Agenda item

Some Members had visited the site the previous day.

Members were advised that this application was solely for the listed building consent for roof repair and renovation works; it was not accompanied by another application regarding use of the building.  Consequently, Members could only consider the planning merits of the proposals within the confines of the application before them, and must substantiate any decision with sound planning reasons only to those proposals.

The Planning Officer informed Members that since the report was published, a further objection had been received from the Authority’s Ecologist regarding the impact the works would have on the known bat roost.   Further discussions with the Ecologist had taken place and they agreed that works could go ahead subject to planning conditions if consent were granted. The Officer  then went on to present the report and outlined the reasons for refusal as detailed in the report.

The following spoke under the public participation at meetings scheme:

·         Beth Fenna, PDNPA Building Surveyor – Applicant

·         Hannah Turner – PDNPA Head of Assets and Enterprise – Applicant

Members acknowledged that the cruck barn and hayloft at North Lees were the most important buildings the Authority had within the National Park with the highest  conservation objectives, and that the roof timbers were in a bad state of disrepair so it was important that the works were done to preserve the buildings. However,  there was concern as to the appropriateness of using a modern membrane rather than a traditional method such as “torching”.

Members noted that the Conservation Officer  strongly supported the re-roofing and repairs to the barn, however, they had raised serious concerns to the provision of a modern membrane, which they felt would have a negative impact and be visually intrusive on the listed building’s special architectural and historic interest.

Members expressed concern about the conflicting information presented to them regarding the effects and lifespan of both methods.  Members did not consider they could proceed to make a sound decision without further information to clarify these issues.

A motion to refuse the application was moved but not seconded.

A motion to defer the application to allow the applicants to engage further with officers and consider bringing forward a joint application with development proposals for future use noting that in the mealtime this would require urgent mitigation works to protect the historic fabric of the roof structure, was moved, seconded, put to the vote and carried.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the application be DEFERRED  to enable the applicant to engage further with officers and consider bringing forward a joint application with development proposal for potential futures use(s), but in the meantime make provision for urgent works to protect the historic roof structure form further damage.