Agenda item

Change of use of former farm buildings into 6no. accessible dwellings. Demolition of 2no. redundant barns along with construction of ancillary buildings to provide garaging and entrance porches.

Barnhill Farm, Guyzance, Morpeth, Northumberland NE65 9AG

J. Sharp – Planning Officer, introduced the application with the aid of a power-point presentation.

W. Byatt addressed the committee speaking in objection to this application. His comments for objection included the following:

·       The Environment and Design Team had concluded that this proposal would preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area, but their conclusion was flawed because their basic premise is wrong.

·       Guyzance had its own distinctive and special atmosphere, not mirrored elsewhere in South Northumberland. The residents believed that sandwiching six new dwellings in between the hamlet and the hall would destroy it

·       Six houses with 18 bedrooms created a 21^st century Hamlet, and there could be no thought that this would enhance the vitality of the local community, as commended in the NPPF, because this was a second hamlet, was along a drive and behind an electronically controlled gate.

·       On 26 January 2021 the applicant told the residents that the new dwellings would be used as holiday lets, this would be unsustainable in a hamlet with no services, surrounded by narrow lanes.

·       The objector asked for a condition be included if approval was given for the new dwellings to be for residential use only and not to be used as holiday cottages.

·       The hamlet’s main access route was a long lane in a poor state of repair, and in places single track.

·       The applicant’s agent said that “the applicant intends that the hamlet and estate will be safeguarded through residential development” however there was another application to build new cottages on the small pasture in the hamlet.

Councillor S. Ingleby of Acklington Parish Council spoke in objection to this application. His comments included the following:

·       The conservation officer report was incorrect in stating that Guyzance hall was the fundamental reason for the conservation area. The conservation area put the village street and the hamlet as the core settlement.

·       The houses would be on private land, behind electric gates and would have little scope for interaction within the existing community.

·       There was concern for the proposed development of the long barn, it would not enhance the character of the barn but change it detrimentally.

·       Severe humanistic impact and a reason for refusal under the NPPF, due to lack of suitable paths for those with mobility issues.

P. Elder addressed the committee speaking in support of this application. His comments included the following:

·       He agreed with the Officer’s recommendation for the Committee.

·       He emphasised the importance of the estate as a whole which was a challenge to run and had previously been supported by agriculture and a new way of creating a sustainable was needed to be found.

·       Their clients long-term aim was to create an estate including a “green” hydro-power station which was currently under construction.

·       The existing building was a traditional u-shaped barn and hay barn, it was proposed to convert these existing buildings into dwellings, repairing and bringing these back into use and he quoted the comments from the Building Conservation Officer

·       The proposed housing had been specifically designed for older people and people with mobility issues, with parking areas suitable for wheelchair users and accessible internal layouts.

·       There was a significant lack of suitable housing within the areas and the proposed development went some way to fulfilling this need.

·       The currently population of the village was around 19. However, this should be seen in historical context – based on the census data of 1811, the population of the area was 186.

In response to questions from members, the following information was provided:

·       The reuse of redundant buildings in sustainable locations was acceptable in policy terms in regards to NPPF

·       There was no policy in place to enforce certain types of housing, therefore the applicant was free to allow holiday lets in these buildings.

·       The horseshoe barn was reasonably solid, did have slates missing from the roof however was capable of conversion. There was a condition in the report that the applicant must reclaim and reuse slates. If the applicant was not able to convert the barns, then a new application would have to be submitted.

·       The condition of the roads would be a separate highways management issue and not part of the planning application of conversion of the buildings.

Councillor Hill arrived at the meeting at 3.35pm as questions from the members took place, therefore did not take part in the discussion, or vote on this application.


Councillor Watson discussed the lack of support from the surrounding areas and the highways report.  Councillor Watson proposed to refuse this application on the grounds that it was in an unsustainable location, it would have an effect on highways and the effect on the conservation area.  For clarification the reasons for refusal were provided as: 

·       Unsustainable location as travel does not prioritise walkways or cycleways 

·       Harm on the conservation area

·       Unacceptable impact on the local highway

This was seconded by Councillor Pattison.

Councillor Seymour supported the application and mentioned that it was good for Northumberland’s “green” innovative, due to the reuse of the barn.

Councillor Swinbank spoke around the concern to refuse under the unsustainable location in relation to carbon emissions through car traffic, as the housing units were being targeted at older people who would not be walking or cycling to facilities.

A vote was taken on the proposal to refuse the application for the reasons above as follows: - FOR 6; AGAINST 6; ABSTENTIONS 0.

The chair had the casting vote and voted against the proposal to refuse as set out by Councillor Watson.

The proposal failed and it was opened up to the floor for another proposal.

Councillor Castle proposed to accept the officer recommendation which was seconded by Councillor Seymore.

A vote was taken on the proposal to approve the application with the conditions as outlined in the report and additional conditions and the lateral undertaking to secure the Coastal Mitigation Service as outlined in the officer’s report as follows: - FOR 6; AGAINST 6; ABSTENTIONS 0. 

The Chair of Planning had the casting vote and voted in favour of the proposal to approve the application.

RESOLVED that this application be GRANTED subject to planning conditions and the applicant entering into a Unilateral Undertaking to secure a financial contribution towards the Council’s Coastal Mitigation Service (£3,690)

The Chair proposed a comfort break for members at this point and the meeting recommenced at 4.20 pm