Agenda item

The Committee gave consideration to the second application on the agenda, number 00698, seeking to erect a single storey 6-bedroom holiday let within the existing walled garden, at Moortown House Farm, Market Rasen. The Officer introduced the application, explaining that it was within a curtilage listed walled garden, with a stoned-up access track taken from an existing track north-east of the site. Along the northern boundary of the walled garden, there was to be eight stoned-up car parking spaces. It was explained that the application proposed to use the existing openings in the northern boundary to access the dwelling. He proceeded to present the Committee with the site plan and photographs of the proposed development highlighting the footprint, elevation, terraces and garden area, as well as the location surrounding the proposed development.

The Chairman thanked the Officer for his presentation and stated that there were two registered speakers; the first speaker, Mr Flanagan, as Agent to the Applicant, was invited to address the Committee.

Mr Flanagan explained that he agreed with the Officer’s report that S43 of the CLLP relating to sustainable rural tourism was the main policy consideration with the application, however, he strongly disagreed with the assessment that the scale, form, and design of the holiday let was not considered appropriate for the location. According to the Agent, the Officer stated no evidence had been provided for the need for a large holiday let. It was confirmed that when parties booked Moortown House, as the existing holiday let in the main house, they often needed additional bedrooms and had to book alternative off-site accommodation; therefore, the new holiday let would satisfy that demand.

Mr Flanagan summarised that the existing business had been successful and had seen an increase in bookings since opening, with feedback indicating that 95% of guests chose the property for large capacity reasons, therefore a large capacity was the key to business success. It was stated that the proposed development would allow the business to develop in its current niche to combine both properties in a single large booking, or increase the capacity to simultaneously have two separate bookings. It was expressed that farming communities were experiencing difficulties, therefore, in line with national guidelines, diversification was essential to ensure the long-term success of farms.

Referencing previous planning permission for the site, he explained that lapsed permission for the coach house was not relevant. Mr Flanagan added that permission for the coach house had been implemented following condition discharge and remained extant, however, that was for the creation of a Class C3 family dwelling, rather than a holiday let, and therefore was incomparable.

Regarding heritage matters, the Agent continued, all parties agreed that the proposal would cause ‘less than substantial harm’ to the significance of the walled garden, with factors such as design changes and the integration of the building in the historic footprint on the site contributing to the overall assessment. However, he maintained that the minor harm would be outweighed by the public benefits. The Agent stated that the maintenance and repair of the listed building was the owner’s responsibility, and that its role as an enabling development should be considered.

Lastly, Mr Flanagan explained that the walled garden would screen the proposed development from the main house, therefore it would not visually compete with the farmhouse. He concluded that the public benefits of the proposed development, which included securing a sustainable use for the walled garden, significantly outweighed the assessed harm, with other additional benefits to the local area.

The Chairman thanked Mr Cook for his comments, and invited the second registered speaker, Cllr P Morris, who would be speaking to the Committee as Ward Member, rather than a Member of the Planning Committee. It was explained that after speaking, Cllr Morris would leave the meeting for the duration of the discussion and vote.

Cllr Morris expressed support for the application; he explained that his ward was largely a rural area which required tourism to boost the local economy. The Councillor continued, explaining that the report highlighted a potential link between Sir Joseph Paxton and the existing walled garden on the site; however, he stated that the link could not be fully proven and recognised that the report did not give weight to the matter. The Ward Member then questioned the significance of the walled garden in the absence of a proven connection, stating that there were many similar walled gardens around the country.

The Councillor explained that he enjoyed visiting historic architecture sites, especially those with additional facilities. He cited examples of those locations, emphasising their popularity in part due to newly built cafes nearby or on site. Cllr Morris added that the application had a well thought out and sympathetically designed extension for the walled garden. He emphasised the value of families staying in the walled garden setting and enjoying the Lincolnshire countryside. The Ward Member concluded by asking the Planning Committee to reject the Officer’s recommendation and approve the application.

Note: Cllr Morris left the Chamber at 8.05pm

The Officer responded to the comments from the speakers, explaining that both the Council and the Applicant agreed that the proposed development would cause ‘less than substantial harm’; he outlined that in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and in policy S57 of the CLLP, the harm needed to be balanced against any positive public benefits. The Officer continued, explaining that the report stated the public benefits had not been sufficiently quantified in the submitted planning statement, nor in subsequent email correspondence with the Agent.

In response to a question regarding the listing associated with the site’s walled garden, the Officer explained that the coach house and the walled garden had been deemed as curtilage listed structures, with no listing in their own right. In response, Members suggested that the planning application be approved, contrary to the report recommendation, due to the absence of the walled garden’s architectural listing merit.

Responding to comments from the Committee, the Manager clarified that the walled garden and the coach house were curtilage listed as part of Moortown House, which was a Grade II listed building. The Council agreed that the wall was considered to be of medium to high value, with ‘less than substantial harm’ attributed to the proposed development. It was explained that the categories of harm in this case were either ‘substantial harm’, or ‘less than substantial harm’, and the Applicant had not sufficiently demonstrated, as required by policy and law, how the public benefits would outweigh the harm caused. The Manager added that there had been no figures provided from the Applicant substantiating how tourism would be indirectly or directly affected by the proposed development; nor had there been figures regarding an enabling development.

A Member of the Committee proposed a site visit in order to address doubts relating to the application.

Members of the Committee reiterated the Manager’s comments, quoting from report that ‘the Courts have interpreted “preserving” means to do no harm,’. A previous application was recalled, where curtilage listing was used as justification for refusal. The importance of the curtilage listing was stressed in protecting the main building and the need for a quantified public benefit, rather than private benefit, was emphasised. It was added by Members that the application failed in the required duties under section 66 of the Listed Buildings Act (1990), as well as in planning policy, therefore, it was proposed to approve the Officer recommendation of refusal.

Regarding listed buildings, the Committee expressed that owners were not simply owners, but stewards for future generations.

With no further comments or questions, and having been proposed, seconded and voted upon, planning permission was REFUSED in line with the Officer recommendation.

Note: Cllr Morris returned to the Chamber at 8.18pm

Note: Cllr Fleetwood left the Chamber at 8.18pm and returned at 8.19pm