINSON
County: WEST MIDLANDS Summary of Decision: DISMISSED
Description:
Single dwelling from redundant stables part of small group connected with canal in Green Belt. Site also within a Site of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCI) and canal within a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and Special Area of Conservation (SAC) but any harm anecdotal. However, little of roof structure remains and proposal includes a new roof , internal walls and ancillary works, unbricking of existing doors and windows and small rear extension Decides works amount to a major reconstruction with new roof and extension affecting openness. Proposal would constitute an encroachment into isolated countryside ; appearing as an incongruous and intrusive feature. Harm increased by domestic activity and paraphernalia with increased car travel likely in poorly sustainable location. Some weight to local listing and present use for drink and drug abuse but not outweigh harm from conversion. Abstract:
The conversion of redundant stables adjacent to a canal in the West Midlands was rejected due to harm to the green belt and the character and appearance of the area.
An inspector considered that extensive roof works and a rear extension meant that the building would have a materially greater impact on the openness of the green belt. He observed that the cluster of buildings on both sides of the canal was separated from the village by an extensive open area which included grassland, woodland, ponds and a canal. He held that the overall impression would be of a house rather than a canal building. It would be markedly different in appearance from the houses across the canal, he opined, and would be the only dwelling on one side of the stretch of canal. He took the view that the introduction of a new dwelling in the open, rural, and isolated location would be an incongruous and intrusive feature.
Noting that the site was more than 300m from the nearest public road and more than that again to most shops and village services the inspector also considered that the development would not accord with the principles of sustainable development.
The appellant argued that the development would allow the retention of a building of some historic importance. Although not subject to national listing the building was locally listed for its historic value and the inspector was informed that buildings of the kind were rare. Both the Inland Waterways Association and British Waterways endorsed the development as a means of retaining the building. The inspector reasoned, however, that the proposal would significantly change the appearance of the building, it was unlikely that members of the public would be able to visit it, and it had not been shown that there was no other feasible way of retaining the building and allowing the public some access to it.
COMPASS Index Terms | Issue Codes | | 020 | | Increased car reliance argument | | 470 | | SSSI's. | | 474 | | SAC Special Area of Conservation | | 551 | | Character or setting of locally listed building | | 562 | | Viability of old building | | 565 | | Where development argued as being 'tantamount to a substantial reconstruction/creation of new building' | | 911 | | Crime | | 912 | | Anti social behaviour or rowdyism | | |
| Development Codes | | 500 | | Conventional house(s | | |
| Unit Codes | | 10 | | Single house | | |
| Proposal Codes | | 942 | | Horsiculture - Change of use | | |
| Site Codes | | 010 | | Open countryside only - Post August 06 cases | | |
|
