Agenda item

Demolition of agricultural barn and erection of passivhaus dwelling.

The Planning Officer introduced the report and explained that the application was for the demolition of an agricultural barn and the erection of a new dwelling to a passivhaus standard. She informed the Committee that the current barn had been granted prior approval for conversion to a residential dwelling under class Q of the general development order in 2020.

She informed the committee of the main points of the application which included:

• The site was located off Summer Street in Stroud and sat just outside of the settlement boundary.
• The site was in close proximity to a number of listed building (to the south) and to the AONB.
• The proposed building would have a reduction in size to the original footprint of the barn.

The Planning Officer further informed the Committee of the main issues to consider which included:

• The principle of development.
• The appearance and visual impact.
• The site sat outside the settlement limits which meant it was considered to be in the open countryside.
• The application did not meet any exceptions set out in policy CP15 of the local plan.
• The application conflicted with policies CP2 and CP3 of the local plan.
• There was a fallback position of the class Q development for the conversion, which was a material consideration.

The Planning Officer concluded by explaining:

• Due to the location of the site which was located on the edge of the Stroud settlement, and the fallback position, there would be limited harm in relation to the location.
• The scale and appearance would be similar to the existing building. 
• The domestic curtilage had been reduced.
• No objections were received following consultation which was ongoing.
• The dwelling was proposed to meet passivhaus standards.

Mr and Mrs Kingdom, the applicants, spoke in support of the application. They asked the committee to support the application for the following reasons:

• After researching the conversion, they realised the home would not achieve the levels of energy efficiency sought.
• They followed the existing roof shape and retained the timber cladding in order to retain the existing characteristics of the barn.
• 25% of the mass of the building was removed in order to create a courtyard.
• The proposed house would be 25 times more energy efficient during its lifetime and the passivhaus standards would mean it required almost no heating.
• The current barn was not required as they grazed with small numbers of hardy breeds.
• They would be working with other land owners and the wildlife trust to increase biodiversity and natural habitats including the creation of a wildlife corridor.
• They had begun work with Stroud District Council (SDC) to install natural flood defences along their stretch of the Slade Brooke.

The Planning Officer gave the following responses to Councillors questions:

• The change of use would only relate to the red line of the application site on the plans which would protect the new proposed curtilage.
• If there was a reason that the development would not be acceptable if it wasn’t a passivhaus, then a condition could be placed to ensure passivhaus standards were met.
• There were a number of recommendations made by the biodiversity team. One was for a home information pack due to the site being within the catchment area for the beechwood commons which had been conditioned.

Councillors debated the weight of the passivhaus standards in relation to the application and whether they felt it necessary to condition those standards as part of the application.

Councillor Ryder raised a point that the consultation of the application advertised the passivhaus standards which carried substantial weight in the community and should be a determining factor.

The Development Team Manager reminded the committee of their powers and the Local Plan Policy CP14 which the application would relate to most. He also reminded the Committee of their ability to use informatives within a decision as well as conditions.

Councillor Brown supported the use of an informative in the approval which referenced CP14 and its principles.

Councillor Brown proposed the Officer advice with the addition of an informative which would relate to policy CP14 and passivhaus standards. Councillor Ryder seconded. Councillor Ryder expressed his disappointment that the passivhaus standards could not be conditioned.

Councillor Smith stated that it was important for the record to state the nature of the particularities of this application. It was relevant as to why they were making this judgement as opposed to other applications which may come in the future situated in the open countryside.

After being put to a vote, the Motion was carried unanimously.