Barn conversion and extensions at Barns At Old Farm Horsehead Drove Lott's Bridge, Three Holes

What was proposed

The application proposed converting a traditional barn, adding mostly single-storey extensions, and continuing temporary occupation of a caravan, shed and decking.

“SELF-BUILD: Proposed barn conversion and extensions and continued temporary occupation of a mobile home/caravan plus shed and decking. Location:”

“The proposal seeks to demolish the open store, convert the existing traditional barn and construct additional accommodation in the form of mostly single storey extensions.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site was in open countryside and flood zones, reached by an approximately 800-metre agricultural track, and included a traditional barn and machinery building.

“The application site lies in open fenland approx. 3km from Three Holes, 2.4km from Lakes End and 3.6km from Nordelph. It is accessed via an agricultural track (approx. 800m long) leading off the junction of Horsehead Drove, Cock Fen Road and Flint House Drove – all single width carriageways, some considerable distance from classified roads.”

“It lies within an area classed as countryside and within Flood Zone 2 and mostly within Flood Zone 3a of the Council-adopted Strategic Flood Risk Assessment. It contains a traditional brick-built barn with some rustic character/merit, and a more contemporary corrugated sheet metal open fronted machinery building with a curved roofline.”

Officer report

Earlier advice and current occupation

Pre-application advice was given for a barn conversion and extensions, while the caravan had been occupied since August 2025.

“Retrospective permission is also sought for the continued temporary occupation of a 3 bedroomed caravan, plus shed and decking sited to the south of the pond. This has been occupied since August 2025.”

“This statement summarises the key matters relevant to the proposed full planning application for the proposed self-build barn conversion and extensions and continued temporary occupation of a mobile home/caravan plus shed and decking.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the large extensions harmed the rural character and the unrestricted dwelling would have amenity problems beside an operational agricultural building.

“The proposed dwelling also lies adjacent to a substantial grain store/agricultural building. The applicant has clarified that this is not a dwelling to be occupied in connection with, or tied to, the existing farm/rural enterprise. For an unrelated open market dwelling as proposed, this close to an operational agricultural building, it would create adverse implications on residential amenity, given its unrestricted use potentially at unsociable hours plus odour and vermin.”

“The proposed dwelling lies adjacent to a substantial grain store/agricultural building. The applicant has clarified that this is not a dwelling to be occupied in connection with, or tied to, the existing farm/rural enterprise. For an unrelated open market dwelling as…”

Officer report

What consultees said

The parish council supported the proposal, while the highway authority raised concerns about its remote location and limited access to services; other consultees raised no objection subject to conditions.

“Parish Council: SUPPORT - Whilst there is some concern over the scale of the development, and that the existing barn will be consumed within the extensions, the Planning Group is of the view that the proposal will not impact on anyone due to its remote location and predominantly single storey height. It is noted that the appropriate EPS Licence must be applied for (especially with regards to the owl roost) & granted before work commences.”

“Local Highway Authority: NO OBJECTION - The proposed development site is however remote from schooling; town centre shopping; health provision and has restricted employment opportunities with limited scope for improving access by foot and public transport. The distance from service centre provision precludes any realistic opportunity of encouraging a modal shift away from the private car towards public transport.”

Officer report

Residents’ views

No representations had been received when the report was prepared.

“None received at the time of writing this report.”

Officer report

Who spoke

An individual speaking in support addressed the committee under the public speaking protocol.

What members debated

Members discussed the need for self-build housing, the positive reuse of the barn and the lack of harm to the countryside.

“Committee Members discussed the application, citing the need for self- build, the positive reuse of the barn, and the lack of harm to the countryside.”

“The Planning Control Manager clarified that what she was hearing from the Committee was that the applicant was in control of the barn adjacent to the site, they were giving weight to the re-use of the redundant barn, there was no harm regarding design and the fact that it would be a custom and self-build project would therefore be acceptable with policies LP18, LP21, LP35 and LP31 of the Local Plan.”

Minutes

The committee vote

The proposal to approve the application was carried by 12 votes to 1, with 1 abstention.

“The Democratic Services Officer then carried out a roll call on the proposal to approve the application subject to conditions to be agreed following consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair and a Section 106 Agreement to secure the custom and self-build development and, after having been put to the vote, was carried (12 votes for, 1 against and 1 abstention).”

Minutes

The decision

The committee approved the application against the officer recommendation, subject to agreed conditions and a legal agreement securing the self-build development.

“RESOLVED: That the application be approved, contrary to recommendation, subject to conditions to be agreed following consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair and completion of a Section 106 Agreement to secure the self-build development, for the following reasons:”

“The applicant was in control of the barn adjacent to the site, and weight was attached to the re-use of the redundant barn, there was no harm regarding design and the fact that it would be a custom and self-build project would therefore be acceptable in accordance with the NPPF and policies LP18, LP21, LP35 and LP31 of the Local Plan.”

Minutes