Conservation, repairs and alterations.

Conservation, repairs and alterations.

 

The Principal Planning Officer reported the following:

 

• Two letters and a photograph have been received from the applicant responding to the report to Committee, which are in summary:

 

The project involves a wide range of works (up to £½ million excluding porch and demolition) to which there is no objection.

 

The area of contention is therefore small.

 

Approach to the house has been from the north since at least 1838 – there has never been vehicular access to west front and to do so would involve demolition of C18 gates, pillars and walls, which is inconceivable.

 

Unlikely that west porch contemporary with original entrance (there have been many entrances although the north entrance was never the principal one).

 

The north façade was demoted at end of C18 when Georgian windows replaced stone mullion windows.

 

North elevation is the first to be seen when approaching the house and therefore appropriate to have main entrance door.

 

Huntsham Court has been altered to reflect the living and farming practices of the day – the current proposal seeks to continue this process rather than being fixed in its current stage.

            Proposed Porch

Old Court Hotel (photograph submitted) which is of similar construction, size and exactly contemporary, has a two-storey porch.

 

We agree that flight of steps means the porch will read differently from comparable houses but 2-storey porch will read much more pleasingly on this rather tall and narrow façade.

 

There is a plinth running across façade of ground floor level which with planting should reduce the usual impact of the changes.

 

Whilst not a reason to demolish the pigsties, it is a source of suitable building stone which may not otherwise be available.

 

The porch should be in keeping with the C17 architecture of the north façade not the C18 additions to the west front.

            Demolition of redundant pigsties

English Heritage and SPAB broadly support; Georgian Group urges caution but does not oppose; Ancient Monuments Society has not visited the site.

 

Huntsham Court has never been a ‘home farm’ the pigsties were thrown up by a tenant to meet a farming need.  Now back in family hands we are anxious it should revert to a small gentry house and to reverse utilitarian changes.

 

The pigsties are too small for horses and there is stabling elsewhere.  Is it acceptable in C21 to have pig housing adjacent to a house?

 

The north and west sides of the building, which are open to view, are of very poor quality stone.

 

Insufficient emphasis given in officer’s advice to paragraph 1.3 of PPG15 and Charles Mynor’s work “Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas and Monuments”.

            Proposed new driveway

Planning permission granted in 1986 (SH860471PF) included a new access and drive to car parking area, which followed closely line of access drive now proposed – it was used for following 12 years but now largely obscured by grass.  However it is still needed for large lorries which causes problems in Winter.

 

Trees in this field planted to comply with planning condition and give it a park-like character – felling of these trees is unthinkable.

 

Natural England are funding the oak avenue under DEFRA higher level Stewardship Scheme; they are keen to see the entrance barn (which is also being funded) used as regular entrance in view of its considerable architectural importance.

 

This field was arable not an orchard at least as early as 1838.

 

Funding has also been secured for orchards to south and south-east of the house.

 

It is stressed that funding covers only part of these costs and considerable personal sums necessary for both fruit trees and oak avenue.

            OFFICER COMMENTS

 

The applicants seem to accept that the porch would be a modern design not wholly congruous with the C17 originals.

 

The advice of officers regarding the appropriateness of demolition of the pigsties and the formation of a new main front to the house is in accord with Government advice.

 

Notwithstanding the 1986 permission the changes to the access and the drive would require planning permission.

 

It is not suggested that the trees on this field should be felled and although reversion to an orchard is desirable it is not recommended that permission be refused because it would hamper this.

 

The field has a pastoral not park-like character, the Conservation Manager considers, and an oak avenue would detract from the low-key, agricultural/domestic character of these unregistered gardens.  There is no objection to a low-key access drive across this field.

 

Natural England’s support is probably from an ecological perspective; the Council has a duty to consider the effect on landscape and the character of historic gardens (Policy LA4).

 

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs. Vaughan, the applicant, spoke in support of her application.

 

Councillor JG Jarvis, the local ward member noted that the pigsties were a lean-to and were not keyed into the house. He felt that removing the pigsties would improve the appearance of the building and would reverse some of the poor work undertaken by the previous tenants.

 

Councillors H Bramer and MJ Fishley both felt that granting the applications would enhance the site and would help return the house to its original state.

 

Councillor RH Smith noted the comments received from English Heritage and felt that it may be beneficial to add a condition to any planning permission in order to ensure that the new porch be in keeping with the original building.

 

The Conservation Manager advised members of the tests for demolition of a listed building as set out in PPG15 of the national guidance. He confirmed that the pigsties were a Grade 2* Listed Building and were therefore in the top 6% of listed buildings in the country. He felt that they were an integral part of the building and could be restored or put to another use and emphasised that good reasons for demolition of the structure were required. 

 

The Development Control Manager advised members of the procedure for dealing with Listed Building Consent against the Officer’s recommendation. He confirmed that members could not grant listing building consent as the application would have to be referred to the Secretary of State. He confirmed that the planning permission could be granted but could not be implemented without the listing building consent, therefore he advised members to delegate the decision to officers pending the decision from the Secretary of State. Councillor JG Jarvis, the local ward member, felt that the committee should grant planning permission as this was a separate matter to the listed building consent.

 

RESOLVED

 

In respect of DCSE2007/1872/F

 

The Southern Area Planning Sub-Committee is minded to approve the application subject to the conditions set out below (and any further conditions felt to be necessary by the Head of Planning Services) provided that the Head of Planning Services does not refer the application to the Planning Committee.

 

            1)            The design of the porch to be in keeping with the original                                   dwelling.

            2)             A plaque to be erected on the new porch giving details of the                                     date that the works were carried out.

 

If the Head of Planning Services does not refer the application to the Planning Committee, officers named in the scheme of delegation to officers be instructed to approve the application to such conditions referred to above.

 

[Note: Following the vote on this application, the Development Control Manager advised that he would not refer the decision to the Head of Planning Services]

 

In respect of DCSE2007/1874/L

 

The application be referred to the Secretary of State for the reasons set out above, the Southern Area Planning Sub Committee is minded to grant Listed Building Consent, subject to conditions. Should the Secretary of State resolve not to call in the application then Officers named in the scheme of delegation to officers be instructed to issue Listed Building Consent subject to conditions.