Agenda item

PL/2021/04659 (planning permission) and PL/2021/05084 (listed building consent).

Demolition of outbuilding and erection of a single storey extension to the grade II listed Sharcott Manor.

Public Participation

Mrs Claire Lloyd, applicant, spoke in support of the application.

Mr James Lloyd spoke in support of the application.

Mr Nigel Keen, agent, spoke in support of the application.

Nick Clark, Senior Planning Officer presented a report which recommended that planning permission be refused for the demolition of an outbuilding and erection of a single storey extension to the grade II listed Sharcott Manor. (Planning permission and listed building consent).

Attention was drawn to a late objection which had been received. The objection and pictures sent in to accompany it had been circulated to all committee members and could be seen on the planning portal. It was clarified that the pictures were taken in 2017.

Key considerations were whether the demolition of the outbuilding would harm the heritage significance of the grade II listed Sharcott Manor and whether the replacement single storey extension would harm the heritage significance of the grade II listed Sharcott Manor.

The planning officer summarised the key legislative and policy issues that related to the applications. It was stated that for grade II listed buildings Wiltshire Council should have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historical interest which it possessed.

The officer summarised relevant paragraphs of the National Planning and Policy Framework (NPPF). Paragraphs 193, 194, 195 and 196 stated that great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation and that harm should not be caused to the asset. If harm (whether substantial or not) was to be caused, there should be clear justification for it and any harm should be outweighed by public benefit. 

Attention was also drawn to Wiltshire Core Strategy (WCS) Core Policies 57 and 58. Which in summary stated that proposals should protect, conserve and where possible enhance the historic environment and that proposals require a high quality of design.

Slides of the main building, its grounds and the outbuilding were shown to the meeting along with plans of the proposal. The outbuilding used to contain staff quarters and laundry facilities.

The officer stated that the outbuilding was in a poor state of repair and had long term maintenance issues which pre-dated the current ownership. Structural engineers employed by the applicants had concluded that the building was beyond economic repair. However, costings were not provided and the building was repairable.

The proposed extension had a similar footprint to the outbuilding but was connected to the main house and would be built using brick and rusty steel cladding with a green roof.

In regards to the two main considerations before the committee, the officer stated that demolition of the outbuilding would cause harm to the heritage significance of the grade II listed building, there was no public benefit to outweigh the harm caused and the proposal was contrary to local and national planning policies. The officer also stated that the proposed extension was not of a high quality design and would fail to conserve the significance of the listed building, causing harm. Therefore, the officer recommendation was to refuse planning permission.

There were no technical questions from Members regarding the proposal.

Members of the public then had the opportunity to present their views, as detailed above.

The unitary division member, Cllr Jerry Kunkler, spoke in support of the applications. Cllr Kunkler was worried by the state of repair of the building and felt that the applicants wanted to put a lot of work and care into bringing the building back up to modern standards in a sympathetic way. Cllr Kunkler felt that if Wiltshire Council did not work with the applicants the buildings could fall into a worse state of disrepair. He felt that the design would blend in with the listed building and urged the committee to consider approving the application.

The Chairman proposed a motion to refuse planning permission and listed building consent as per the officer recommendation at page 28 of the agenda. This was seconded by Cllr Stuart Wheeler.

A debate followed where points including the following were raised. The parish council and no objectors had attended the meeting to air any objections to the proposal. The applicants were very invested in the building and wanted to invest time, money and effort into the building, bringing it back into use.

Other Members felt that size, form and general design of the replacement extension was not of a high quality design and did not enhance the original building or its setting, there was also no perceived public benefit.

At the conclusion of the debate it was

Resolved:

That planning permission and listed building consent be refused for the following reasons.

REASONS:

1.    As an ancillary/ service building to Sharcott Manor during the late Victorian / Edwardian eras the outbuilding contributes to the heritage significance of the listed building. Its demolition would result in harm to the heritage significance of the listed building and the proposal thus fails to conserve the significance of the designated heritage asset, as it results in total loss of the structure, contrary to Wiltshire Core Strategy Core Policy 57 and Core Policy 58.  In the absence of clear and convincing justification for the demolition and without public benefits to outweigh the harm the proposal is also contrary to National Planning Policy Framework paragraphs 193 to 195.

2.    The form, materials and size of the proposed extension lacks the architectural character and detail seen in the manor house and would contrast negatively with the host building as a bulky and incongruous addition that would fail to protect and conserve the heritage significance of the listed building contrary to Wiltshire Core Strategy Core Policy 57 and Core Policy 58. The level of harm would be ‘less than substantial’ and in the absence of clear justification and public benefits sufficient to outweigh the harm, the extension would be contrary to paragraphs 193, 194 and 196 of the National Planning Policy Framework and to the  statutory requirement to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the listed building.