One dwelling in existing walls at Land Adjacent Grove Cottage Shute Cribhouse, Shute

“WardNewbridges Reference 25/2529/FUL ApplicantWill Hallett LocationLand Adjacent Grove Cottage Shute Cribhouse ProposalFull planning application for the construction of 1 no. dwelling, within existing walls, and means of access and associated works.”

“Site Description and Proposal: The application site comprises the remaining stone walls of a former mid-Victorian agricultural building located in the south-western corner of an open agricultural field on the western edge of Shute. The former structure had an L-shaped plan enclosing a small yard to the west; all structural timbers and the roof have been lost, leaving only the outer stone walls standing.”

“25/1191/FUL hedgerows, with groups of trees present to the immediate north, south-west and south-east, forming part of the wider rural landscape. The site is accessed via an existing vehicular entrance on the south-east boundary, from which a track leads to the ruin. The site lies in open countryside, outside any defined settlement boundary, and is not within a conservation area.”

“- Ref: 24/2290/FUL - Full planning application for the construction of 1 no. dwelling, within existing walls, and means of access and associated works – Refused – 23/07/2025 – Dismissed at Appeal (Ref: 6001134) – 12/01/2026.”

“- Ref: 19/1425/FUL – Creation of agricultural access and track – Approved – 23/08/2019.”

“Historic England objects to the proposal on heritage grounds. They advise that the site forms part of the open, minimally developed rural landscape that contributes to the setting and significance of Shute Gatehouse (Grade I). They note that the ruined barn currently on the site is recessive in appearance and contributes positively to the time-depth and agricultural character of the wider historic estate.”

“Historic England acknowledge that the revised design reduces visual intrusion compared with the previously refused scheme (24/2290/FUL). However, they consider that the principle of introducing residential development, with its associated activity, domestic paraphernalia, vehicle movements and light spill, would still erode the open setting that contributes to the appreciation of the Gatehouse and its formal approach.”

“No material changes from the previously refused scheme (Ref: 24/2290/FUL). Considers the earlier officer report, reasons for refusal, and appeal decision (Ref. 6001134) to remain fully applicable. Cites adverse heritage impacts, conflict with countryside policy, and harm to the character and appearance of the area as reasons for refusal.”

“Raises no objection in principle but requests safeguards due to proximity to Grove Cottage. Seeks: – Minimisation and removal of construction materials/waste. – Enhanced northern boundary screening with higher hedging and additional native trees, with planting undertaken before major works; protection of existing trees. – Avoidance of unnecessary external lighting to protect dark skies. – Restriction of construction hours to normal working hours (not evenings/weekends).”

“Paragraph 84(b) supports development that represents the optimal viable use of a heritage asset, and paragraph 84(c) supports the re-use of redundant or disused buildings where this enhances their immediate setting. The previous Inspector found that the remains on this site have only low heritage significance and that a new dwelling would not represent the optimal viable use nor enhance the setting of the structure.”

“Design / Visual Impacts: The proposal introduces a new dwelling within the footprint of a ruined mid-Victorian structure in a visually open and rural landscape. Although positioned against the surviving stone walls, the new building would be a wholly modern, self-supporting structure whose form, massing and domestic appearance would read as a new residential insertion rather than a conversion of the existing ruin.”

“Refused in accordance with officer recommendation.”