Barn conversion to dwelling at Barn Adj To Windmill Cottage, London

What was proposed

The application proposed converting the existing barn into one dwelling, with roof alterations, extensions, landscaping, parking, storage and an electric vehicle charger.

“Proposal: Conversion of the existing barn into a single dwelling house. Associated works to main roof including new ridgeline, eaves and new roof lights. Changes to fenestration. Single storey rear extension. Demolition and construction of the existing side extensions to east and west. Associated landscaping / refuse/recycling / cycle storage and car parking with electrical vehicle charging point. (Amended description)”

Officer report

The site and building

The barn is a Grade II listed building in a rural Green Belt setting, near a listed windmill, pond, cottage and protected trees.

“The application site contains a barn set within the site which also contains the main residential dwelling known as Windmill House. The site is set on the northeastern side of Brickfield Lane, in High Barnet. The proposal property relates to the existing single storey barn only. The building is located to the northwest of the proposal site. The Windmill is set to the east, with a pond set to the west on the adjacent land. Windmill Cottage is set to the south east.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the development’s design and residential-related features would harm Green Belt openness and conflict with planning policies.

“AND the Committee grants delegated authority to the Service Director – Planning and Building Control to make any minor alterations, additions or deletions to the recommended conditions/obligations or reasons for refusal as set out in this report and addendum provided this authority shall be exercised after consultation with the Chair (or in their absence the Vice-Chair) of the Committee (who may request that such alterations, additions or deletions be first approved by the…”

“The proposed development by reason of its design and paraphernalia associated with the use of the site would result in an inappropriate form of development which would harm the openness of the Green Belt.”

Officer report

Officers’ assessment

Officers considered the conversion and listed-building works acceptable overall, but found boundary treatment, parking, enclosures and other residential features harmful to Green Belt openness.

“Whilst the proposed extension are not considered to impact the openness of the Green Belt, the additional paraphernalia associated with the residential use of the site, such as formalisation of boundaries, additional enclosures for refuse and cycle storage, parking of cars, any further hardstanding or potential boundary walls, including children's play area/equipment, garden furniture and elements that are not capable of being conditioned but likely to introduce some…”

“No details of boundary treatment have been provided. At present the application proposes an open garden with the main site. However, a site plan has been provided with a red line indicating the sites boundaries. The LPA are led to believe that the site in question is in different ownership, having been sold to the son of the owners of the main house.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Five neighbouring occupiers supported the proposal, while consultees’ views changed after amendments, with later heritage, ecology, highways and waste responses raising no objection subject to conditions.

“External consultees: Conservation and Heritage: Objections to proposal as submitted Historic England (Archaeology): No objections subject to conditions Historic England (Historic Buildings and Areas): Objections to proposal as submitted Historic Buildings and Place: Objection to proposal as submitted Ecology: Objections to proposal as submitted Drainage: No comments, due to size of development.”

“Conservation and Heritage: No objections, subject to conditions Historic England - No in principle objections, however they have concerns regarding the internal modifications Refuse and Recycling - No objections Ecology - No objections, subject to condition Highways - No objections subject to condition…”

Officer report

Who spoke

A supporter and the applicant addressed the committee in support of the application, followed by questions from members to the speakers and officers.

Members’ debate and vote

Members rejected the officer recommendation unanimously and supported approval after agreeing that the development would not significantly harm Green Belt openness.

“The Chair moved to vote on the Officer’s recommendation to refuse the application.”

“Councillor Richard Barnes proposed a motion to approve the application due to the committee members agreeing they did not consider the proposed development would have significant harm on the openness of the green belt. Councillor Kamal Gurung seconded the motion. The votes were as follows:”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The application was approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.

“RESOLVED for the application to be approved subject to conditions in the report.”

Minutes