Business extension and alterations at Whitley Elm Cottages, Rowington, Warwick

What was proposed

The application sought a single-storey extension for ancillary business space, changes to cottage windows and external landscaping works.

“Whitley Elm Cottages, Case Lane, Rowington, Warwick, CV35 7JE Single storey extension to provide ancillary space for existing business, changes to fenestration to viola cottage, associated works to external landscaping FOR MR D RUSSELL ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------”

“Single storey extension to provide ancillary space for existing business, changes to fenestration to viola cottage, associated works to external landscaping.”

Officer report

The site

The site is a converted Grade II listed barn containing holiday units and a dwelling, north of Case Lane within the Green Belt.

“The application relates to a detached Grade II listed converted barn which houses four self-contained holiday units and one additional dwelling. This 18th century property is positioned to the north of Case Lane and is washed over by Green Belt. The property does not benefit from Permitted development rights.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Earlier permissions covered barn conversions and alterations, while related applications for an extension and listed building consent were refused and dismissed on appeal.

“W/15/1767 & W/15/1768/LB - planning permission and listed building consent applications withdrawn for proposed extension to the southern elevation, installation of new doors and windows, replacement of the existing rooflights, installation of a stainless steel flue, reconstruction of the north and west sections of wall and alterations to parking.”

“W/23/1564 & W/23/1565/LB - Erection of a single storey extension to create ancillary accommodation for the existing business, amendments to fenestration and internal alterations. Conversion of existing ancillary space to enlarge existing dwelling. Planning permission and listed building consent refused and appeals dismissed.”

Officer report

Officers’ recommendation

Officers recommended refusal because the extension would cause significant less-than-substantial heritage harm that public benefits could not outweigh.

“The proposed extension is considered to undermine the integrity and character of the heritage asset introducing a large extension that is at odds with the historic linear form of the barns, in a position that would obscure views of the historic front elevation. It would therefore be considered that the proposed development would result in less than substantial harm to the significance of the heritage asset.”

“It is considered that this view is supported by the inspector in previous appeals APP/T3725/W/24/3348356 & APP/T3725/Y/24/3348358 who, when discussing the public benefit of the previous applications, stated: "However, it has not been demonstrated that these public benefits could not be achieved through an alternative scheme, thereby avoiding the harm identified to the heritage assets.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The parish council supported the proposal, the conservation officer objected, and other consultees raised no objection or proposed conditions.

“Rowington Parish Council: Support citing compliance with relevant planning legislation.”

“WCC Ecology: No objection subject to pre-commencement conditions in the event of an approval securing the submission of a Protected Species Method Statement and a Scheme for Bat Box. Biodiversity Net Gain legislation is covered by deemed condition and will be applied as an explanatory note.”

Officer report

Residents’ views

Supporters cited business improvements and rural economic benefits, while objectors raised concerns about heritage, Green Belt openness, noise, traffic and urbanisation.

“Extension would be a positive addition to the property and business, meeting more demanding guest expectations, • Decisions should support rural business growth and economic growth, • Improvements should be supported to keep business competitive and compliant with workplace regulations, • Proposed extension is sensitively designed to reinstate original footprint, • Proposed development would improve employee facilities to an acceptable standard, • Removal of domestic…”

“Extension would disrupt the existing run of the original barn, • The original size, material, or design of the barn wing is not clear. Not evident that the proposed extension would be sympathetic or reinstating an original design, • Increase in light pollution, • Additional noise, activity, traffic, and construction associated with the proposal will harm the peaceful enjoyment of nearby homes, • Additions would not increase number of rooms or increase employment - economic…”

Officer report

Who spoke

An objector, a supporter and a district councillor speaking in support addressed the committee.

The committee’s decision

The committee refused the application because the extension would harm the listed barn’s character and integrity, with no public benefits sufficient to outweigh that harm.

“PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES (Continued) Item 4 / Page 3 No. Reasons substantial harm to the significance of the heritage asset. No public benefits have been identified to outweigh this harm.”

“The application site comprises a converted former agricultural building that has largely retained its original agricultural character. In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the proposed extension disrupts the integrity of the original barn structure by adding a modern extension forward of the principal elevation, thereby altering the character of the site and detracting from the original barn form by overwhelming the core.”

Minutes