Agenda item

Proposal: Carrying out of internal and external alterations, including replacement front porch, two-storey side extension, first floor rear extension and conversion of end store to form an annex.

(A single joint presentation was provided for 19/03252/HOU and 19/03253/LBC.)

The Graduate Case Officer (Planning) presented the application and noted the key considerations. He highlighted the planning history, and noted that since the permission granted in 2017 part of the site was now in separate ownership. He updated members that Ecology had requested, if members were minded to approve the application, that two conditions but in place for the 2017 permission regarding the protection of swallows, also be put in place for this current application. The property was a Listed Building and there was also an associated application for Listed Building consent.

The applicant addressed members and explained that the ground floor footprint of the farm was double that of the first floor, and he wanted to bring more balance to the house and make the bedrooms a more useable size. Contrary to what had been said in the officer presentation he was not intending to remove a staircase. He noted a section of the cross passageway had already been destroyed by a previous owner and he was looking to re-instate. The building had already been altered many times over the years and he wanted to remove existing modern additions and replace with more in keeping features. The site was currently quite dilapidated, and the changes proposed would make the property more functional for his family. A robust heritage statement had been commissioned prior to submission and given to the architect to consider in the design of the proposal. There were no objections from the local community and the application was unanimously supported by the parish council.

Ward member, Councillor Gerard Tucker, noted the parish council had been pleased to hear that the property may get a second chance. He noted the property was in the heart of the village situated almost between the two hamlets making up Pitney. The site would soon be surrounded by new development already permitted, and so the setting of the listed building would change with the development. The proposal, if approved, would ensure the Somerset long-house would be retained for future generations. The applicant was wishing to replace a reconstituted stone gable end  wall with one made of natural stone, and walls would be dry lined to protect what was behind. He felt the proposal met with policy and there were enormous benefits that outweighed any concerns.

During a brief discussion, several members expressed their support for the proposal whilst also acknowledging the importance of preserving historical buildings. Other members felt the proposal was sympathetic development and on balance acceptable. There was a general view that the existing staircase should be retained.

In response to some comments made during the discussion, the Specialist (Development Control) clarified that the main concern of officers was the loss of linear form of the building. He also noted the submitted plans indicated that a staircase woud be removed and replaced with a cupboard

At the request of the Chairman, the applicant was invited to clarify the issue regarding removal of the staircase. The applicant noted he was happy to keep the existing staircase, but it would be boarded up and so not functional. His intention was to add a new staircase.elsewhere in the building.

It was proposed to approve the application, contrary to the officer recommendation, as it was considered the proposal would not be harmful to the character of the historic building. In response to the comments made, the Specialist (Development Control) suggested wording for a justification and that conditions be required for:

time limit, approved plans, ancillary use of the annex, materials, parking, ecology / swallows and retention of the staircase.

A vote was taken on the proposal to approve the application, subject to the conditions as suggested, and this was carried unanimously in favour.

(Voting: Unanimous)