Agenda item

RESOLVED: That application 20/00643/LBC be GRANTED Listed Building Consent subject to the reasons and conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Audio Recording – 3 hours 20 minutes.

N.B The presentations, debate and consideration of Items 13 and 14 are recorded here at Minute 147.

The Conservation Officer presented the report in respect of application 20/00643/LBC supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans along with the following update:

·                The description of the proposal should be amended to omit reference to the single storey extension to front (east side) of West Stables.

·                The application has been amended by drawing nos. 11F, 12F, 13E, 14F, 15D, 16D, 17B, 18G, 19E, 20D and 22B received on 16 December 2020 and amplified by drawing nos. REF-MNP-WSC-SK-S-4011 Rev P1 and MBS-280 East Stables and MBS-280 West Stables received on 21 January 2021.

The following Members asked questions:

·                Councillor David Levett

In response to questions the Conservation Officer advised that the buildings at risk register categorised sites according to their condition and state of occupancy; if a property was vacant and in fair condition it would be considered vulnerable; if vacant and in poor condition it is ‘at risk.’ According to structural assessments this was in fair condition and as are considered ‘vulnerable’ and if left unoccupied and unmaintained could fall in to a higher ‘at risk’ category.

The Development and Conservation Manager presented the report in respect of application 20/00642/FP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

The Chair invited Mr Hunter Peace to address the Committee.

Mr Hunter Peace thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee and gave a presentation including:

·                He objected to the proposals;

·                He had no objection to the conversion of existing buildings on the plot and the conversion of all existing buildings would triple the available floor space on the site;

·                The locale was uniquely unspoilt by modern building development and was one of the few truly rural locations in Hertfordshire;

·                The site was of high heritage value;

·                The owners had already erected two stable buildings in front of the listed barn house and further applications were expected;

·                Demolition work had been carried out and no enforcement action by the Council had been taken; the buildings were not at imminent risk of collapse as had been claimed;

·                There was a statutory duty to protect heritage assets and to avoid harm but there was no evidence these properties would fall in to the at risk category without this development;

·                The proposed cladding of the property and the link buildings between existing structures were out of keeping with the area;

·                No landscaping recommendations had been made.

The Chair invited Councillor John Bishop to address the Committee:

·                There was a statutory duty to protect heritage assets;

·                This proposal represented overdevelopment of the site;

·                It was not returning the site to its optimal use;

·                There were grounds to refuse these applications on the basis that there was no public benefit to compensate for the harm caused to a listed building; the officer had identified one benefit based on an unfounded assumption only.

The Chair invited Mr Perry Jones to address the Committee.

Mr Perry Jones thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee and gave a presentation including:

·                He was an agent of the applicant speaking in support of the applications;

·                This item had been called in to the Committee earlier in the year by Councillor John Bishop prior to any of the works undertaken to prevent the building from collapsing;

·                The site had been purchased two years ago and the applicants had worked very closely with planning and conservation officers to present these applications;

·                The Grade-II listed buildings had been unoccupied and fallen in to disrepair and required restoration;

·                The proposal would turn them in to a functional family home and preserve their heritage value;

·                The proposals were fully funded by the applicants;

·                Works that had been undertaken on site were done so under guidance and recently checked by NHDC enforcement officers;

·                The applicants were conservationists and wanted to work to safeguard the environment and habitats on the site and were working with Herts Ecology on a rewilding project.

In response to issues raised by speakers the Conservation Officer advised:

·                Historic England was not a statutory consultee for Grade-II listed buildings such as these and had expressed no view on the proposals;

·                With regard to Paragraph 196 of the NPPF, if there is less than substantial harm to the heritage asset then this is not just weighed against public benefits but also against seeking an optimum viable use. While residential development may not have been the absolute optimal use it was the optimal viable use and the use for which an application had been made;

·                Photographic evidence demonstrated that while the condition of the building is fair there were elements which were a cause for concern;

·                To refer to works undertaken on the site as ‘extensive demolition’ would be incorrect. Works to two areas of floor and the removal of tiles from the main barn roof to facilitate repairs to the roof, are not regarded as ‘demolition’;

·                Although CPRE referred to Rye End Farmhouse as a C15 yeoman farmhouse, the barn/stable range is much later and could not be described as yeomanry outbuildings;

·                Whilst the original use of the buildings may be their optimal use, these uses were not viable.

The following Members asked questions and took part in the debate:

·                Councillor David Levett

·                Councillor Sue Ngwala

·                Councillor Michael Muir

Issues raised during the debate included:

·                Conservation vs Preservation

·                Method of heating

Councillor David Levett proposed, Councillor Sue Ngwala seconded and it was:

RESOLVED: That application 20/00643/LBC be GRANTED Listed Building Consent subject to the reasons and conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.