Two residential dwellings at Winchcombe Farm, Upper Tysoe, Warwick

What was proposed

The application sought to change two buildings from residential holiday lets to two residential dwellings, without altering their layout or appearance.

“Application Ref. 25/00671/FUL Site Address: Winchcombe Farm, Shenington Road, Upper Tysoe CV35 0TH Description of Development: Change of use of 2no. buildings from residential holiday let usage to 2no. residential dwellings.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Earlier applications created holiday lets, while a 2023 application for residential use was refused before an appeal was allowed in 2024.

“APP/J3720/W/24/334 3301 Change of use of two buildings from residential Holiday Let usage to residential usage ancillary to the main building. No changes to internal or external layout or appearance Refused 07.03.2024”

“Refused 05.12.2023 20/02711/FUL Change of use of former nursery building and extension to form one bedroom holiday let. Granted 01.12.2020 19/00569/FUL Change of use of existing empty classrooms to 2 no. holidays lets. No changes to existing elevations. Granted 21.05.2019 17/03072/FUL Change of use of 3 existing classrooms to holiday lets. Granted 07.12.2017”

Officer report

Officers’ recommendation

Officers recommended approval because the newer neighbourhood plan supported conversion of rural buildings and the proposal was acceptable on key planning matters.

“In this instance, I consider that there is a conflict and therefore Policy H1 is the most applicable policy. Considering that Policy H1 stipulates that the conversion of rural buildings is deemed acceptable outside the BUAB, I am of the opinion that the conversion of two holiday lets to residential is acceptable in principle.”

“Conclusion on Matters of Principle The application site is located in the countryside and the proposed conversion of 2no. buildings to 2no. residential dwellings does not accord with the provisions of Policy AS.10 of the Core Strategy.”

Officer report

Main planning considerations

Officers found the proposal acceptable for landscape, heritage, residential amenity, highways, flooding, ecology and climate change, with a community infrastructure payment identified.

“In summary, I consider that the proposed change of use of the buildings is commensurate with the character of the immediate and wider surrounding area and respects its intrinsic landscape character values. As such, I do not consider that the development has a detrimental impact on the setting or openness of the Cotswolds National Landscape and the impact on the public realm is acceptable. Therefore, the proposal is in accordance with regard to…”

“Climate Change and Sustainable Construction Government policies in the NPPF require the planning system to support the transition to a low carbon future and shape places in ways that contribute to minimising vulnerability and improving resilience and the re-use of existing resources.”

Officer report

Objections and other comments

The ward member and parish council objected over countryside policy, materials, sustainability, employment use and precedent, while CPRE did not object.

“When use for holiday lets was granted, it was on condition that they would not be used for permanent residential occupation as this would represent an unsustainable form of development in accordance with Policies CS.1, CS.5, CS.9 and CS.10. • Given the open countryside location it is considered that the proposal does not comply with AS.10 and Tysoe NDP Housing Policy 1.”

“We do not believe enough evidence has been provided to suggest that the buildings could not be profitable for any employment use, so loss of employment premises would be inconsistent with Tysoe NDP Employment Policy 1 and CS.22 • We are also concerned with the harmful precedent that would be set if recently erected wooden buildings outside the BUAB were to gain full residential use.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The parish council chair and vice chair spoke to answer questions while objecting; the applicant and ward member also spoke.

The committee’s vote

A motion to grant permission in line with the recommendation was proposed and seconded, then agreed unanimously.

“Having considered the application and the representations made at the meeting, a Motion of GRANT, in accordance with the recommendation detailed in the report, was proposed by Councillor Parry and seconded by Councillor Scorer.”

Minutes

The decision

Planning application 25/00671/FUL was granted subject to the six conditions and one note set out in the recommendation.

“That Planning Application 25/00671/FUL be GRANTED subject to the following:”

“6 conditions contained in the report; and • 1 note contained in the report.”

Minutes