Agenda item

The Planning Officer introduced the report setting out the reasons for refusal as set out in the report.

The Planning Officer confirmed that a consultation response had been received from the Parish Council after the report was published.  It had originally been sent on the 17^th January 2021 but appeared to have not been received by the Authority at that time.  This was being investigated.

Further information had also been received from the Agent on the day preceding the committee meeting but officers had not had an opportunity to review this information.  This was in connection with reasons 3 to 5 for refusal as set out in the report.  The further information related to a heritage assessment, highways issues and climate change mitigation measures.

The Planning Officer explained that given further information had been received, Members could vote to defer the application to allow time for consideration, however reasons 1 and 2 of the recommendation for refusal were fundamental policy objections and remained relevant.  Members would have to disagree with these two recommendations in order that a deferment would be advantageous.

The following made representations to the Committee under the Public Participation at meetings scheme:

• Emma and Alan Walker, Supporters – statement read out by Democratic and Legal Support Team

• Sir Richard Fitzherbert, Supporter – video presentation

• Mr S Foote, Agent – statement read out by Democratic and Legal Support Team

Members discussed the issues around leaving field barns to fall into ruin versus the impact of their conversion and domestication on the landscape, and the consistency of the Authority’s approach on this.

The Planning Officer was asked to clarify whether this application was linked to an existing farm and confirmed that it was not an application for a farm workers dwelling or a local occupancy affordable dwelling, it was for an open market dwelling.

A motion to refuse the application in accordance with Officer recommendation was moved.

The Head of Planning clarified that spatial advice regarding conversions was not currently part of the relevant policy however those field barns that had been previously approved for conversion tended to be those on the edge of settlements or in in groups of buildings rather than those in open countryside.  Any measures to hide the barn would have a detrimental effect on the landscape.

A motion to defer the item was moved.

The first motion to refuse the item in accordance with officer recommendation as set out in the report was seconded, put to the vote and carried.

RESOLVED

To REFUSE the application for the following reasons:

1. The development would result in alterations to the building and domestication of the building’s setting that would harm its historic agricultural character, contrary to policies L3, DMC3 and DMC10. This harm is judged to outweigh the benefits of the development, meaning that it is also contrary to policy DMC5 and to paragraphs 172 and 197 of the NPPF.

2. The development would result in domestication of the landscape in this location, harming its historic agricultural character, contrary to policies L1,L3, DMC3 and DMC8. This harm is judged to outweigh the public benefits of the development, meaning that it is also contrary to policy DMC5 and to paragraph 172 and 196 of the NPPF.

3. The application includes insufficient information to show the effect of the development on the significance, character and appearance of the heritage asset and its setting, contrary to policy DMC5 and paragraph 189 of the NPPF.

4. The application fails to demonstrate that forward visibility for vehicles approaching the site from the south and towards any vehicles turning right in to the site would have an acceptable impact on highway safety, contrary to paragraph 109 of the NPPF.

5. The application fails to demonstrate that the development would make the most efficient and sustainable use of land and resources, take account of the energy hierarchy, and achieve the highest standards of carbon reduction and water efficiency. This is contrary to Core Strategy Policy CC1.