Agenda item

Some Members had visited the site the previous day.

The Officer informed Members of a minor correction to the recommendation which should read “The proposed development” instead of “The proposal development” and to paragraph 24 of the report where it should read  “The second letter raises no objection” instead of “The second letter raises on objection”  The Officer then went onto present the report.

The following spoke under the public participation at meetings scheme:

·         Mrs Slater on behalf of the Applicant

Although Members had sympathy with the applicant in wanting to provide for their growing family, the reinstatement of the wall would not overcome the domesticating impacts of the development, which would be exposed in the landscape.

A motion to refuse the application was proposed, seconded, voted on and carried.

RESOLVED:

That the application is REFUSED for the following reason:  

The proposed development would harm the significance of the barn which is a non-designated heritage, its setting and surrounding landscape contrary to Core Strategy policies GSP3, L1, L3 and HC1, Development Management policies DMC3, DMC5 and DMC10, the Conservation of Historic Building Supplementary Planning Document and the National Planning Policy Framework.