Agenda item

Full Application - Change of use of outbuildings to dwelling and formation of residential curtilage and use of existing farmhouse. Replacement of porch with glazed link from the farmhouse to the outbuildings, extension and alteration of the outbuildings including replacement of the Nissen hut to form a family home. Replacement of the stables at Wrights Farm, Clayholes Road, Kettleshulme (NP/CEC/0522/0645 SPW)


Some Members of the Committee had visited the site the previous day.


The report was introduced by the Area Team Manager who advised that there were some amendments to the reasons for refusal as follows:


·         After the first sentence of reason 1, add “it would also lose the rank, role and historic significance of the farmhouse as the principal listed building on the site”

·         In the final sentence of  reason, 1 add policy GSP1

·         Reason 2 could then be deleted and 3 and 4 renumbered accordingly.


The Area Tea Manger also confirmed that extra information which had been submitted on behalf of the Applicant had been shared with Members.  This largely consisted of clarification on submissions already made and did not necessitate any changes to the report.


The following spoke under the public participation at meetings scheme:


·         Mr Mark Heyes, Applicant


The Head of Planning advised that pre-application advice had been provided by both Planning and Heritage Officers.  Various concerns had been raised about the scheme at an early stage and advice had been offered accordingly.  Officers continued to engage with the Applicant after the listed building application was submitted but the issues of scale which had been raised by Officers, had not been addressed by the Applicant. The Area Team Manager confirmed that there would be various alternative ways to extend the property which would be more acceptable.


In response to the points raised by the Head of Planning the Applicant stated that the size of the scheme was in accordance with guidance from Historic England, and the view of his agent was that after conversion, the outbuildings section would remain subservient to the existing farm house.  He also stated that there had been significant delays in obtaining advice from the Authority.


Members discussed the following:


·         The viability of the existing house had not been assessed to the extent that they would expect in a listed building application, so there was insufficient evidence to show that the property was not viable as dwelling or that a large extension was necessary. 

·         A difference of opinion had arisen between the Authority and the Applicant as to whether the proposal constituted one dwelling or two due to the extension having all the characteristics of a separate dwelling- i.e. its own kitchen, bathroom, 3 bedrooms and living room.

·         There were concerns over the detrimental impact of the conversion on the character of the outbuildings and on the farm house.  The farm house would become subservient to the extended outbuildings

·         A new driveway had been created which was unacceptable due to its impact on the setting of the listed building

·         The extension was too large and too long, and constituted a replacement building rather than an extension and would be uncharacteristic of buildings in the open countryside.

·         The proposed glazing was too extensive and would cause visible domestication which would impact views from the wider landscape

·         The impact on the landscape had not been analysed in the heritage statement.

·         The impact on the listed barn, which was on adjacent property and not in the ownership of the Applicant, had not been considered

·         Undue weight had been given to Historic England guidance and insufficient consideration had been given to the policies of the Authority


However, Members welcomed the principle of conversion, and were impressed by the proposals for the main farm house.  They stated that they would like to see the Applicant being helped to arrive at an acceptable solution, but for this to be achieved, advice from Officers would have to be acted upon.


A motion to refuse the application in accordance with the Officer recommendation as amended was moved, seconded, put to the vote and carried.




To REFUSE the application for the following reasons:



  1. The scale, massing and detailed design of the proposal is unacceptable and does not follow the advice of the SPD Design Guide or Conversion of Historic Buildings SPD. It significantly extends and alters the outbuildings, harming their form and character and would lose the positive contribution these buildings have as part of the group of listed buildings. It would also lose the rank, role and historic significance of the farmhouse as the principle listed building on the site. The proposal is therefore not achieving the conservation or enhancement requirements of GSP1, GSP2, HC1 or DMC10 to allow for market housing. The proposal would harm the character and appearance of these buildings and their immediate setting and therefore harm the significance of these heritage assets and the valued characteristics of the local landscape. The proposal is therefore contrary to Core Strategy Policies GSP1, GSP2, GSP3, HC1, L1, L3 and Development Management Policies DMC3, DMC5, DMC7 and DMC10 and the NPPF.


  1. Given the scale and nature of the proposed residential annexe (the existing farmhouse) and its relationship and arrangements with/ to the proposed new dwelling it would actually form a separate planning unit with a lawful use as an independent dwelling house. The proposal is therefore contrary to Development Management Policy DMH5 and the Authority’s adopted Supplementary Planning Document ‘Residential Annexes’.


  1. Inadequate and inaccurate plans have been submitted to be certain of the extent of the proposal or be able to fully ascertain the impact on the listed buildings. The proposal is therefore contrary to Core Strategy Policy L3, and Development Management Policies DMC5, DMC7 and the NPPF.


Supporting documents: