Conversion and extension of existing mill building to form a single dwelling with associated landscaping, garaging and new vehicle entrance

Refusal Reasons

• ✗The site is not zoned for development and the building is not within a named settlement and in accordance with the settlement hierarchy, would encourage unsustainable development. Accordingly it is considered contrary to Strategic Policy 2 and 10 and also Spatial Policy 4, of the Strategic Plan.
• ✗Although an argument could be made that the existing building is of sufficient interest to warrant its retention and conversion, the extent of the structural works required with the intervention to the fabric of the building to make the structure sound coupled with the unacceptable upwards extension, the overbearing rear extension, the inappropriate modifications to the exiting apertures and spread of hard standing and domestic curtilage would have a significant and adverse impact on the original appearance, character, historic interest and materials of the original building contrary to General Policy 3 (b) and Housing Policy 4b and Housing Policy 11.
• ✗The proposed extension is much larger than 50% which results in a built form that would not be subordinate to the existing building and would be viewed as inappropriate development which would see a loss of its individual character which does not respect the proportion, form and appearance of the existing Mill property and would be contrary to Housing Policy 15.
• ✗The application site is not zoned for development and is within an area of countryside. The proposed alterations and extensions and the subsequent introduction of large areas of hard standing would result in an unacceptable visual impact on the wider rural landscape and countryside setting of the site contrary to Environment Policy 1 and paragraphs 8.10.1 and 8.10.2.
• ✗The design, size and scale of the proposed extension, and its finishes, are not sympathetic to the rural character of the area and is considered over development with an adverse visual impact that affects the character of the setting, contrary to Strategic Policy 5 and General Policy 2 (b & c) of the Strategic Plan.
• ✗The use of the proposed entrance in a safe and appropriate manner would create an adverse impact on the existing highway or upon those users entering and or exiting the site contrary to the principles of General Policy 2(h&I) and Transport Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan (2016).
• ✗The proposed loss of trees would adversely affect the character and would detrimentally affect the public amenity value of this collection of trees where the proposals do not enhance or protect the landscape quality and nature conservation value to this site and hence the proposal is contrary Environment Policy 3 and Strategic Policy 4(b) of the Strategic Plan (2016).
• ✗There is insufficient information available to understand the impact of the development on the adjacent watercourse contrary to Environment Policy 7 and General Policy 2l.