Stable workshop and annexe at Conservators House, Horningsea

What was proposed

The application proposed replacing the stable block with a workshop and storage building and reconstructing the cottage as an annexe for visitors and carers.

“The proposal 3.1 The application seeks demolition and reconstruction of the existing stable block as a workshop and storage building and reconstruction of the demolished cottage as an annexe to accommodate visitors to Conservators House as well as carers. Environment Agency No objections 6.8 Ramblers Association No objections 6.9 Swaffham Internal Drainage Board No objections 6.10 Tree Officer No objections 6.11 Third Party Representations None Received 7.1”

Officer report

The site

The site is in the countryside and Green Belt, beside a public bridleway, mature trees and the Grade II listed Conservators House.

“Table 2 Consultee summary 2. Site description and context 2.1 The site is located outside of any designated village framework boundary and is within the countryside. The site is also within designated Green Belt land.”

“Conservators House is a designated Grade II listed building. There are outbuildings within its curtilage and due to their historic and ancillary relationship to Conservators House, are designated curtilage listed buildings. The stables building associated with this application is located within the north western corner of the site. A designated Public Bridleway runs alongside this boundary, in between the site and the River Cam.”

Officer report

Main planning issues

The main issues were the effect on the Green Belt and heritage assets associated with the listed house and curtilage building.

“Assessment 11.1 From the consultation responses and representations received and from an inspection of the site and the surroundings, the key issues are: - Green Belt harm - Impact upon heritage assets…”

“This report will assess the impact upon the designated heritage assts associated with the application only.”

Officer report

Why approval was advised

Approval was advised because the development would be ancillary, modest in scale, preserve Green Belt openness and avoid harmful heritage impacts, subject to conditions.

“The proposal involves the demolition and reconstruction of a curtilage listed building, which would resemble an ancillary structure to Conservators House. Given the historical context and the amount of existing development within the boundaries of the site, the proposal is not considered to undermine purposes a), b) or d) of the above purposes of Green Belt.”

“With reference to paragraph 155(c), the site is located within the countryside and outside of any village framework boundary. Paragraphs 110 and 115 of the NPPF seek to ensure that development promotes sustainable transport and that this is prioritised at an early stage, in order to promote healthy lifestyles and reduce environmental impacts.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The parish council had no comment, consultees raised no objections, and conditions were requested for trees, drainage, ecology and biodiversity.

“No conditions recommended Definitive Map Team (County Council) – No objections 6.4 Informatives are recommended regarding the retention and access of the adjacent public bridleway (No. 12) Drainage Officer – No objection 6.5 Conditions regarding foul water, surface water and compliance with measures set out within the submitted Flood Risk Assessment Ecology Officer – No objections 6.6 Original comments dated 17 th November 2025 raise no objections subject to conditions…”

“Following further review, the Ecology Officer has submitted updated comments (14 th January 2026) and has requested the mandatory 10% BNG to be provided due to the footprint of the proposed annex exceeding the 25m2 of non priority onsite habitat.”

Officer report

Public representations

No third-party representations, councillor comments or local group comments were received.

“A condition requesting a more detailed Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS) and Tree Protection Plan (TPP) is submitted to ensure the trees within the immediate locality are sufficiently protected. 7. Third party representations 7.1 No third party representations have been received.”

“Local Groups / Petition 9.1 No comments have been received from any Local Groups.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The Delivery Manager summarised the recommendation, and the Principal Planner answered a question about removing trees.

Committee discussion

A member asked about tree removal and was told the trees lacked statutory protection, were in poor condition and did not contribute to the area’s character.

“In response to a member’s question, the Principal Planner confirmed that a couple of trees were proposed to be removed, but these trees had no statutory protection, were in a poor condition and did not contribute to the character of the area.”

Minutes

The vote

The committee approved the application by a unanimous vote of nine members.

“By unanimous vote of 9, the Committee approved the application as per the officer recommendation subject to: • The planning conditions set out in the officer’s report.”

Minutes

The decision

The application was approved in line with the officer recommendation and subject to the conditions in the officer’s report.

“The Delivery Manager summarised the officer recommendation set out on p137 of the agenda for approval of the application subject to the conditions set out in the officer’s report.”

Minutes