Rural business units at Mill Farm Hayes Lane, Barcombe

What was proposed

The application proposed changing redundant farm buildings into 15 flexible Class E and B8 commercial units with parking and hardstanding.

“4 Development Proposed 4.1 The proposal seeks the change of use of a group of existing redundant agricultural buildings to a mixed-use comprising Class E (commercial, business and service) and Class B8 (storage and distribution).”

“In total, the scheme would deliver 15 new units within the existing buildings, of varying sizes, aimed at supporting small scale and startup businesses. The proposal also includes internal reconfiguration of the buildings to create individual units, together with external alterations including the installation of new openings, roller shutter doors and personnel access doors, and the partial infilling of elevations using appropriate materials.”

Officer report

The site

The site is a rural farmyard outside a settlement boundary, reached from Hayes Lane, near several heritage assets and an archaeological notification area.

“3 Site Description 3.1 The application site relates to Mill Farm which is located on the north side of Hayes Lane in Barcombe. It comprises a group of existing agricultural buildings arranged around a farmyard setting. The buildings are of a utilitarian agricultural form and are set within areas of hardstanding, with the wider site bounded by farmland and open countryside.”

“The site itself is not listed, nor is it located within a Conservation Area. However, there are several heritage assets located along Hayes Lane and Barcombe Mills Road. The site forms part of the wider rural setting in which these heritage assets are experienced.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because economic and reuse benefits were considered to outweigh limited impacts, including less than substantial heritage harm.

“In heritage terms, the proposal would result in LESS THAN SUBSTANTIAL HARM to the setting of designated heritage assets, arising primarily from increased activity and vehicle movements along the access route. In accordance with the NPPF, this ‘less than substantial harm’ must be given GREAT NEGATIVE WEIGHT.”

“The proposal gives rise to ‘less than substantial’ harm to heritage assets, to which great weight is attributed, together with highways and other impacts of limited negative weight. These harms are weighed against the benefits of the proposal, including the reuse of existing buildings, support for rural economic growth and provision of flexible employment space, which collectively attract an appropriate level of positive weight.”

Officer report

What consultees said

The Parish Council and Conservation Officer objected, while highways, ecology, archaeology, drainage and contamination consultees raised no objection subject to conditions.

“Officer comment - The comments of the Lead Local Flood Authority are noted. The application is supported by a Flood Risk Assessment and the Environment Agency, as the relevant statutory consultee in respect of fluvial flooding, raises no objection subject to conditions. Flood risk and drainage matters are considered further in Section 8.40 onwards and are considered acceptable subject to conditions.”

“Officer comment - The absence of objection from the Environment Agency is noted and carries significant weight. The recommended conditions relating to contamination and drainage are accepted and incorporated within the recommendation. Subject to these controls, the proposal is considered acceptable in respect of flood risk and land contamination.”

Officer report

What residents said

Twenty objections, three support comments and two neutral comments were received, covering traffic, flooding, amenity, rural character, ecology and sustainability.

“7 Other Representations 7.1 There were 25 representations in total, with 20 objections, 3 support comments and 2 neutral comments. Objectors cited the below reasons in their comments:”

“Character and appearance Impact on rural character of the hamlet Perception of industrialisation of a rural area…”

Officer report

Who spoke

The committee heard from the Parish Council, three neighbours, the agent, the applicant and the ward councillor.

The committee’s decision

The committee resolved to refuse the application because transport activity would harm residential amenity and the proposal would cause unacceptable rural and heritage harm.

“1) Amenity. The proposal would, by reason of associated transport activity, together with the constraints of the local highway network, have an adverse impact upon the amenity of residential occupiers in the vicinity of the site.”

“2) Heritage. The proposal would result in increased activity, traffic movements, servicing and commercial operations along Hayes Lane, causing harm to the rural character of the area and less than substantial harm to the setting and significance of nearby designated heritage assets, including listed buildings.”

Minutes