Listed building alterations at Church Farm Creamery Lane Parwich

“LISTED BUILDING CONSENT APPLICATION – CONSERVATION REPAIRS AND ALTERATIONS TO CHURCH FARM. NEW ATTACHED GREENHOUSE ON THE EAST ELEVATION TO REPLACE MODERN OUTBUILDINGS. INTEGRATION OF SOLAR PANELS AND AIR SOURCE HEAT PUMP. NEW OUTBUILDINGS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING SEPRATE GARAGE - (NP/DDD/1124/1292) SC”

“The application seeks Listed Building Consent for the erection of a single storey gable extension and a series of repairs and alterations to Church Farm, Parwich, a Grade II listed detached property.”

“Church Farm is a detached grade II listed building, sited towards the western edge of the village and within the Conservation Area. The site consists of an C18 farmhouse with C19 extensions to the side and rear and a detached garage and outbuilding.”

“Pedestrian and vehicular access is directly from the public highway. A Public Right of Way (PRoW) runs parallel with the property on its western boundary. The nearest residential dwellings are ‘Court House’ adjacent to the eastern boundary of the property and ‘Spenage’ which is sited around 20m to the north.”

“2019 – Enforcement case Ref: 19/0148 - Dismantling of southern boundary wall and rebuilt like for like. Inspected Feb 2025, works found to be satisfactory.”

“2006 - Withdrawn LBC application for the installation of a satellite dish.”

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

“By virtue of the inappropriate, incongruous style of the glasshouse extension to the historic former farmhouse, visual clutter associated with the tool shed, oil tank and air-source heat pump and the loss of internal historic fabric and the historic planform, the scheme would cause undue harm to the overall character, appearance and heritage significance of the listed building. In this case, the harm identified would not be outweighed by public benefits.”

“Overall, some compromise has been accepted by the CO, however, there are still concerns remaining that still constitute a clear objection. In this case, the cumulative impact of the erection of the glasshouse/greenhouse, installation of the ground floor partition wall, the relocation of the thrawls and trough, construction of the overly large outbuilding to house a tool shed/oil heater and unnecessary additional backup heat source.”

“Policy DMC5 and paragraph 215 of the NPPF are clear that when a development proposal would lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset (listed buildings and Conservation Area are such assets), this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.”

“Parish Council - “...The Council supported the application’s sensitive treatment of historic features and measures to reduce the building’s environmental impact. The high quality of the plans submitted was appreciated.”

“PDNPA Cultural Heritage – “...Overall, whilst many of the proposals would have a neutral or positive impact on the significance of the house, some of the proposals would cause less than substantial harm that is unlikely to be outweighed by any public benefits” – (See Heritage section of report below).”

“Item 8 was presented and discussed at the same time as Item 7 but the votes were taken separately with the vote for Item 7 being taken first. See minute number 122/25 for details of the discussion.”

“Members requested that should this application be approved then an additional condition be included to cover the removal and re-instatement of the thrawl and sink.”

“A motion to approve the application, contrary to officer recommendation, with the conditions detailed below was proposed, seconded, put to the vote and carried.”

“That the application be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:”