| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | It is considered that where agricultural buildings are converted, they should not be extended, as this leads to wider impact on the form and character of the building in the landscape and reflects that rural conversion of buildings with intrinsic character that is worth preserving is justified, allowing residential development therefore in less sustainable locations but this without the need for extension of the built form. The proposal is contrary therefore to saved policy HOU11(C) where the building should be suitable for conversion without extensive alteration or extension and Emergent policy H7 where conditions are stated as being required to avoid future extensions, curtilage buildings or other domestic paraphernalia undermining heritage or landscape justification for conversion. |
| 2. | The proposal has an adverse impact on outlook and light amenity for the property to the north (Barn 3), where the bedroom and kitchen windows adjacent to the party wall line will be impacted by the wall at 90 degrees to it extending out for 10m, thus conflicting with Core Strategy Policy CS9 where amenity for existing and proposed occupants should be secured. |
| 3. | The proposal creates harm to the designated heritage asset where the grade 1 listed barn, the changes proposed alter the historic meaning of the agricultural group and the barns themselves as un-designated, heritage assets are affected by the extension and its impact on the wider landscape and understanding of the asset. This is considered contrary to paragraph 193 of the National Planning Policy Framework where the significance of a Grade 1 asset carries great weight and paragraph 194, where any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset (from its alteration or from development within its setting), should require clear and convincing justification, and Core Strategy Policy CS10 where proposals should preserve or enhance assets, and where these extensions are considered to do neither. |
