Agenda item

Proposed change of use of the Long Barn to holiday accommodation, including new fenestration, rooflight's, an extension, internal alterations and refurbishment of a granary.

Public Participation

Diana Berry spoke in objection to the application

Georgia Le Sueur spoke in objection to the application

Matthew Haley (Agent) spoke in support of the application

The Committee had attended a site visit earlier in the day.

The Planning Officer, Joe Richardson, presented the report, which set out the merits of the proposal against the policies of the development plan and other material considerations and to consider the recommendation that the application be approved.

The application was for a Proposed change of use of the Long Barn to holiday

accommodation, including new fenestration, rooflight's, an extension, internal alterations and refurbishment of a granary.

The issues in the case were noted as:

·       Principle of development;

·       Design, scale and impact to the listed building;

·       Impact to the amenity of the area and the special landscape area;

·       Ecological Impact and Archaeological Impact;

·       Parking/Highways Impact;

·       Other matters

It was noted that a master plan was requested to show the overall potential for the site.

The application site is adjacent to Sedgehill House. To soften the impact of the proposed changes, boundary treatments were proposed, with the planting of hedgerow and 1.8m fence.

Members then had the opportunity to ask technical question of the Officer, where there were none.

Members of the public as detailed above, then had the opportunity to speak on the application.

Some of the points raised included that the application site and that of the neighbours was originally one farm, which was broken up in 1931. The owners of Sedgehill House had lived there for 20 years. 

The application site and that of the neighbouring dwelling were on split levels. Noise from the development site could impact on the amenity of the neighbouring property, Sedgehill House. 

New planting would not create a suitable screen until it was fully established.

The Master Plan indicated further development. There had been a previous application in 2021 for 5 dwellings.

The proximity of the development site to the neigbouring property meant that talking could be heard in Sedgehill House, emanating from the milking barns.

Permissions on the Grade 2 listed house were in place. Works to complete the courtyard were planned. Following initial approval, the access had been moved further away. Parking was planned outside of long barn.

The barn would be converted into 2 units, so to preserve some natural features.

There was some contention regarding the boundary due to the differing height levels.

The planned planting on the boundary of hedges would hide the fence and create a strong boundary screen. Advance nursery stock could be used.

Barn D at the top of the site obscured part of the house. The development was a sensitive and attractive low-key conversion of a heritage asset, which would improve the courtyard as a whole.

Division Member, Cllr Bridget Wayman, who was on the Committee, noted that Sedgehill was a small and rural parish with scattered dwellings and no obvious centre. The site was accessed by a single track lane.

The development site, Berry Brook Farm had been sold to the current owner by the owners of Sedgehill House.

The barn conversion would produce 2 bedrooms in each loft space with Velux windows. Cllr Wayman felt that it was perverse that the Conservation Officer had supported the windows.

Sedgehill House was on higher ground, despite the proposed screening the Velux windows would be significantly higher, thus giving views into Sedgehill House from the proposed development.

With the planned 3 double bedrooms in each property, that could mean up to 12 people occupying the spaces.

The Master Plan includes a new wiggly driveway, whereas the original entrance to a farmyard would have been a straight entrance, a point not picked up by the Conservation Officer.

The rear elevation was equally important as the integrity of the farmyard would be lost.

Barn F would be replaced in future to create a courtyard development with barn I.

On a previous application it included new dormer windows to the front elevation of the farmhouse.

The floorplan for barn B was explained and conservation elements pointed out, which had not been questioned by the Conservation Officer.

If the application was to be approved, then the Velux windows should be moved to the front.

Cllr Wayman then moved the motion of Refusal, against Officer recommendation, for the reasons of overdevelopment CP48, detriment to the amenity of the adjoining owner CP48, poor access to local services CP48, CP57, design of the alterations to the barn and CP58 – historic environment.

This was seconded by Cllr George Jeans.

The Committee discussed the application, the main points included the scale of the proposed development in terms of overdevelopment of the site. The rationale of the extent of the holiday let.

The positioning of the Velux windows on the barn and the subsequent overlooking which would occur on to Sedgehill House.

The Master Plan and the site as a whole in terms of further plans for development.

Noise issue associated with the use of multiple holiday lets and the impact on the neighbouring dwelling.

The options for conversion, including single floor, which would omit the requirement for roof lights.

Additional boundary treatments which could include a higher level of screening.

Conditions which could be applied to limit the opening or glass obscurity of the roof windows, with level 5 obscurity.

The Committee discussed the option to defer the application to allow time for a revised plan, which could include roof lights on the opposite side and amendments to address the issues raised. The Committee noted that a motion for refusal had been made and seconded. Cllr Wayman did not support a withdrawal of her motion to allow for a motion of deferral. Therefore, the Committee moved forward with the motion of refusal which was on the table.

The Committee agreed that preservation of listed and historic buildings was favourable rather than to allowing them to go to ruin, however the scale and design of the proposed development would negatively impact the neighbouring dwelling.

After discussion, the Committee voted on the motion of Refusal for the reasons provided by Cllr Wayman. It was,

Resolved:

That Application PL/2022/03968 – Berrybrook Farm, Sedgehill be refused against Officer recommendation, for the following reasons:

1.     The existing barn known as Long Barn and granary building are set within the farmyard complex ofBerrybrookFarm, agrade IIlisted building,and areconsidered tobe curtilagelisted. Thesite is not located within a settlement boundary and is therefore considered to be within the countryside for the purposes of the development plan.

The works to the listed barn include the sub-division of the building, a rear extension, the conversionof itsroof includingnew openings,and creationof twoseparate amenityspaces tothe rear, with the associated use of the building as two holiday lets. The proposal is considered to be overdevelopment of the site, which detrimentally impacts on the amenity of the surrounding area, the character of the listed barn itself and the setting of the heritage asset. Consequently, the proposal is considered to be contrary to Core Policies CP48 (Supporting Rural Life), CP57 (Ensuring high quality design and place shaping) and CP58 (Ensuring the conservation of the historic environment) of the Wiltshire Core Strategy and the requirements of the NPPF.

With regards to the second application, PL/2022/04157, Cllr Wayman moved the motion of refusal. This was seconded by Cllr Jeans.

It was;

Resolved:

That Application PL/2022/04157 - Berrybrook Farm, Sedgehill be refused against Officer recommendation, for the following reasons:

1.     The existing barn known as Long Barn and granary building are set within the farmyard complex of Berrybrook Farm, a grade II listed building, and are considered to be curtilage listed. The site is not located within a settlement boundary and is therefore considered to be within the countryside for the purposes of the development plan.

The works to the listed barn include the sub-division of the building, a rear extension, the conversion of its roof including new openings, and creation of two separate amenity spaces to the rear, with the associated use of the building as two holiday lets. The proposal is considered to be overdevelopment of the site, which detrimentally impacts on the character of the curtilage listed barn and the setting of the grade II listed Berrybrook Farm.

Consequently, the proposal is considered to be contrary to Core Policy CP58 (Ensuring the conservation of the historic environment) of the Wiltshire Core Strategy, Sections 16 and 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and the requirements of the NPPF.