Demolition plans for barn in Farnsfield refused by Newark and Sherwood District Council on ecological grounds

An application to amend approved plans that would result in the demolition of an old barn and the construction of a new house has been refused on ecological grounds.

The site is located at Lurcher Farm close to the village of Farnsfield, just west of the White Post Roundabout and accessible from Mansfield Road.

It was argued that construction of the new dwelling provides a higher quality, more sustainable design which is a better option on visual and energy efficiency grounds to the previously approved conversion of an existing brick-built barn.

The new home is designed to emulate a converted agricultural threshing barn, with red brick walls and a slate roof, measuring approximately 18.4 metres by 9.3 metres and 7.2 metres in height. However, these dimensions exceed that of the existing building.

Therefore the plans were considered unacceptable as new dwellings in the open countryside are only permitted by Newark and Sherwood’s Spatial Strategy if there is a demonstrated and essential need for a rural worker, or they are of exceptional quality of design.

The application also sought to build an access road that may necessitate the removal of several poplar trees.

The impact of development upon existing trees and hedges are not fully known, however, a tree survey concluded that the proposed access road should be moved further from the trees to avoid any potential impact and recommended that tree and shrub planting is carried out as part of the scheme to enhance the site.

A Bat Emergence Survey carried out in May which uncovered a day roost for bats. Before any construction, conversion or demolition can take place, the bats would need to be re-located.

The application was recommended for refusal based on the principal that the new dwelling is inappropriate and due to ecological concerns over trees and bats.

Laurence Goff said: "The bats need support, they don't have anywhere else to go, they have been around for hundreds of years no doubt and they need a voice.

"So I will give them my voice and refuse the application."

Rob Crowe said: "I have no problem with the building of this property at all, I can see that it will be good for a family.

"The problem I do have is that they are going to take out the line of poplar trees.

"I believe there is room to build a road in front of them and this will give them better access I'm sure.

"But as far as the actually building is concerned I have no problem with it."

Committee vice-chairman Linda Dales said: "I am in agreement with the officers that at this point I can't see any material planning considerations that would outweigh the points that they make in the planning reports.

"This is in effect a new, isolated dwelling in the open countryside, contrary to out development plan.

"Again I can't see any special circumstances that would persuade me that it has been outweighed. I don't think that it is a sustainable development and I am concerned about the impact on the line of Poplars in terms of the access road.

"I understand that the existing building can be repurposed, it doesn't need to be pulled down and rebuilt, so there is a fall back position and I am in mind to agree with the officer recommendation for refusal."

Penny Rainbow said: "I hear what you are saying about building in the open countryside. I don't think we are because there is already an existing building and I think we have to ask ourselves if that building when converted is going to be fit for purpose.

"In effect we are replacing one building with another so I am content and will be supporting this."

Malcolm Brock said: "I can see few valid planning reasons to support this. In strict planning terms I cannot support this."

Committee chairman Roger Blaney talked about the precedent the application would set, saying: "If this was to be approved by this committee, it is indicating that any building that has prior approval can be demolished and a new property in it's place.

"That is something I hope members will consider carefully."

The planning committee voted in favour of refusal, with eight members ruling for and three against.