Barn conversion to dwelling at Charmydown Barn, Swainswick, Bath

What was proposed

The application sought consent for internal and external alterations, an extension and associated landscaping to convert the barn into a dwelling.

“This application seeks listed building consent for internal and external alterations to the barn to facilitate conversion to a dwelling (use class C3). The application is part retrospective, stemming from an enforcement investigation following works deviating from earlier consents for conversion.”

Officer report

The site and its heritage

The barn is a curtilage listed building within a historic farmstead, the Green Belt and the Cotswolds National Landscape.

“The adjacent Farmhouse (Charmydown Farmhouse) is on the National Heritage List for England at Grade II level. Despite separate ownership, the barn forms part of the historic curtilage and is therefore a curtilage listed building.”

“The site is accessed via a private lane from Swainswick Lane, east of the A46 Gloucester Road. It is in the Green Belt and the Cotswolds National Landscape (formerly Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty). The site is 1.6km outside the Bath World Heritage Site, but is located in the landscape setting of Bath area under policy NE2A.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers found less than substantial heritage harm but concluded that conservation, design, biodiversity and employment benefits justified granting consent with conditions.

“There is also conservation benefit associated with conversion of the barn to a dwelling, delivering restoration and preservation of the historic building as well as a long-term custodian for the site. This benefit is acknowledged not to be exclusive of the current application and applied to earlier 2013 consent.”

“Overall, it is assessed that the combined benefits including employment in construction, minor improvements to the design, biodiversity net gain and ultimate delivery of a dwelling securing conservation of the historic barn, are public benefits sufficient to outweigh less than substantial harm caused to the heritage asset. The development therefore accords with heritage and conservation legislation and policy.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A parish representative and a local residents’ representative objected, while the agent and architect supported the applications.

The committee debate

Members weighed the planning breaches, heritage and ecological harm against the underground extension, proposed mitigation and the need to regularise the works.

“In response to Members’ questions, it was confirmed: 1. A retrospective application could not be treated differently and this application needed to be judged on its merits. As part of the enforcement process officers had put a stop to the works on site. The submission of the application was a way to regularise the unauthorised works. 2.”

“Cllr Halsall sympathised with neighbours but hoped permitting the application would regularise the works on the site and acknowledged it wasn’t appropriate to refuse the application on the basis of it being retrospective. He stated that although it was larger than usual in a green belt setting, a lot of the extension was underground and not visible and noted that any change in use would need a further planning application.”

Minutes

The vote and decision

The committee voted five to three to grant listed building consent subject to the conditions in the report.

“On voting for the motion, it was CARRIED (5 in favour and 3 against).”

“RESOLVED that listed building consent be granted subject to the conditions set out in the report.”

Minutes