Agenda item

Application P20/S3379/FUL

Conversion of outbuilding to a dwelling utilising existing access, with associated landscaping and parking (As per amended plans and supporting information submitted 3 November 2020) (As per additional and amended drainage details submitted 8 December 2020).

Application P21/S2504/LB

Change of Use of existing outbuilding (Sui Generis) to provide one dwelling (Use Class C3) utilising existing access, with associated landscaping and parking (as per amended plans showing the removal all rooflights and the relocation of the internal doorway which connects the main barn to the smaller outbuilding, submitted 9 August 2021), (as per amended plans to include the provision of two times small domestic outbuildings and patio area, submitted 6 September 2021), (as per flood resilience strategy and updated heritage statement submitted 23 November 2021).

The committee considered planning applications P20/S3379/FUL and P21/S2504/LB in respect of Three Horseshoes, Chinnor Road, Towersey, namely;

Application P20/S3379/FUL; conversion of outbuilding to a dwelling utilising existing access, with associated landscaping and parking (as per amended plans and supporting information submitted 3 November 2020) (as per additional and amended drainage details submitted 8 December 2020)

Application P21/S2504/LB; change of use of existing outbuilding (Sui Generis) to provide one dwelling (Use Class C3) utilising existing access, with associated landscaping and parking (as per amended plans showing the removal all rooflights and the relocation of the internal doorway which connects the main barn to the smaller outbuilding, submitted 9 August 2021), (as per amended plans to include the provision of two times small domestic outbuildings and patio area, submitted 6 September 2021), (as per flood resilience strategy and updated heritage statement submitted 23 November 2021).

Consultations, representations, policy and guidance, and the site’s planning history were detailed in the officer’s report, which formed part of the agenda pack for the meeting.

The planning officer reported that this application had been brought before the committee at the development manager’s discretion owing the level of public interest that it had attracted and in consultation with Councillor Ian White, a local ward member.

The planning officer reported that the application site was located within the built-up limits of Towersey and inside the Towersey conservation area. The committee noted that the site did not lie inside any flood zones, but due to the flat topography across the site and the presence of an existing watercourse, it was at significant risk of flooding from surface water (fluvial flooding). The committee noted slide photographs of the site under recent flood conditions. The planning officer reported that the risk of flooding remained low.

The planning officer reported that the application was in keeping with the local plan and acceptable in principle. The barn had existing and historic uses but in the planning officers’ view this evidence did not justify a listing as a community asset. The public house was protected under policy CF 1 (safeguarding community facilities) of the local plan.  The development would not affect the ongoing operation of the public house and planning officers considered that the development would not result in loss of community facilities, particularly because of the existence of the nearby well-equipped Towersey Memorial Hall.  Two thirds of the existing garden area would be retained in the development and the green open space to the front of the plot would be largely retained. Also, the employment use of the site would be unaffected. The planning officer also reported that a housing unit would be welcome in this area of high demand. The vitality and viability of the area would not be affected by the proposal.  The conservation officer considered that all mitigation possible to convert this barn to residential use had been undertaken and that this scheme represented the least harmful means of converting the barn to residential use. Additionally, the officer considered that the removal of the modern non-hydroscopic building materials across the building and their replacement with appropriate heritage materials, the addition of appropriate flood resilience measures, which would ensure the protection of the listed building, were all satisfactory. On balance, the conservation mitigation outweighed the low level of less than substantial harm to the listed building.

Councillor Mark Davis, a representative of Towersey Parish Council, spoke objecting to the application.

Mr. Jeremy Clark, a local resident, spoke objecting to the application.

Councillor Ian White, a local ward councillor, spoke objecting to the application.

Mr. Jake Russell, the agent, spoke in support of the application.

A statement by Mr Chris Neale was sent to the committee by the democratic services officer prior to the meeting.

A statement by Mr. Hugh Riley was sent to the committee by the democratic services officer prior to the meeting.

A statement by Mr. Tim Shreeve was sent to the committee by the democratic services officer prior to the meeting.

The committee considered that the local interest in this application was a persuasive signifier of its importance to residents. In the committee’s view, the proposal would represent the loss of a valued community asset and would be inappropriate to the local area.  Also, the setting of a residential unit at the centre of public house facilities was inappropriate. For these reasons the committee was not minded to grant planning permission or permit listed building consent.

A motion moved and seconded, to refuse planning permission was declared carried on being put to the vote.

RESOLVED: to refuse planning permission for application P20/S3379/FUL for the following reasons:

1.    Loss of a valued community facility.

2.    Affect upon the viability and vitality of the public house.

3.    Harm upon a local heritage asset is not outweighed by the perceived public benefit.

4.    The development would be detrimental to future residents.

A motion moved and seconded, to refuse listed building consent was declared carried on being put to the vote.

RESOLVED: to refuse listed building consent for application P21/S2504/LB for the following reasons:

1.    The proposed works would represent harm to a local heritage asset.