Barn conversion to dwelling at Cornfields Barn Cornfield Road Lyme Handley

The site

The traditional barn has gritstone walls, a slate roof, residential accommodation, former stabling, parking and unauthorised structures within its curtilage.

“Cornfield Barn is a traditional barn of 19 th Century construction or earlier. It has gritstone walls and slate roof and is considered to be a non-designated heritage asset.”

“The building is accessed from the highway to the north. It has a small curtilage to the south with parking to the east. A steel container and wooden pod are located to the south of the barn within the curtilage. Both of those structures are unauthorised.”

Officer report

Planning history

Earlier permissions covered holiday accommodation and stabling, while enforcement action and a lawful development certificate refusal followed permanent occupation and unauthorised structures.

“NP/M/0109/0055: Conversion of redundant shippon and barn to mixed use of stabling/storage and holiday accommodation – Approved 19 th March 2009.”

“The Lawful Development Certificate (LDC) application indicated the full time residential use of Cornfield Barn has become lawful, because the use commenced on 12 th April 2021 and has now surpassed four years. The applicant considers the dwelling at Cornfield Barn was subject to the four-year rule in terms of immunity as it represents a change of use to a dwelling.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Highways and rights of way officers raised no objection, while ecology officers accepted the surveys subject to bat, bird and nesting-season conditions.

“Cheshire East Council Highways: Pedestrian and vehicular access remain unchanged and sufficient space to accommodate car parking demand. No objection.”

“A number of planning conditions are recommended including provision of bat and bird features and a condition to manage works during nesting bird season.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The agent and the applicant spoke under the public participation scheme.

Committee discussion

Members heard that updated bat evidence removed that issue as a refusal reason, but the proposal remained contrary to policy with no market-dwelling exception.

“Since the last meeting an updated protected species survey had been completed and the report received, consequently the absence of a protected species survey no longer formed a reason for refusal. The Officer had discussed the possibility of the dwelling meeting a local need with the agent. The application still did not comply with policies and there was no exception in the policy for a market dwelling.”

“Since the report was published all Members of the Planning Committee along with the Planning Officer had received a letter from the Agent. The Authority Solicitor informed Members of an incorrect statement in the letter regarding the Lawful Development Certificate decision, that had the potential to be misleading to Members.”

Minutes

The vote

A motion to refuse was proposed, seconded and carried, with one member voting against it.

“A motion to refuse the application was proposed, seconded, put to the vote and carried.”

“K Potter voted against the motion and requested that this be recorded.”

Minutes

The decision

The application was refused because the market dwelling was not needed to conserve or enhance the non-designated heritage asset and met no other housing exception.

“That the application be REFUSED for the following reason:”

“The proposed market dwelling is not acceptable in principle as it is not required to achieve the conservation and / or enhancement of a non- designated heritage asset, and it does not meet any other exception for new housing in the National Park, contrary to Core Strategy Policy HC1, Development Management Policies DMC10 and DMH6: and National Planning Policy Framework.”

Minutes