Agenda item

Member had visited the site on the previous day.

The officer reported that the applicant proposed to add a single roof light to the new roof.

There were no members of the public present to make representations to the committee, however supporting comments received from Cllr Mrs G Heath in her capacity as a Member of the Authority and County Councillor were read out by the Chair at her request (page 42 of the document pack).

Members debated in particular the impact of the proposals upon the landscape. It was noted that the Authority’s policy RT2 could support a barn conversion but only where there was no adverse impact on the landscape. The officer view was that despite their sympathetic design, the proposals would spoil the landscape because of the isolated location of the barn and the size of the proposed curtilage, therefore the principle of conversion on this site was not acceptable.

Neither an ecological nor an archaeological report had been submitted by the applicant but officers had not pressed for these in view of the recommendation for refusal.

Members considered the application in terms of farm diversification but noted that this was not mentioned in the planning application. The officer confirmed that the applicant had not promoted his proposals as farm diversification in his planning application.

A motion to defer the application pending further discussions with the applicant was moved and seconded, but fell in the vote.

The Director of Conservation and Planning suggested that the application could either be withdrawn by the applicant or refused with a steer from Members to make a clear link to farm diversification and to address ecological, archaeological and landscape impact issues.

The recommendation for refusal was moved, seconded, voted upon and carried.

RESOLVED:

That the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1.    The conversion of the barn to a holiday let would result in domestication of the site that would have an unacceptable landscape impact on the open countryside. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies RT2, LC3, LC4 and LC8.

2.    Insufficient information has been provided to enable an assessment of the likely impacts on protected bats and birds. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy LC18 and the guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

3.    Insufficient information has been provided to identify and mitigate the potential to harm archaeological heritage assets. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy L3 and the guidance provided at paragraph 128 of the NPPF.