Planning and Heritage Statement

Page | 1

Planning and Heritage Statement

Site: Buildings at Dipton House, Corbridge, Northumberland, NE45 5RY

Proposal: Conversion of traditional stone building to residential use (Class

C3) creating 1no. residential dwelling with associated parking.

Applicant: Mr and Mrs Pybus

Date: October 2021

Prepared by

23 Grey Street Newcastle upon Tyne

NE1 6EE

Document Ref. PYB90078.PS

Contents

1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1

2 Site Context ............................................................................................................... 3

3 Proposed Development ............................................................................................ 6

4 Planning Policy Context ........................................................................................... 9

5 Planning Assessment ............................................................................................. 17

6 Heritage Statement .................................................................................................. 25

7 Summary and Conclusions .................................................................................... 32

Tables Application Documents Table 1.1

Application Drawings Table 1.2

Site Planning History Table 2.1

Relevant CS, LP and NLP Policies Table 4.1

Historic England’s staged approach to decision making Table 6.1

Figures Site Location Plan Figure 2.1

Flood Map for Planning Extract Figure 2.2

Land Ownership Boundary Figure 2.3

Proposed Site Plan Figure 3.1

Proposed Floor Plan Figure 3.2

NLP Minimum Residential Parking Standards Figure 5.1

Historic England Map Extract Figure 6.1

Planning Statement Buildings at Dipton House, Corbridge

1

1 Introduction Overview

1.1 This Planning Statement has been prepared by YoungsRPS Ltd and is submitted in support of

a planning application made to Northumberland County Council (‘the Council’) on behalf of our

client, Mr and Mrs Pybus (‘the applicant’) seeking full permission for the ‘Conversion of a

traditional stone building to residential use (Class C3) creating 1no. residential dwelling with

associated parking’ (‘the proposal’) located north west of Dipton House, Corbridge,

Northumberland NE47 5RY (‘the site’).

1.2 The Statement provides detailed commentary on the application site, its surroundings, and any

relevant planning history before providing a full description of the proposed development. A

summary of relevant national and local planning policies and guidance is then provided before

presenting an assessment of the proposal in the context of adopted planning policy and other

material considerations. Although the building is not protected or covered by any heritage

designations, the Statement also considers the heritage significance of the existing buildings

and assesses the impact of the proposal in this regard.

Application Submission 1.3 In accordance with the Council’s validation requirements and the scoping undertaken as part of

the pre-application consultation process, the application comprises the following submission

documents which should be read in conjunction with this statement:

Table 1.1 – Application Documents

1.4 A comprehensive package of plans and drawings prepared by Elliot Architects is also included

with the application as summarised below:

Table 1.2 – Application Drawings

Submitted Plans Drawing No.

Location Plan 358-0001

Existing Site Plan 358-0002

Proposed Site Plan 358-1001

Document Prepared by

Application Form and Completed Ownership Certificate YoungsRPS

Planning Statement and Heritage Statement YoungsRPS

Contamination Screening Assessment YoungsRPS

Foul Drainage Assessment YoungsRPS

Preliminary Ecological Appraisal and Bat Survey Report OS Ecology

Design and Access Statement (inc. heritage appraisal) Elliot Architects

Structural Inspection Report Topping Engineers


2

Existing Ground Floor Plan 358-0003

Proposed Ground Floor Plan 358-1002

Existing South & West Elevations 358-0003

Proposed South & West Elevations 358-2001

Existing North and East Elevations 358-0005

Proposed North and East Elevations 358-2002

Existing Roof Plan 358-0006

Proposed Roof Plan 358-1003

West Elevation - Sliding Doors 358-2003


3

2 Site Context Site Description

2.1 The application site is located around 3.4km south of Corbridge and 2.8km west of Riding Mill,

forming part of the wider estate at Dipton House and is bound to the north by an unclassified

road which provides vehicular access, although there is also access to Dipton House available

from East Lodge – approximately 500m southeast of the site. The proposal relates to a traditional

stone building originally built as a coach house serving the estate but in more recent times

providing general storage space for the estate management and agricultural and equestrian

activities. Notably, the building is in good structural condition requiring only general repair and

restoration, as confirmed in the Structural Survey included with the application.

2.2 The building forms part of a courtyard with the existing two cottages to the west and private

stables to the north west, all of which is owned by the applicant, with the cottages occupied by

tenants. The larger of the two cottages has always been a dwelling and was extended to the

north in the 1980s. The smaller cottage was converted from a cow byre and extended to the

south in the 1970s. The estate garden grounds of Dipton House surround the buildings and

beyond this there are areas of woodland and agricultural land, much of which is owned by the

applicant (see Figure 2.3).

2.3 The site benefits from existing vehicular access from the unclassified adopted road to the north,

serving the two cottages adjacent and Dipton House. There are no designated heritage assets

which fall within the application boundary or that lie adjacent to the site. However, it was advised

by the Council’s Conservation Officer in response to a pre-application enquiry that the buildings

forming the application site could be regarded as an ‘non-designated heritage asset’.

2.4 A Site Location Plan (site boundary shown in red) has been submitted with the planning

application, as shown in Figure 2.1 below:

Figure 2.1 – Site Location Plan, Bing Maps (not to scale)

Dipton House


4

Flood Risk 2.5 The site lies within Flood Zone 1, as identified on the Environment Agency Flood map for

Planning (Figure 2.2). This categorisation means that the site is considered to have less than

0.1% chance of flooding in any one year.

Figure 2.2 – Flood Map for planning extract (application site outlined in red).

Site Planning History 2.6 There is one account of planning history at Stable Cottage (already in use as a residential

dwelling) which remains physically attached to the part of the building to which this application

relates (T/930835), and this consisted of a First-floor extension. Planning permission was

granted, however, no information is available in respect of heritage considerations in determining

this application.

2.7 There is one account of recorded planning history in proximity to the site, constituting an

approved application proposing alteration to form a staff flat on the 1st floor at Dipton House

(T/74/E/675).

2.8 In advance of the application submission, a Pre-Application Enquiry was submitted to the Council

(21/00181/PREAPP). A formal response to the enquiry was received from the Local Planning

Authority (LPA) on the 15th March 2021. Advice was sought as to whether our client’s proposal

was considered acceptable in principle, namely in the context of local and national planning

policy, and feedback was requested on the design requirements alongside a list of expected

assessment or surveys that would be required to accompany a planning application. The enquiry

included a Concept Design Statement summarising the site context and demonstrating how the

proposal could be delivered.


5

2.9 The council concluded that full planning permission would be required for the proposed

development. It is notable that permitted development rights (Class Q) would have been

applicable if the building retained agricultural usage. However, given the mixed use of the

building this was not considered applicable.

2.10 In summary, the Council advised that the principle of the proposed development is acceptable,

particularly given that the buildings were found to be ‘of permanent and substantial construction’,

with the Tynedale Core Strategy supporting the conversion of existing buildings in the open

countryside to residential dwellings. Detailed design matters were noted as requiring further

consideration at the application stage, with specific reference to heritage considerations.

2.11 The current proposals are the result of a comprehensive design development process informed

by the pre-application feedback and the results of various reports and surveys included with the

application.

Land Ownership 2.12 The site forms part of the wider estate at Dipton House and retains freehold status; it is owned

by the applicants, Mr and Mrs Pybus. Figure 2.3 provides a visual representation of this, with the

land ownership boundary outlined in blue (extending beyond the plan). It is evident that the

applicant’s ownership extends well-beyond the curtilage of the traditional building to be

converted.

Figure 2.3 – Land ownership outlined in Blue - Note boundary extends beyond the plan

(for presentation purposes only)


6

3 Proposed Development Background

3.1 The applicant is proposing to convert an existing building on the estate to a residential dwelling

as part of their succession plans, by which Dipton House will become occupied by the applicant’s

children (who currently live off-site), allowing the applicant to continue to maintain an active role

in managing the estate upon occupying the proposed converted barn. The barn is currently used

for limited storage purposes. The proposal is an opportunity to secure the optimum viable use

for the building, thus safeguarding its future.

Application Proposal 3.2 The applicant is seeking full planning permission for a high-quality residential conversion of a

traditional stone barn to create 1no. 3-bedroomed dwellinghouse (Use Class C3). The proposal

does not involve any extensions to the buildings and no demolitions is proposed. A small area

of amenity space is proposed to the east of the building which is part of the existing estate

gardens. Provision is also made for three car parking bays and a bike store. All existing trees

will be retained.

3.3 The proposed design has been led by a comprehensive appraisal of the heritage significance of

the buildings and historic site context. The accompanying Design and Access Statement

provides a useful visual representation of the proposal. Figure 3.1 shows the proposed site

layout and Figure 3.2 shows the proposed floor plan.

Figure 3.1 – Proposed Site Plan (not to scale). DAS Pg.12 (prepared by Elliot Architects)


7

Figure 3.2 – Proposed Floor Plan (not to scale). DAS pg.10 (prepared by Elliot Architects)

3.4 The building will evolve in an appropriate manner, preserving the important elements whilst

restoring historic and visual clarity through controlled interventions. The proposal is

demonstrated in further detail on the enclosed plans included with the planning application. In

summary, space will be maximised through an open plan layout. A limited number of new

openings on the south and east elevations will be introduced to facilitate natural light whilst

remaining in keeping with the character and proportions of the building.

3.5 Stonework will be revealed internally to further celebrate the character of the building. Access to

the courtyard space will be provided for convenience as a ‘back door’, and a combination of

glass for light and timber screens for privacy have been used on the courtyard elevation. Glazing

is full height, with a vertical proportion to be in keeping with the existing. The cast column is

retained as are the existing sliding doors, responding to feedback from the Council’s

Conservation Officer.

3.6 All rooflights will conform under a conservation style to maintain the character of the building.

The proposal looks to keep the seven existing rooflights, but will redistribute these to relate to

spaces within, thus making the space habitable. An additional two new rooflights will be added

to the western pitch of the northern element to serve the master bedroom, however these

rooflights will be contained from public views.

3.7 New window openings are proposed along the south and east elevations. Following pre-

application discussions, the number of windows on the east elevation has been reduced from

five to four and the proportions revised to align with the existing opening in the north elevation.

This further improves the design and balance of the elevation in line with comments from the

Conservation Officer. This is also the case for the opening to the south gable which now is an

exact reflection of the existing opening to the north; this creates a symmetry which is entirely in

keeping with the original barn and provides a balanced overall aesthetic.


8

3.8 The west elevation will retain its large sliding barn doors which will be restored within their

original position, with the window orientation having been adapted to correspond to the

proportions of the other windows proposed. This is in response to pre-application feedback from

the Conservation Officer, who noted the doors to be an important feature of the barns and as

such should be retained where possible.

3.9 A package treatment plant will be installed on the site to deal with foul waste from the proposed

scheme. There is currently a septic tank in this position which serves the cottages to the west of

the barn, and the proposal looks to replace and upgrade this system with a more sustainable

and efficient bio-digesting system.

3.10 As part of a considered bat roost compensation scheme, a new bat loft is proposed within the

roof void of the northern end of the adjoining barn to the west. This will facilitate and enhance

roosting opportunities on the site. The loft will measure 5m x 7m x 2.5m to the underside of the

ridge. There are also a number of bat access crevices to be introduced.


9

4 Planning Policy Context Decision Taking

4.1 Section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (‘the 1990 Act’) states that where an

application is made to a local planning authority for planning permission, the authority shall have

regard to the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application. The

development plan in this instance is somewhat outdated relating to the former Tynedale District,

consisting of the Tynedale Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2007 and the Tynedale

District Wide Local Plan 2000 (adopted April 2000). The emerging Northumberland Local Plan

(NLP) was submitted to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government

on 29th May 2019 and is currently undergoing examination. The emerging NLP is a material

consideration and given its advanced stage carries some weight in the decision-making process.

4.2 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (‘the 2004 Act’) requires

planning applications to be determined in accordance with the statutory development plan unless

material considerations indicate otherwise. The National Planning Policy Framework July 2021

(‘NPPF’) and Supplementary Planning Documents are material considerations.

National Planning Policy Framework 4.3 The NPPF sets out the Government’s overarching policy framework for planning and is a

material consideration in the determination of applications. The NPPF states that the purpose of

the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. To achieve

sustainable development, the NPPF states that economic, social, and environmental gains

should be sought jointly and simultaneously through the planning system. Pursuing sustainable

development involves seeking positive improvements in the quality of the built, natural, and

historic environment, as well as in people’s quality of life.

4.4 Paragraph 11 of the NPPF sets out a ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’, which

for decision-taking means “approving development proposals that accord with an up-to-date

development plan without delay; or where there are no relevant development plan policies, or

the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, granting

permission unless: any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably

outweigh the benefits…”

4.5 Paragraph 38 of the NPPF is clear that “Local planning authorities should approach decisions

on proposed development in a positive and creative way”. In accordance with the presumption

in favour of sustainable development, Local Planning Authorities should “work proactively with

applicants to secure developments that will improve the economic, social and environmental

conditions of the area. Decision-makers at every level should seek to approve applications for

sustainable development where possible”.


10

4.6 Paragraph 48 of the NPPF states that from the day of its publication, weight can be given to

policies contained in emerging plans dependent upon the stage of preparation of the plan, level

of unresolved objections to policies within the plan and its degree of consistency with the NPPF.

The emerging NLP was submitted to the Planning Inspectorate for examination in May 2019 for

independent examination, which has now been completed. However, further feedback is awaited

from the Local Plan Inspector regarding proposed modifications to the NLP and further

consultation will need to take place on such modifications. Relevant policies in the emerging

NLP are a material consideration in determining this application and it is considered that such

policies can be afforded some weight at this time, alongside adopted development plan policies.

4.7 The NPPF sets out policies under themes that follow the Council’s key objectives for the planning

system. Of particular relevance to this application are:

- Delivering a sufficient supply of homes

- Promoting sustainable development in rural areas

- Making effective use of land

- Achieving well-designed places

- Conserving and enhancing the historic environment

Delivering a sufficient supply of homes

4.8 In order to support the Governments objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes, the

NPPF emphasises the need for sufficient and a variety of land to come forward to meet local

needs and any housing commitments can be developed without unnecessary delay (para. 60).

Promoting sustainable development in rural areas

4.9 National and local planning policies support new development in sustainable locations. In rural

areas, NPPF (para. 80) states that housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain

the vitality of rural communities. The exception to this being where it would result in isolated

homes in the countryside without justification (para. 81).

Making efficient use of land

4.10 Paragraph 119 requires policy and decision making to promote an effective use of land in

meeting the need for homes and other uses, while safeguarding and improving the environment

and ensuring safe and healthy living conditions. Paragraph 120 of the NPPF emphasises this by

stating at criterion (d) that planning policies and decision should, (criterion d) “promote and

support the development of under-utilised land and buildings, especially if this would help to

meet identified needs for housing where land supply is constrained, and available sites could be

used more effectively…”

4.11 Planning policies and decisions need to reflect changes in the demand for land, informed through

regular reviews of development allocations and availability of land for such uses (para. 122).

Criterion (b) states that applications for alternative uses on the land should be supported, where

the proposed use would contribute to meeting an unmet need for development in the area.


11

Achieving well-designed places

4.12 The NPPF attaches great importance to the design of the built environment stating that it is

fundamental to what the planning and development process should achieve, and that good

design is a key aspect of sustainable development (para. 126). It calls upon effective

engagement between applicants, communities, local planning authorities and other interests

throughout the process.

4.13 Planning policies and decisions should ensure that developments (amongst other things) will

function well, add to the overall quality of the area, and are sympathetic to local character and

history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting, while not preventing

or discouraging appropriate innovation or change, such as increased densities (para. 130). The

NPPF specifically states that permission should be refused for development or poor design that

fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and

the way it functions.

Conserving and enhancing the historic environment

4.14 Section 16 of the NPPF considers matters relating to the conservation and enhancement of the

historic environment and makes it clear that adverse impacts on heritage assets should be

avoided.

4.15 Paragraph 194 states that “In determining applications, local planning authorities should require

an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any

contribution made by their setting. The level of detail should be proportionate to the assets’

importance and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on

their significance.”

4.16 NPPF Paragraph 203 has regard to the potential impacts of development on non-designated

heritage assets, stating that “The effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated

heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing

applications that directly or indirectly affect non-designated heritage assets, a balanced

judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance

of the heritage asset.”

The Development Plan 4.17 The development plan is the starting point for considering planning applications. As set out

above, the development plan in this instance consists of the Tynedale LDF Core Strategy 2007

(CS), the Tynedale District Wide Local Plan 2000 (LP). The emerging NLP is also a material

consideration and the relevant polices from the Main Modifications Draft Plan (2021) are quoted

below.

4.18 The following planning and land use policies as recognised by the council are considered

relevant to the consideration of this application:


12

Table 4.1 – Key Relevant CS, LP and NLP Policies

Tynedale LDF Core Strategy 2007 Policy Summary

Policy GD1 – Location of

development

The following principles will apply to the location of all development unless

specifically covered by development plan policies:

(4) The open countryside: development limited to the re-use of

existing buildings.

Policy GD2 – Prioritising

sites for development

When meeting development needs sites will be prioritised in the following

order:

(1) Previously developed land and buildings within the built-up area

of settlements.

(2) Other suitable sites within the built-up area of settlements.

(3) Other suitable sites adjoining the built-up area of settlements.

Policy NE1 – Natural

Environment

The objective for the council is to protect, and wherever possible enhance

the character and quality of the natural environment with particular

attention to designated sites and areas (among other measures):

(1) Protect and enhance the character and quality of the landscape,

biodiversity and geological interest of the District and give

particular protection to areas and sites recognised for their

environmental and scientific interest.

(2) Manage the relationship between development and the natural

environment in order to:

- Minimise the risk of environmental damage.

- Maintain good local air quality and the quality of ground

and surface water.

(4) Avoid the unnecessary loss of the best and most versatile

..agricultural land.

(7) Enable and encourage people to experience, enjoy and

..understand the natural environment.

(8) Protect and enhance areas of open space within towns and

..villages.

Policy BE1 – Built

Environment

Protecting and enhancing the built environment is a key objective for the

council, by which development must:

(1) Conserve and where appropriate enhance the quality and

integrity of Tynedale’s built environment and its historic features

including archaeology, giving particular protection to listed

buildings, scheduled monuments and conservation areas.

(3) Ensure that development is of a high-quality design that will

..maintain and enhance the distinctive local character of the

..District’s towns, villages, and countryside.

(4) Encourage sustainable construction techniques, such as the use

..of recycled building materials, the reuse of existing buildings ..and


13

materials, energy efficiency measures and the use of ..sustainable

urban drainage systems.

Policy H6 – Change of

use of existing buildings

to housing

The conversion of existing buildings in the open countryside to residential

dwellings is supported where:

(1) The building is of permanent construction and has visual or

historic merit which contributes to the distinctive character of the

area and justifies its retention.

(2) The change of use does not involve any extension, significant

rebuilding, or harm to its character.

(4) Appropriate energy efficiency measures are incorporated.

Tynedale District Wide Local Plan 2000

Policy GD2 – Design

Criteria for development,

including extensions and

alterations.

Development is required to respect the positive characteristics of the

District’s natural and built environment and to conform to the following

design criteria (among other measures):

(1) Be of appropriate design to the character of the site and its

surroundings, existing buildings, and their setting.

(2) Where appropriate the development will be expected to

incorporate open space and landscaped areas designed to

provide interest within the site; and

(4) The design will not create conflict between adjacent land uses.

(5) There will be no adverse effect on adjacent land or buildings, in

..terms of loss of light, noise or other disturbance, overbearing

..appearance or loss of privacy.

Policy NE14 – Use of

existing buildings in the

Green Belt.

Proposals for the change of use, conversion, or extension of existing

buildings in the Green Belt will be permitted where the following criteria are

met:

(1) the buildings are of permanent and substantial construction.

(2) the proposed use and any associated use of land are in keeping

with their surroundings and the proposed development does not

have a materially greater impact than the existing on the

openness of the Green Belt or on the purposes of including land

in it.

Policy NE27 – Protection

of Protected Species

Development which is likely to adversely affect protected species will only

be permitted if harm to the species can be avoided. Development must:

(a) facilitate the survival of individual members of the species.

(b) reduce disturbance to a minimum.

(c) provide adequate alternative habitats to sustain at least the

current levels of the population.

Policy NE37 – Ecology

Landscaping in

Developments

Before planning permission can be granted for development, the following

criteria must be met (amongst other criteria):

(a) Layout and design of the proposed development are of a high

standard, providing an interesting and attractive visual

environment; and


14

(b) Existing landscape features are as far as possible integrated into

the new development, with a clear indication given on submitted

plans of:

(i) Existing vegetation to be retained and removed.

(ii) Details of the landscape strategy.

(c) Existing nature conservation habitats are as far as possible

protected, enhanced and integrated into the new development

H32 – Residential design

criteria

Requires residential developments to demonstrate the following criteria

(amongst other criteria):

(a) The proposal reflects the character of the locality.

(b) Internal access ways are to be constructed and designed to give

priority to pedestrian movements within the site and would not

produce through routes.

CS27 - Foul

Drainage/Sewage

Requires development to include foul sewers and sewage treatment works

of adequate capacity and design.

The use of septic tanks will only be considered if connection to the mains

sewerage is not feasible, and only then if ground conditions are

satisfactory, and the plot of land is of sufficient size to provide an adequate

subsoil drainage system or there is a watercourse nearby capable of giving

adequate dilution to treated effluent.

Emerging NLP (Main Modifications 2021) Draft Policy STP 1 –

Spatial Strategy

(Strategic Policy)

Sustainable development will be supported within the Green Belt

boundaries and within settlement boundaries. Development in other

settlements not identified as Main Towns, Service Centres, Service

Villages or Small Villages will be limited to that within the built form of the

settlement, and the conversion, extension, or redevelopment of existing

buildings unless it supports the sustainable growth of an existing business

or the formation of a new business or provides for new or enhanced

community facilities.

Development in the open countryside will be supported if it can

demonstrate that (amongst other requirements):

(4) Provides for residential development in accordance with Policies

..HOU 7 or HOU 8.

STP8 – Development in

the Green Belt

1. In assessing development proposals within the Green Belt:

(a) Development that is inappropriate in the Green Belt, in

accordance with national planning policy, will not be supported

except in very special circumstances where other considerations

clearly outweigh the potential harm to the Green Belt, and any

other harm resulting from the proposal;

(b) Development which is not inappropriate in the Green Belt, as

defined in national planning policy, will be supported;


15

(c) c. Development which improves access to the countryside;

provides opportunities for outdoor sport and recreation; enhances

landscapes and biodiversity; or improves damaged and derelict

land will be encouraged and supported, provided it does not

conflict with national policy in relation to Green Belt.

Draft Policy HOU 1 – Use

of existing buildings

Recognises the need to support sustainable high quality and attractive

residential communities, including:

(1) Supporting and enabling interventions to improve and renovate

the county’s existing housing stock while enhancing the

surrounding residential environment.

(3) Supporting the conversion and change of use to residential use

..of other suitable redundant premises, including the renovation of

..under-used space above shops and the provision of live/work

..units for rural and agricultural workers' housing.

Draft Policy HOU 8 –

Residential Development

in open countryside

The development of isolated homes in the open countryside will be

supported where:

(2) It represents the optimal viable use of a heritage asset

(3) It re-uses redundant or disused buildings and enhances its

immediate setting

(5) The design is of exceptional quality, in that it is truly outstanding

..or innovative, reflecting the highest standards of architecture,

..and would help to raise the standards of design in rural areas,

..and it would significantly enhance its immediate setting, and be

..sensitive to the defining characteristics of the local area.

QOP1 – Design

Principles

In determining planning applications, design will be assessed against the

following design principles, in accordance with the Northumberland Design

Guide.

A set of general design principles are also included within the policy.

QOP2 - Good design and

amenity

Development is expected to provide a high standard of amenity for existing

and future users of the development itself and preserve the amenity of

those living in, working in or visiting the local area.

Development which would result in unacceptable adverse impacts on the

amenity of neighbouring uses, in terms of both individual and cumulative

impacts, will not be supported.

Development proposals will be accessed though a variety of criteria listed

in this policy, which seek to deliver high standard of amenity and minimise

any adverse impacts on amenity (3) and contribute positively to their

locality (4).


16

Other Material Considerations 4.19 Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs) provide detail to support policy in higher level

Development Plan Documents (DPDs). They do not set or introduce new policy but provide

guidance on the interpretation and implementation of DPD policies. Once adopted, the content

of an SPD is a material consideration when making decisions on planning applications (as noted

above).

4.20 The Council are proposing to prepare various SPDs to provide additional guidance on the

proposed policies within the emerging NLP. The following adopted SPDs are considered

relevant to this application:

Supplementary Planning Document - New Housing: Planning Obligations for Sport and Play

facilities – March 2006

4.21 The SPD recognises that “Access to open space, sport and recreation facilities is an important

aspect of the quality of life for local communities within Tynedale. Opportunities for recreation

bring benefits in terms of health and fitness, personal and social development, and a sense of

community. This applies to informal and passive recreation as well as more organised activity”

(paragraph 1.1).

4.22 SPD seeks to ensure that development for new housing (including conversions) provides onsite

provision of children’s play, informal open space, and outdoor sports facilities, or alternatively

provide financial contributions towards such facilities in the area. Relevant polices from the

Tynedale District Local Plan include GD13, H16, LR11, and LR15.

4.23 In the case of children’s play / informal open space on site provision will not be sought on

developments of less than ten dwellings. Where on site provision is not appropriate a financial

contribution towards the provision or improvement of facilities in the area will be sought instead.

This financial contribution is calculated per numbers of bedrooms.


17

5 Planning Assessment Determining Issues

5.1 Taking account of the characteristic of the application site, the development proposal, and

planning policy context, the key issues to be considered in determining this planning application

are as follows:

- Principle of the Development

- Design and Conservation

- Highway Safety

- Ecology

- Residential Amenity

- Site Conditions

- Developer Contributions

5.2 Matters relating to the historic environment are considered separately in a Heritage Statement

within the proceeding section (6).

Principle of Development 5.3 National and local planning policies support new development in sustainable locations. In rural

areas, NPPF (paragraph 79) states that housing should be located where it will enhance or

maintain the vitality of rural communities. The exception to this being where it would result in

isolated homes in the countryside without justification (paragraph 80). Circumstances where

isolated homes may be permitted include:

- a) there is an essential need for a rural worker, including those taking majority control of

a farm business, to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside;

- b) the development would represent the optimal viable use of a heritage asset or would

be appropriate enabling development to secure the future of heritage assets;

- c) the development would re-use redundant or disused buildings and enhance its

immediate setting;

- d) the development would involve the subdivision of an existing residential building; or

- e) the design is of exceptional quality, in that it:

• is truly outstanding, reflecting the highest standards in architecture, and would help

to raise standards of design more generally in rural areas; and

• would significantly enhance its immediate setting, and be sensitive to the defining

characteristics of the local area.

5.4 In this case, both criterion (b) and (c) as noted above are relevant, insofar as the proposal relates

to a non-designated heritage asset (as established during pre-application discussions with the

Council) and its conversion would represent the optimal viable use of a redundant building, whilst

demonstrating enhancement of the immediate setting.


18

5.5 Local planning policy (as detailed in Table 4.1) aligns with the pertinent aims of the NPPF,

namely promoting sustainable development in rural areas (paragraph 78 and 79). CS Policies

GD1 (criterion 4), GD2 (criterion 1), H6 (criterion 1 & 2) encourage the re-use of suitable rural

buildings for housing where development proposals do not require substantial alteration,

extension or reconstruction. Furthermore, as established during the pre-application enquiry, the

Council consider the application building to be a non-designated heritage asset. NLP Policy

HOU8 criterion (1, b) is therefore also relevant, which supports the development of isolated

homes in the countryside if it represents the optimal use of a heritage asset. HOU8 also extends

its support for development which re-uses redundant buildings.

5.6 The application site is located within the Dipton House Estate which is washed over by Green

Belt designation. In assessing such applications, NLP Policy STP8 supports development that

is appropriate in the context of the NPPF. A fundamental aim of Green Belt is to limit the erection

of new buildings without justification. The proposal does not include the erection of a new

building and although a recognised exception in the Green Belt (paragraph 149) the

development does not require an extension or alterations to an existing building. Paragraph 150

is therefore relevant which states that “Certain other forms of development are also not

inappropriate in the Green Belt provided they preserve its openness and do not conflict with the

purposes of including land within it. These are: (inter alia) (d) the re-use of buildings provided

that the buildings are of permanent and substantial construction.” This is consistent with saved

Policy NE15 of the LP which allows proposals involving the change of use, conversion, or

extension of existing buildings in the Green Belt (subject to criteria).NLP Policy STP1 (criterion

4) supports the introduction of new residential development within the open countryside if it can

demonstrate accordance with Policies HOU7 or HOU8. As noted above, the proposal accords

with criterion (b) and (c) of Policy HOU8, in so far as the proposal relates to a redundant building

that is proposed for reuse.

5.7 A site visit and visual inspection of the building from specialist building surveyors Topping

Engineers confirms that it is in good structural condition and capable of conversion, a conclusion

which is corroborated with the appointed architect (see DAS page 6). It is therefore reasonable

to determine that conversion of the building will not require complete or substantial rebuilding or

unsympathetic alterations for it to reasonably function as a dwellinghouse.

5.8 The submitted plans demonstrate that the proposed design is in-keeping with the form and

character of the existing buildings, and the proposed conversion requires only limited

interventions to the existing built fabric, with no additional extensions necessary. The Proposed

Floor Plans demonstrate a sensitive and well-designed approach, creating a high quality three-

bedroom dwelling.

5.9 It is worth noting that new openings are proposed on the south and east elevations to provide

adequate natural light for the proposed occupants but these have been kept to a minimum, with


19

the proportions and design derived from original features elsewhere on the building. New

conservation style rooflights are also proposed in the roof to provide a means of natural light.

5.10 We believe that a sensitive restoration and appropriately designed residential conversion will

lead to an enhancement of the immediate setting by bringing the building back into effective use.

Residential use would represent an optimum use to safeguard and enhance the character of the

buildings and area.

5.11 The principle of the re-use and conversion of the rural building in this location is therefore

considered acceptable, having regard to advice contained within the Council’s response to the

pre-application enquiry and relevant planning policy including, CS policy GD1, GD2 and H6, NLP

Policy STP1, STP8 and HOU8, and the NPPF. As the building is considered a non-designated

heritage asset, design will be an important material consideration. Matters relating to design and

landscape have been considered below and the historic environment is considered separately

in the proceeding section (6).

Design and Landscape 5.12 The 2021 NPPF emphasises the importance of good design. Paragraph 130 of the NPPF states

that planning decisions should ensure that developments are visually attractive as a result of

good layout and appropriate and effective landscaping, and are sympathetic to local character

and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting, while not

preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change.

5.13 Paragraph 134 states that “development that is not well designed should be refused, especially

where it fails to reflect local design policies and government guidance on design, taking into

account any local design guidance and supplementary planning documents such as design

guides and codes”. Paragraph 134 goes onto emphasise that ‘significant weight’ should be given

to "development which reflects local design policies and government guidance on design, taking

into account any local design guidance and supplementary planning documents” as well as

"outstanding or innovative designs which promote high levels of sustainability, or help raise the

standard of design more generally in an area".

5.14 LP Policies GD2 and H32, CS Policy BE1, and NLP Policy QOP1 and QOP2 promote good

design quality and support high quality design which respect the positive characteristics of the

districts natural and built environment, reflecting the character of the locality, and which are

appropriate to its surroundings and setting. This means that for barn conversions, particular care

needs to be taken with its design and appearance, including the protection of its setting. NLP

Policy ENV3 and ENV4 specifically relates to landscape and seeks to ensure that proposals

conserve and where possible enhance the character of Northumberland’s landscape.

5.15 A separate Design and Access Statement (DAS) has been prepared by the appointed architect,

Elliot Architects, to demonstrate how the design has been informed by an understanding of the


20

building’s history and site-specific constraints and opportunities. As a starting point key design

principles were identified, taking into account the site context and relevant guidance:

- To minimise any intervention to the existing barn

- To keep and/or reuse materials and features wherever possible

- Where new elements are introduced, to provide materials and details which are in

keeping and/or complementary to the existing barn

- To be considerate of the neighbours and to the future residents of the barn

- Sensitive approach internally retaining large walls and roof structure

5.16 In summary, the DAS states that “It is important to make sure that the building evolves in an

appropriate manner, preserving the important elements of the existing whilst restoring some

historic and visual clarity through controlled interventions. It is also important to ensure the future

of the building by providing the level of accommodation which the building deserves and requires

in the contemporary era” (page 18).

5.17 The pre-application enquiry feedback was considered, and the proposal has been revised to

respond to the points raised. The windows have been reduced in number and redesigned to

reflect the historic proportions of the building, the barn doors are now retained and there is no

change to the landscape or context beyond the small area adjacent to the entrance which is an

existing area of hardstanding and estate garden grounds. The scheme has been further

developed in line with the Council’s comments and represents a sensitive design which has

positive impact on the the building, with the limited proposed interventions maintaining the

heritage language of the building.

5.18 The proposal represents a well-considered and sensitively designed barn conversion that will

deliver a high-quality residential dwelling. The proposals are possible without substantial

alternations, extension or reconstruction, and any new openings have been limited as far as

practicable. As such, the proposed development would not appear out of character within the

landscape and meets the requirements of CS policy NE1, BE1, H6; LP policy GD2, NE14, H32;

NLP Policy QOP1, QOP2 and ENV3, and the NPPF.

Highway Safety 5.19 In assessing planning applications paragraph 110 of the NPPF states that (amongst other things)

it should be ensured that “safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all users”.

Paragraph 111 goes onto state that “Development should only be prevented or refused on

highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual

cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe.”

5.20 The site benefits from an existing vehicular access via an unclassified adopted highway. There

are no highway works associated with this development. As part of the pre-application enquiry,

the Council’s Transport Development Team were consulted and raised no objections to the

proposal.


21

5.21 Traffic generation arising from the introduction of new residential dwellings has been assessed

as negligible. Considering very low vehicular movements during the peak times, the proposed

development does not have the potential to result in a severe impact on the operation of the

surrounding road network.

5.22 Taken from the emerging NLP (page 390, Appendix E of associated Policy TRA4), the minimum

parking requirements are as follows:

Figure 5.1 – NLP Minimum Residential Parking standards

5.23 The accompanying plans make provision for 3no. parking spaces and, as such, is in accordance

with the standards as noted in Figure 5.1. There is also provision made for cycle storage. With

regards to refuse storage and collection, there are existing facilities in the courtyard to the west

of the proposed dwelling adjacent to the public highway. On the day for collection by the Council,

the bins are all wheeled out onto the road verge just outside the gate, where the Council's lorry

stops for collection.

5.24 Accordingly in this case, the proposed development will not result in any adverse impact to

highway safety, and there is no justification for refusing this planning application on highways

grounds. The proposed access arrangements and parking provision is in accordance with LP

Policy GD6 and NLP Policy TRA 4.

Ecology 5.25 Paragraph 8 of the NPPF states that the planning system should, “protect and enhance our

natural, built and historic environment; including making effective use of land, improving

biodiversity...”. In addition, paragraph 174 states that, “Planning policies and decisions should

contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by: minimising impacts on and

providing net gains for biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that

are more resilient to current and future pressures”. The pontential for protected species on or

adjacent to the site has been assessed and opportunities for mitigation and enhancement are

presented.

5.26 When determining planning applications in accordance with the Local Plan and the presumption

in favour of sustainable development, local planning authorities should aim to conserve and

enhance biodiversity by applying a number of principles detailed in paragraph 180 of the NPPF.


22

This includes (amongst other things) that “if significant harm to biodiversity resulting from a

development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful

impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission

should be refused.”

5.27 CS Policy NE1 and LP Policies NE27, NE33 and NE37 gives protection to biodiversity,

geodiversity, and protected species. This means that development must not harm ecological

interests, which is particularly important for disused, redundant, and old traditional barns

intended for conversion.

5.28 Given the proposal relates to the conversion of traditional agricultural buildings which have the

potential to support roosting bats or nesting birds, a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (including

bat roost assessment) has been undertaken by specialist consultants OS Ecology. The appraisal

seeks to identify species and habitats on site (with reference to protected and notable species),

assessing the potential impact of the proposed development on any identified habitats and

protected or notable species, considering potential opportunities for biodiversity enhancement

and outlining necessary or recommended mitigation and compensation proposals.

5.29 Three bat surveys were undertaken in June, July and August 2021 which recorded species of

common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle, brown long-eared bats and Myotis genus. The complex

is considered to be of district significance, supporting 4 species within the structure. Brown long

ear bats were recorded within all the barns surrounding the site and within the site itself and as

such the building to be redeveloped is considered to support the maternity colony of brown long-

eared bats.

5.30 Signs of several nesting swallows were found on site noted throughout the building complex,

however, there was no evidence of any barn owl use of the site. The buildings provide a range

of opportunities for species such as swallow and house sparrow to nest.

5.31 Proposed mitigation and compensation measures will consist of the provision of a new bat loft

within the northern end of the adjoining barn to the west. Due to the operational requirements of

providing sufficient alternative roosting provision and the constraints of design, it has been

advised that a purpose-built loft should be provided adjacent to the site (See Proposed Roof

Plan 358:1003). The incorporation of further bat access crevices will be incorporated into the

redeveloped structure, alongside the incorporation of opportunities for nesting birds as part of

mitigation measures for the site and the district area.

5.32 The proposed development does not affect any existing trees, does not involve development

works in close proximity to trees and all existing trees at the site will be retained.


23

Residential Amenity 5.33 The layout of the proposal has been designed with consideration to the site context and has

sought to maximise opportunities to enhance or maintain the site’s contribution to the character

of nearby receptors and the wider landscape, whilst making efficient use of the site and buildings

for new development to support the overall viability of the scheme. The development will be of

the highest standard, both in terms of its build quality and its place making credentials.

5.34 The proposed layout is made up of 1no. 3-bedroomed dwellinghouse and makes provision for

parking, and benefits from existing private amenity space. The proposed plans ensure adequate

privacy and daylighting is maintained and a reasonable outlook is provided for existing and

proposed residential dwellings.

5.35 The nearest sensitive receptors are the existing cottages to the west of the application site.

Proposed plans demonstrate how a high-quality development can be delivered on site without

impacting on existing properties. Principally this has been achieved by limiting any development

within the existing courtyard. It is worth noting that the buildings existing openings are principally

located within the courtyard and there is already a generous distance between courtyard

elevations. However, in the interests of maintaining adequate privacy for the existing cottages

and future occupiers, these openings are proposed to be a combination of timber and glass,

providing a sophisticated solution in terms of privacy.

5.36 The development provides an opportunity to sensitively improve the appearance of the site and

the wider landscape. Given the existing orientation of the courtyard and existing cottages, the

proposal would not have an adverse impact on residential amenity. The proposal would deliver

a conversion opportunity which is aesthetically pleasing and in keeping with its environment.

Site Conditions 5.37 The application site is located within Flood Zone 1 (Figure 2.2), identified on the Flood Risk Map

for Planning. The proposed development will therefore have a low to very low risk of flooding

from rivers and sea, surface water, reservoirs and sewers.

5.38 In respect of matters relating to foul drainage, an upgraded and more sustainable domestic

sewage treatment tank will be installed on site to replace the existing septic tank which currently

serves the cottage west of the barn (Stable Cottage). In this case a connection to mains

sewerage is not feasible and the presence of an existing septic tank confirms the suitability of

the site to deliver this from a technical perspective. This aspect of the proposal is in accordance

with Policy CS24 of the LP.

5.39 There are not considered to be any other technical constraints that would prohibit conversion of

the building for residential use. Accordingly, the proposal meets the requirements of national and

local planning policy in regard to these matters.


24

Developer Contributions 5.40 LP Policies LR11 and LR15 require the provision of land for sport and play when considering

proposals for residential development or redevelopment, the amount of which to be

proportionate to the scale of the development. It is expected that a requirement of £3,264 would

be sought for the creation of a three-bedroom dwelling.

.


25

6 Heritage Statement Introduction

6.1 The purpose of this section is to provide a Heritage Statement outlining relevant planning policy

and to undertake an informed assessment of the significance of the existing buildings and the

potential impact of the proposed development on any identified heritage assets.

6.2 There are no designated heritage assets which fall within the application boundary or that lie

adjacent to the site (see Figure 6.1). The application site is not located within or adjacent to a

Conservation Area, Battlefield, Scheduled Monument, Registered Park or Garden or a World

Heritage Site.

Figure 6.1 –No heritage assets in the vicinity of the site (Source: Historic England).

6.3 During pre-applications discussion with the Council, it was suggested that buildings should be

regarded as non-designated heritage assets due to their age.

6.4 The Council’s Conservation Officer responding to the pre-application summarised that “The

proposed development forms part of a late 19th century complex of buildings combining farm

buildings to the north with buildings to the south, more closely associated with Dipton House to

the south-east. The buildings should be to be regarded as ‘undesignated heritage assets’ of

likely local significance in the context of the NPPF.” Consequently, a Heritage Statement has

been prepared to assess the development proposal from a heritage perspective.


26

National Planning Policy Framework 6.5 Section 16 of the NPPF considers matters relating to the conservation and enhancement of the

historic environment and makes it clear that adverse impacts on heritage assets should be

avoided.

6.6 Paragraph 194 of the NPPF states that “In determining applications, local planning authorities

should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including

any contribution made by their setting. The level of detail should be proportionate to the assets’

importance and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on

their significance.”

6.7 Paragraph 203 has regard to the potential impacts of development on non-designated heritage

assets, stating that “The effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage

asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that

directly or indirectly affect non-designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be

required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage

asset.”

6.8 The NPPF (pages 67 and 71-72) includes definitions of ‘heritage asset’, ‘setting’ and

‘significance’:

- Heritage asset: A building, monument, site, place, area or landscape identified as having a

degree of significance meriting consideration in planning decisions, because of its heritage

interest. It includes designated heritage assets and assets identified by the local planning

authority (including local listing).

- Setting of a heritage asset: The surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced. Its

extent is not fixed and may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve. Elements of a

setting may make a positive or negative contribution to the significance of an asset, may

affect the ability to appreciate that significance or may be neutral.

- Significance (for heritage policy): The value of a heritage asset to this and future generations

because of its heritage interest. The interest may be archaeological, architectural, artistic or

historic. Significance derives not only from a heritage asset’s physical presence, but also

from its setting. For World Heritage Sites, the cultural value described within each site’s

Statement of Outstanding Universal Value forms part of its significance.

The Development Plans 6.9 The CS was formally adopted in October 2007, and in conjunction with the LP adopted April

2000, it forms the development plan for Tynedale. The emerging NLP is a material consideration

and once adopted, will replace the Tynedale plans.

6.10 CS Policies NE1, NE2 and BE1, and NLP Policy ENV 7 are relevant. Emerging NLP Policy ENV7

specifically relates to the historic environment and heritage assets. Criterion (1) states that


27

“development proposals will be assessed and decisions made that ensure the conservation and

enhancement of the significance, quality and integrity of Northumberland’s heritage assets and

their settings”. Criterion (2) continues further, stating that: “Decisions affecting a heritage asset

will be based on a sound understanding of the significance of that asset and the impact of any

proposal upon that significance: Applicants will be required to provide a heritage statement;

describing the significance of the asset and any contribution made to this significance by its

setting. The level of detail should be proportionate to the asset’s importance, but should make

use of the Historic Environment Record, the Historic Landscape Characterisation Study, any

relevant character appraisals or design guides, and/or other relevant records”. Criterion (6)

refers specifically to non-designated heritage assets, “Development proposals that affect the

significance of non-designated heritage assets shall require a balanced judgement, taking into

account the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset. Where, in the

case of a non-designated heritage asset of archaeological interest, the significance of which is

demonstrably equivalent to that of a scheduled monument, the policy approach for designated

heritage assets will be applied if it:.

a. Has not formally been assessed for designation; or

b. Has been assessed as capable of designation, but not designated by the relevant

Government agency; or

c. Is not capable of designation under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological

Areas Act because of its physical nature.”

Historic England Advice Note 12 ‘Statements of Heritage Significance’ (2019) 6.11 The Historic England Advice Note 12 ‘Statements of Heritage Significance’ (2019) recommends

a staged approach to decision-making in which assessing significance precedes designing the

proposal. Completion of this staged assessment considers how adverse impacts (if any) have

been avoided and or minimised through appropriate design and mitigation measures proposed

where required. The staged approach is identified in Table 6.2

Table 6.1 – Historic England’s staged approach to decision-making in applications affecting

heritage assets (Pages 3-4 Historic England Advice Note 12)

Stage Informative

1) Understand the form, materials and history of the affected heritage asset(s), and/or the nature and extent of archaeological deposits.

These two stages fulfil the requirement in

paragraph 189 of the NPPF (2019) and are

undertaken by the applicant.

2) Understand the significance of the asset(s).

3) Understand the impact of the proposal on that significance

This stage fulfils the requirement in paragraph

190 of the NPPF (2019) and is undertaken by the

LPA. However, the applicant needs to be aware


28

of impacts so that the analysis of significance

submitted to the LPA, under paragraph 189, is

sufficient in its level of detail.

4) Avoid, minimise and mitigate negative impact, in a way that meets the objectives of the NPPF

These two stages are addressed by the

assessment of impact by the LPA but may also

be addressed by the applicant in reaching a

decision on the scope and design of a proposal.

Indeed, assessment of these three latter stages

by the applicant prior to application may assist a

positive assessment of impact by the LPA, thus

leading to better outcomes for applicants,

reducing both abortive work and delays

5) Look for opportunities to better reveal or enhance significance

6.12 Development does not necessarily lead to harm. It is only development which reduces the

significance of the asset in a material and quantifiable way which is unacceptable. If harm is

identified then this should be weighed against the benefits of the proposal, including securing its

optimum viable use.

Heritage Significance 6.13 As stated previously, the proposed development is identified as a potential non-designated

heritage asset because of its historic group interest. The Council’s Conservation Officer when

responding to the pre-application enquiry noted the site context as follows:

“Historic mapping of this area does not show any buildings on this site until the Second Edition

Ordnance Survey map of c.1899 when this complex of buildings and Dipton House are first

shown. The buildings on that map appear to reflect the current layout in this part of the site

with a track leading down to Dipton House from the south-east corner of the buildings.

Historic mapping and observation during a site visit indicate that the building layout is largely

the same phase of construction. While later openings have been introduced, there does not

appear to be evidence of significant rebuilding with certain architectural details running

through the buildings.

There is, however, a distinct difference between the buildings to the north and south of this

complex of buildings. While there was internal access between buildings within the complex,

evidence on historic mapping and during the site visit show that an east-west wall was

attached to the east of the buildings. This meant that while external access to the buildings

to the south came from both Dipton House and the road to the north, external access to the

buildings in the north came from the road.


29

The buildings to the south, set around a courtyard included stables, coach house and cottage

have finer tooled stonework and detailing, presumably due to their location, function and

closer association with Dipton House. In comparison, the buildings to the north have a

farming function with first floor openings for loading vehicles on the road and the stonework

is less finely tooled, presumably because they were less visible and less likely to be visited

from Dipton House. The difference in levels between the north and south of the complex of

buildings is likely to be associated with function and topography. The coach house also

includes a cellar.

While there is good preservation of historic features within the stables and associated office,

no significant historic features survive internally within the coach house and farm building to

the north which are the subject of this pre-application consultation. Externally the coach

house is largely unaltered and still retains 3 of the original sliding doors and fittings. The farm

building has the original first floor opening for loading, but the ground floor doorway appears

to be a later introduction.”

6.14 Furthermore, detailed heritage input and assessment is included within the accompanying DAS

where the heritage significance of the buildings was considered in detail as part of the initial

design.

6.15 Using available historic mapping data provides a useful understanding of the historical context

of the application site. Page 6 of the DAS states that “Historic maps from 1890 show the group

of buildings (in footprint at least) as they are today, although it is visible from some of the

stonework eaves detailing that the northern part of the barn and the eastern off shot were built

at a different (likely later) date than the main southern volume. This also ties into the difference

in floor levels between the two sections”.

6.16 The DAS proceeds to describe the building to which this application relates as two

distinguishable sections, southern and northern (Pages 6 – 7 of the DAS):

- Southern: “The southern volume is of large format rough faced worked and coursed

stone which remains largely in good condition. The scale and precision of this stone

means that quoins were not used (or required), although there is a fine worked edge to

the corner which gives a clean precise aesthetic to the corner of the building. Simple

decorative corbelled eaves details support the water table dressings at the gables (both

north and south, with the north likely being reused when the barn was extended) and

simple projections form a feature and some support to guttering along the east

elevation, a detail which also extends into the adjacent courtyard”.

- Northern: “The northern volume is constructed with the same stone, but of a rougher

rubblestone which is more randomly coursed. Quoins and the watertable detail are as

per the southern volume. There is a substantial cut lintel to the upper opening with a

simple fine detail to the underside; interestingly this opening has quoins whereas the


30

lower barn doors do not, meaning the lower opening was possibly altered at some point

after its initial construction. The lower doors also have a timber lintel which would

strengthen this hypothesis”.

6.17 There is one account of planning history at Stable Cottage (already in use as a residential

dwelling) which remains physically attached to the part of the building to which this application

relates (T/930835), and this consisted of a First-floor extension. Planning permission was

granted, however, no information is available in respect of heritage considerations in determining

this application.

6.18 In respect of Archaeology, pre-application comments affirm that whilst there is a potential

medieval settlement at East Dipton, its exact location is unknown – LiDAR sensing found no

evidence of this within the area. Groundworks associated with the conversion will be very limited,

and it is concluded that there is unlikely to be any impact on below ground archaeological

remains.

Assessment of Impact 6.19 The development seeks to convert a traditional stone barn to create 1no. residential dwelling

(Use Class C3). The design process was informed by the site context, alongside a variety of

guidance documents including (but not limited to) those prepared by Historic England. To ensure

sensitive conversion, as previously stated, the key design principles adopted, as set out in the

DAS (page 9) include:

- To minimise any intervention to the existing barn

- To keep and/or reuse materials and features wherever possible

- Where new elements are introduced, to provide materials and details which are in

keeping and/ or complementary to the existing barn

- To be considerate of the neighbours and to the future residents of the barn

- Sensitive approach internally retaining large walls and roof structure

6.20 The proposal will not exceed the existing external dimensions of the agricultural building. The

internal proportions will be utilised as to minimise additional openings. Constraints have been

accounted for as to create a habitable place that can be easily accessed and provides

opportunities for light and ventilation, whilst being sympathetic to the nature of the building and

its historic fabric, preserving the stonework design to be visible.

6.21 All rooflights will conform under a conservation style to maintain the character of the building.

The proposal looks to keep the seven existing rooflights, but will redistribute these to relate to

spaces within, thus making the space habitable. An additional two new rooflights will be added

to the western pitch of the northern element to serve the master bedroom, however these

rooflights will be contained from public views.


31

6.22 New window openings are proposed along the south and east elevations. Following pre-

application discussions, the number of windows on the east elevation has been reduced from

five to four and the proportions revised to align with the existing opening in the north elevation.

This further improves the design and balance of the elevation in line with comments from the

Conservation Officer. This is also the case for the opening to the south gable which now is an

exact reflection of the existing opening to the north; this creates a symmetry which is entirely in

keeping with the original barn and provides a balanced overall aesthetic.

6.23 The west elevation will retain its large sliding barn doors which will be restored within their

original position, with the window orientation having been adapted to correspond to the

proportions of the other windows proposed. This is in response to pre-application feedback from

the Conservation Officer, who noted the doors to be an important feature of the barns and as

such should be retained where possible.

6.24 Preserving the historic fabric of the building, stonework will be internally displayed. In respect to

the Courtyard, a combination of glass for light and timber screens for privacy have been used.

As such, the proposed design will retain the agricultural character of the building, in keeping with

the rural setting and will not have a detrimental impact on the surrounding area.

6.25 Taking into account the nature of the development proposal, where external alterations have

been kept to a minimum and have been designed with great sensitivity in keeping with the rural

and agricultural character of the area, the proposal is considered to preserve and enhance the

special interest of the building and secure its optimum viable use. Accordingly, the proposal

complies with relevant local and national planning policy in respect to heritage conservation.


32

7 Summary and Conclusions

7.1 The application proposal is for a high-quality residential development at Dipton House, Corbridge

involving the conversion of an existing traditional stone building, to facilitate the creation of a

modestly scaled and sensitively designed scheme. The proposals are considered to present a

positive response to the existing building and its setting within the Dipton House Estate which

will serve to preserve and enhance its character.

7.2 The Planning and Heritage Statement and supporting information contained within the

application submission clearly demonstrate that the application proposal accords will all

relevantly planning policies and the guiding principles of the NPPF. The relevant national and

local planning policies considered include (but not limited to); the NPPF (2021); Tynedale Core

Strategy 2007; Tynedale Local Plan 2000; and the emerging Northumberland Local Plan. With

regards to the development proposal, reference has been made to matters relating to; principle

of the development, design and landscape, highway safety, ecology, residential amenity, site

conditions, developer contributions and heritage impact.

7.3 Whilst it is evident that the proposals accord with the development plan in so far as those policies

that are up to date and relevant to the application, it is also evident that the benefits of the

proposal significantly and demonstrably outweigh any adverse impacts, and as such the

proposal draws support from the presumption in favour of sustainable development. On this

basis, it is respectfully requested that Northumberland County Council grant planning permission

for the proposed development.