Agenda item

Conversion of barn and byre to dwelling, including extension and demolition works, formation of access and erection of garage (part retrospective)

Conversion of barn and byre to dwelling, including extension and demolition works, formation of access and erection of garage (part retrospective) at West Barn, Mickleton

The Development Control Manager (Crook & Barnard Castle) presented a report on the above application; the written report was supplemented by a visual presentation which included photographs of the site.It was noted that a site visit had taken place earlier that day. She noted that 22 letters of support had been received in respect of the Listed Building application.

The Committee was addressed by Mr K Walton (applicant); he explained the background to the current situation and emphasised that he had been under the impression that the applications made in 2008, and subsequently approved, had been properly implemented and conditions complied with. He felt that the current situation had arisen because he had dealt with three different conservation officers since submitting the original applications and it seemed that no written record had been kept of meetings held with the first two. As a consequence he had firmly believed that permission had been granted to use Bradstone tiles on the roof of the new extension but the current conservation officer was of the opinion that the use of such artificial materials was completely inappropriate. Mr Walton outlined the rationale behind using the Bradstone tiles and referred to another listed building in Mickleton where an extension had been roofed in the same materials, apparently without challenge from the local authority. He referred to the support he had received from the parish council and concluded by emphasising that he had acted in good faith and asked the Committee to approve the roofing materials for the extension, which was not listed.

The Senior Conservation Officer explained his position with regard to the roofing materials – he did not consider that this matter was just about aesthetics but a fundamental matter of good practice and core principles.  With regard to the other listed building in Mickleton referred to by the applicant, the approved plans stated that Teesdale stone should be used and, as the wrong materials had been used, this matter would now be pursued by planning officers; any other buildings which had utilised artificial materials were not listed buildings and/or were outside the conservation area.  

Councillor R Bell (local member) spoke in support of the applicant; he referred to the detrimental effect of applicants having to deal with a succession of different conservation officers and emphasised that the applicant was not to blame for this situation. He did not believe that the use of slates would be appropriate in this case – the Bradstone tiles were far superior. He mentioned the support offered to the applicant by the parish council and referred to other properties in the village which were similarly roofed. He noted that the extension was not listed and urged members to approve this application as it would not be detrimental to the listed building or to the conservation area generally.

Whilst members agreed that the Council had a duty of care towards listed buildings and conservation areas and appreciated the arguments put forward by officers, they also felt that the applicant was not to blame for the situation that he found himself in and that the materials that had been used would not be detrimental to either the listed building or the conservation area in this case.  

Councillor Wilkinson moved that the application be granted; he was seconded by Councillor Burn.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission and listed building consent be granted on the following grounds:

In this instance the use of an artificial stone for the roof covering of the extension would not have a detrimental impact upon the historic character of the grade II listed building contrary to policies BENV1 and BENV3 of the Local Plan, Planning Policy Statement 5, Policy HE9 and Policy 32 of the Regional Spatial Strategy for the North East 2021.