Agenda item

The applicant Kim Swithinbank spoke in favour of the application.

The Conservation Officer introduced the application for Listed Building Consent on a Grade-II Listed farmhouse building, a retrospective application to include replacement of bedroom timber floors with plywood, replacement of living room, sitting room and dining room floors and hearths, alterations to master bedroom partitions, installation of freestanding bath on raised platform, alterations to kitchen window, removal of second floor bedroom ceiling, and reinstatement of recently blocked up gate in the garden boundary wall. 

The officer detailed some of the planning history of the property, explaining that in 2012 it had come under new ownership however some of the work undertaken by the owners had not been in accordance with permission granted, for which retrospective approval was now sought.  Pictures were shown to the Committee demonstrating the works done in contravention to consent. These works were considered to give a false impression of the history of the building and result in the unjustified loss of historic fabric. It was highlighted that the applicant had not given justification as to why much of the contravening work had been necessary or why alternative materials, from existing or agreed under the approved scheme, had been used. It was noted that some of the works undertaken, although beyond the permission granted, could be deemed acceptable, given information secured by the site inspection, however other elements were considered wholly unacceptable. The officer explained the recommendation for refusal, by reason of the harm caused to the historic fabric of the building.

There were no technical questions.

Public speakers, as listed above, were then invited to make representations by the Chairman.

Cllr Toby Sturgis spoke on behalf of the local member, Baroness Jane Scott of Bybrook. The councillor considered the matter as a balance between benefit and harm, noting that some good work had been undertaken to what had been a building in a very poor condition, but agreeing that it had been done in contravention of planning permissions and no justification had been given for this.

Cllr Toby Sturgis moved the officer’s recommendation to refuse the application which was seconded by Cllr Peter Hutton.

During the debate that followed, members considered that, whilst some of the works were of good quality, they had been against the advice and permissions given by the officers and without sufficiently robust and detailed supporting historical  and structural/condition survey evidence to justify doing so. It was noted that in particular the plywood floor was not suitable for the listed building and should be removed and that if permission was granted it would cover all of the works, including the plywood. On balance, members considered that to approve the application would set a dangerous precedent for all listed buildings in Wiltshire and noted that if the application was refused, the applicant could begin to negotiations again on the works undertaken to resolve the situation appropriately, including the provision of necessary supporting evidence and information.

RESOLVED:

That Listed Building Consent be REFUSED for the following reason:

The works, by reason of its design, size and location fails to conserve the character and special interest of the heritage asset and the setting of adjacent heritage assets. This harm is not otherwise justified by any public benefit so the proposals are therefore contrary to section 16(2) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and paragraphs 131, 132, 134 and 207 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Core Policy 58 of the adopted Wiltshire Core Strategy.