Cart shed conversion and annexe at Farm Cottage & Old House, Wolverton

“24/00675/FUL: Conversion of existing cart shed to habitable accommodation, ancillary to Farm Cottage and erection of single storey link extension. Demolition of existing garage and erection of new home office/utility/annexe at Old House.”

“This part of the proposed development would result in less than substantial harm as a result of the total loss of the curtilage listed building. Heritage assets are irreplaceable, and any harm or loss requires “clear and convincing justification” and the loss of a grade II listed building “should be exceptional” (NPPF paragraph 213). The application does not provide such evidence, and no exceptional case has been made for the loss of the garage / store building.”

“The part of the proposal would conflict with Policy EM11 of the Local Plan, which seeks to preserve or enhance the quality of the borough's heritage assets, Policy K17 of the Neighbourhood Plan, which requires applications to clearly demonstrate that any harm to heritage assets is justified by the provision of public benefit that could not otherwise be delivered, the principles set out in the Heritage SPD (2019), in particular principles LB01, LB02, SHA01, SHA02, and…”

“As noted within the Historic Environment Team’s comments, the heritage statement asserts that the significance of the garage/store lies in its historic functional relationship with the main house, its construction, its simple, functional form, and its group value as part of the wider site and farmstead; this assessment is agreed with.”

“On this basis, it is considered that clear and convincing justification for the demolition of the curtilage listed garage/store (coach house) has not been provided, which is required by paragraph 213 of the NPPF, thus the Historic Environment Team maintain an objection to the proposed demolition.”

“The choice is between attempting repairs and rebuilding, re-using the existing materials. Having visited the site, I saw that significant work would be needed beyond straightforward repairs to make the building useable. In any case, the architect has concerns that if repairs are attempted then the building may well fall. Rebuilding, however, would enable the building to be a useful functional asset.” Historic Environment Initial comments – Objections raised to both proposals…”

“Final comments – The cart shed proposal is now acceptable on balance following further amendments. An objection is maintained to the demolition of the curtilage listed garage / store. There would not be sufficient public benefits to the proposals to outweigh the harm resulting from the total loss of this building. 8 iii Biodiversity/ Ecology Officer…”

“The Committee discussed the proposed application which concentrated on whether the heritage asset could be repaired and retained rather than demolished.”

“Members believed that they had insufficient information to determine the proposal and agreed to defer the application.”

“RESOLVED that: the application be DEFERRED to seek further information in relation to the structural report on the existing garage to demonstrate whether it can be repaired and retained.”