Agenda item

Relocation of 2 Barns for agricultural storage, workshops and estate office with solar roof panels, new access track, hardstanding and garaging and change of use small agricultural field to garden.

Land West of Barnhill Farm Cottages, Guyzance, Northumberland

Relocation of 2 Barns for agricultural storage, workshops and estate office with solar roof panels, new access track, hardstanding and garaging and change of use small agricultural field to garden.
Land West of Barnhill Farm Cottages, Guyzance, Northumberland.

V. Cartmell - Planning Area Manager, introduced the application with a PowerPoint presentation and gave the following updates:

·       Condition 2 - drawing no. 1100 Rev P09 would be substituted with drawing no. 1100 Rev P10.

·       Condition 10 – Change the wording from “being prior to the commencement of development” to “prior to occupation”.

·        Condition 11 – Change wording to “prior to commencement of development, details of the disposal of surface water from the development through the construction phase shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the approved details shall be implemented in full and maintained throughout the construction phase.”

·       Condition 12 – Change wording to “prior to first occupation of the development hereby approved, details of the adoption and maintained of all SuDS features shall be submitted to and agreed by the Local Planning Authority. A maintenance schedule and log, which includes details for all SuDS features for the lifetime of development shall be composed within and be implemented forthwith in perpetuity.”

W. Byatt spoke in objection to the application and gave the following information to the committee:

·       The application description of relocation of two barns was misleading, when it would be two large new storage sheds of a height suitable for modern farm machinery and the two additional buildings would be built on a ridge and furrow pasture.

·       The conservation officer’s analysis of the damage was thorough and unequivocal.

·       The planning officer had told the applicants agent “I am anticipating flooding, highways, scale and design, archelogy, and principle to be reasons for refusal in addition to conservation and ecology. Even with the consultees concerns addressed, conservation and principle would be difficult to overcome.”

·       The report explained that there would be a net increase of 2.5 jobs and secure the future of farming on the estate, as the estate was already farmed on, those jobs would be transferred rather than created.

·       The committee was required to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area.

Councillor Ingleby spoke on behalf of Acklinton Parish Council and gave the committee the following information:

·       It was the firm view of the Parish Council that it could not justify the damage that was identified so clearly by the Council’s Conservation Officer and Historic England.

·       The proposal would fail to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area.

·       The character and appearance of Guyzance Conservation Area was formed by its setting within open fields that surrounded the village to the North and East.

·       The ridge and furrow earthworks on the site contributed to the significance of the conservation area, and the settlement boundary was established to specifically include them.

·       If the proposal was approved, two large modern storage sheds would be constructed at the eastern end of the village, of a height to house modern farm machinery, and an extensive hard standing, together with other buildings.

·       Historic England had described the development as “unsympathetic in its form, scale and detail”.

·       The planning report acknowledged that the appearance of the sheds had an unacceptable harmful impact on the character and appearance of the immediate and wider area and landscape.

·       The buildings in the immediate area were characterised by their small-scale and low density, the proposal did not respect this firm and would have a greater visual impact.

·       The Conservation Officer was reconsulted about the computer-generated images which showed the huge impact the proposed development would have from the east of the village.

·       The parish council could not see how the damage would in any way be justified by the creation of 2.5 jobs, mostly in agriculture.

·       There was no description in the paperwork of what the jobs consisted of, what new work would result from the application, or whether they would be part-time or full-time roles.

·       The public benefit was minimal, but the damage to the conservation area would be significant and permanent. The Parish Council believed that it was unacceptable.

H. Shipley spoke in support of the application and gave the committee the following information:

·       The application would be part of a larger project. The centrepiece of the project would be the construction of a hydroelectric plant on the river Coquet, requiring an investment of over £2,000,000, which would produce green energy for the entire estate and beyond, unique to England.

·       All objections to the planning application had been addressed and the officers had recommended the application for approval.

·       The public benefits were in the report under paragraph 7.33, the applicant considered that there would be further public benefits, including offering schools an opportunity to use the green energy and hydroelectric plant as a learning resource.

·       Paragraph 202 in the NPPF, required harm to be weighed against the optimum viable use as part of the public benefit. In hand farming on the estate would be the optimum and was the original viable use for the farm. 

·       The farm buildings were required to secure the viability of the farm.

Following members questions to the planning officer, the following information was provided:

·       The Built Heritage and Design Officer could not recognise a genuine public benefit to the application.

·       The hydroelectric plant was not tied in with the scheme and could not be taken into consideration as a public benefit.

Councillor Thorne proposed to accept the officer’s recommendation with the updated conditions, stating that he knew Guyzance well however the stone buildings from the Victorian era were incapable of housing modern farming methods and there was a business case which should be supported. This was seconded by Councillor Mather.

Councillor Hill expressed that the committee should take the Conservation Officer’s views seriously and that she was against the application, this was agreed by Councillor Hunter and Councillor Swinbank who also had concerns around the comments made by Historic England and the public benefit of 2.5 jobs.

A vote was taken as follows: FOR; 4, AGAINST; 3, ABSTAIN; 1 

RESOLVED that the application be GRANTED subject to the conditions in the report and the updated conditions of:

·       Condition 2 - drawing no. 1100 Rev P09 would be substituted with drawing no. 1100 Rev P10.

·       Condition 10 – Change the wording from “being prior to the commencement of development” to “prior to occupation”.

·        Condition 11 – Change wording to “prior to commencement of development, details of the disposal of surface water from the development through the construction phase shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the approved details shall be implemented in full and maintained throughout the construction phase.”

·       Condition 12 – Change wording to “prior to first occupation of the development hereby approved, details of the adoption and maintained of all SuDS features shall be submitted to and agreed by the Local Planning Authority. A maintenance schedule and log, which includes details for all SuDS features for the lifetime of development shall be composed within and be implemented forthwith in perpetuity.”