Agenda item

The North Area Senior Planner presented the report and outlined the reasons for refusal of the proposal. At present there is an enforcement case which opened in November 2025 regarding the creation of an unauthorised track leading up to the barn. The Officer clarified that the applicant did not consider the track to be unauthorised as there had previously been a track present. It was noted there is a proposal to create an amenity area which was not outlined within the submitted plan at the time of application. This area would be East of the barn. Within the report there had not been a reference to the two king post trusses within the barn. Indication had been made within the structural report submitted that these would be retained.

The barn has been identified as a non-designated heritage.

Since the report was published, a response had been received from the planning agent, however due to timings, this had not been considered prior to committee.

The following spoke under the public participation at meetings scheme:

•         Charlotte Williamson – Applicant

•         Mark Bowen – Supporter

•         Caroline McIntyre – Supporter

The following points were noted:

•         The Officer confirmed in some cases tracks can be permitted development either for agricultural use or maintenance and alteration of private ways., however neither was considered to apply in this case.

•         Funding of up to 80% from Farming in Protected Landscapes (FiPL) could support the restoration of the barn to retain an agricultural and low-intensity use.

•         Reference to scheme for 20 homes in Low Bradfield and the impact of this on addressing local housing needs.

Some Members had visited the site and stopped to view the Water Treatment Works at Low Bradfield the previous day

Members discussed the following points:

•         Some Members sympathised with the applicant and what they were trying to achieve. The preservation of the landscape was discussed and concerns were voiced over the impact both the access road and dwelling would have on the landscape.

•         Comments on the open enforcement case against the track were made, Officers stated that a decision would be made whether or not that this would be pursued if the application was to be refused.

•         Members felt a number of the concerns raised in the Officer’s report could be addressed by conditions. Screening around the track and amenity area were suggested.

•         The materials used on the track were discussed, it was mentioned plastic and metal had been used to fill the track and Members felt damage to the surrounding ecology had already occurred.

•         Some Members had visited the site the day before and concluded the barn and track were very prominent from numerous viewpoints and it would be difficult to screen in an appropriate way. In addition, it was mentioned, there would be considerable land movement to create the proposed plans which would be highly visible.

•         Members felt from the report it was unclear as to why the barn was a non-designated heritage asset and if refused, what the future of the barn would be.

•         With there being an open enforcement case on the site with regards to the track, Members felt an application could not be accepted especially as suitable access was not possible at the time of the application.

•         Members made a point of the barn being in a condition that may require considerable work which would result in a near new build rather than a barn conversion.

A motion was made by the Members to defer the application to allow for further discussions.

A motion to defer the application was moved, seconded, put to the vote and lost.

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

RESOLVED:

That the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1.      The proposed dwelling does not achieve the conservation and / or enhancement of a non-designated heritage asset, and it does not meet any other exception for new housing in the National Park, contrary to Core Strategy Policy HC1 and Development Management Policy DMC10.

2.      The proposed development would result in unacceptable harm to the setting of a non-designated heritage asset and to the character and appearance of the landscape, and that harm is not outweighed as part of the planning balance. The development is contrary to Core Strategy Policies GSP1, GSP3, L1 and L3; Development Management Policies DMC3, DMC5, DMT3 and DMT8; the Conversions SPD and NPPF.

G Priestly declared they had received an email from a Joel Williamson on 15 July, which was not previously mentioned.

11:34am the meeting was adjourned and recommenced at 11:44am

11:40am – A Nash left the meeting

Item 9 was moved ahead of item 8.