Decision details

Cllr Brady returned to the meeting and retook the Chair.

Some Members had visited the site the previous day.

The Planning Officer informed Members of 2 amendments to the report since its publication.

There was no proposal now to raise the eaves or ridge height of the two-storey barn (unit 4) and the car port element of the application had been withdrawn by the applicant.

The Officer then went onto present the report and outline the reasons for refusal.

The following spoke under the public participation at meetings scheme:

·         Mr D Oulsnam, Agent – Statement read out by a member of Democratic Services

Members considered that not enough information and detail was provided and what information had been provided showed a lack of understanding of the significance of the buildings and the impact on the heritage assets and wider landscape.

The motion to refuse the application with the addition of lack of information to the reason for refusal was proposed, seconded, put to the vote and carried.

RESOLVED:

That the application be REFUSED for the following reason:

Insufficient information has been submitted with the application to assess the significance of the historic farmstead. The development would harm the significance of the historic farmstead and its setting contrary to Core Strategy policies GSP3, L1, L3 and HC1 and Development Management policies DMC3, DMC5 and DMC10. The harm when weighed in the planning balance would not be outweighed by other public benefits. The application is therefore contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework.