Agenda item

With the agreement of the Committee, Agent and Tom Charnock, Parish Councillor, agenda items 14 and 15 were considered together.

In respect of application numbered S/HOU/19/0492/RM (Erection of a two storey extension, North Farm Barn, South Side, 2A Trenchard Road, Swindon), and /LBC/19/0493/RM (Erection of a two storey extension, North Farm Barn, South Side, 2A Trenchard Road, Swindon) the Committee considered: -

          Name                                 Address/Organisation

          Howard Waters                   Agent

          Councillor Steve Weisinger  Ward Councillor    

          Tom Charnock                    Stanton Fitzwarren Parish Council

Councillors Alan Bishop, Steph Exell and Peter Watts spoke in respect of this application.

Submissions in support of the application can be broadly summarised as:

·       The application for a two storey extension would join the two existing buildings which were both Grade II Listed Buildings and would form an “L” shaped footprint.

·       Paragraph 1.96 of the NPPF states where there is less than substantial harm these should be weighed against the benefits and optimal use of the asset.

·       Initially there was one objection in principle however that has now been withdrawn as the applicant has agreed to provide screening for the neighbour and agreed for that to be put in as a condition of the development if it is approved this evening.  Highways have no objections to this application as it is an extension to a property.

·       The views of the Council’s Conservation Officer were considered to be negative by the applicant and his agent.

·       The barn had previously been converted to a residential property.

·       The proposed extension as a result of its design and siting, would result in a scheme that is of acceptable appearance, and which supports the Conservation Area and the setting of adjacent Listed Buildings.

·       There had been a recent barn conversion with a brand new property erected next to it which is on the main road, this proposed extension was not.

·       The application was supported unanimously by Stanton Fitzwarren Parish Council, which took great care in scrutinising planning applications and in protecting the local environment and village setting.

·       The application had been considered by the Parish Council on three separate occasions and accepted the applicant’s Heritage Statement as being a comprehensive document meeting all the statutory requirements.

·       The architect of the scheme was experienced in design work for Listed Buildings, well qualified and a member of the RIPA conservation register and a Governor of Wiltshire Historic Buildings Trust.

·       The scheme enjoyed a high level of local support.

·       Full plans had been submitted to the Local Planning Authority although all of these did not appear in the report.

·       The Heritage Report prepared by the architect had not been properly represented by officer comments and the report, the architect drew Members’ attention to the following: that the building was largely rebuilt when converted so it’s a Listed Building in name only, the conservation used materials on site and new materials from off-site, matching double roman clay tiles would be used in the extension, the extension was clearly lower than the existing barn to which the extension was attached, the extension was in line with good practice and Council policies, the extension would be largely out of view and facing into a courtyard, the extension would represent a gradual development of the existing buildings using traditional materials, and the application was high quality  using traditional materials and therefore would enhance the local area.

·       The only visual impact was from the bottom of a neighbour’s garden ad a simple course of planting had been agreed to mitigate this.

·       The applicant, who had need of an additional bedroom, had owned the property for a considerable time and he and his family used the village’s facilities and school.

·       The application would help enhance a quality home within the Borough and therefore be a public benefit.

Submissions opposing the application can be broadly summarised as:

·       The Council’s Conservation Officer had raised concerns relating to Designated Heritage Assets which did not enhance the buildings or setting and which needed to be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal or which would mitigate the harm to the Heritage Asset and whether the works proposed were the minimum required to ensure the continued use of the asset.

·       Paragraph 1.96 of the NPPF states where there is less than substantial harm these should be weighed against the benefits and optimal use of the asset.

·       The Local Plan sought to protect the character of the asset and local context and ensure the design and materials were appropriate for the significance and settings.

·       The proposed extension was taller than the existing barn and would hide features of the barn.

·       There were no benefits to the extension other than for the owner of the barn and no public benefits to outweigh the less than substantial harm caused to the barn and listed building.

·       The existing barns are characterised by their simple design reflecting the agricultural nature of the buildings and the proposed work would fail to preserve the buildings or features of historical or architectural interest which it possesses and is therefore inappropriate.

·       Too much of the Borough’s historical buildings were being lost to inappropriate development.

·       The NPPF described two forms of harm in respect of Listed Building Substantial Harm which referred to the demotion or near demolition of a Listed Building and Less than Substantial Harm which covered everything else and so Less than Substantial Harm should still be given appropriate weight when reaching a decision.

Resolved – (1) That application numbered S/HOU/19/0492/RM be refused for the following reasons:

1. The proposed scheme, as a result of the design, visual massing and siting, would result in an incongruous, prominent form of new development that has an unacceptable appearance which causes harm to the simple form and function and layout of the listed building which is key to its significance and how it is experienced within the setting of the listed farmhouse and the Conservation Area. The proposal would, therefore fail to preserve the traditional and agricultural local character and distinctiveness of the area and fails to make a positive contribution to the locality. Which is contrary to paragraph 127 of the NPPF and polices DE1 and EN10 of the Local Plan.

 2. The proposed development would result in less than substantial harm to the significance of the designated heritage asset (the grade II listed property). There are no public benefits of sufficient weight to override the harm caused. As such the proposed development is contrary to paragraph 196 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2018 (NPPF).

(2) That application numbered S/LBC/19/0493/RM be refused for the following reasons:

The proposed scheme, as a result of the design, visual massing and siting, would result in an incongruous, prominent form of new development that has an unacceptable appearance which causes harm to the simple form and function and layout of the listed building which is key to its significance and how it is experienced within the setting of the listed farmhouse and the Conservation Area. The proposal would, therefore fail to preserve the traditional and agricultural local character and distinctiveness of the area and fails to make a positive contribution to the locality. Which is contrary to paragraph 127 of the NPPF and polices DE1 and EN10 of the Local Plan.

The proposed development would result in less than substantial harm to the significance of the designated heritage asset (the grade II listed property). There are no public benefits of sufficient weight to override the harm caused. As such the proposed development is contrary to paragraph 196 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2018 (NPPF).