DC/20/0321 - King's Mill, School Lane, Shipley
Ward: Southwater South and Shipley
Applicant: Mr and Mrs C Eustace
The Head of Development reported that this application sought permission for the conversion of an engine house to form a 2-bedroom home. There would be a number of internal alterations of the engine house to facilitate the change. The proposal was intended to finance ongoing repair and maintenance works to the attached windmill, a Grade II* Listed Building.
The application, and listed building application DC/20/0322, had been deferred by this Committee in December so that further financial information could be sought to demonstrate the proposal could secure the long-term repair and maintenance of the Grade II* Listed windmill (Minute No. PCN/59 and PCN/60 refer).
This application and application DC/20/0322 were considered by the Committee together because they refer to the same proposed development. After discussion they were voted on as two separate items.
Members were referred to the previous report, which contained details of the location, relevant policies, planning history, the outcome of consultations and a planning assessment of the proposal.
Members noted that since the previous meeting, the applicants had agreed to open the windmill tower to the public on ‘Heritage Open Days’, and further information regarding the financial viability of the proposal had been supplied. Additional information included mortgage illustrations and other funding options available to the applicant.
Since the previous Committee report, three representations objecting to the proposal had been received as outlined in the current report. Further objections had been received that included comments on the following: lack of public access to financial information; questioning the viability of the scheme; a failure to seek an alternative solution for the long-term future of the mill through engaging with previous trustees; the financial benefits of running the mill as a private charity rather than privately; that the heritage access scheme would only guarantee one open day a year; the loss of the engine house would lead to a loss of understanding of the history of the mill and prevent it operating on wind-free days; that the legal agreement lacks details; potential loss of a potentially working Sussex smock mill; and interference with the adjacent public right of way.
Three members of the public and a representative of the Parish Council all spoke in objection to both applications. The applicant’s architect spoke in support of them.
Members considered the proposal in the light of the additional information, and whether the heritage benefits of the scheme outweighed any harm. It was noted that the legal agreement could stipulate a number of open days, and that the Conservation Officer had advised there would be ways of enabling the mill to operate on windless days without harming the building.
Members discussed the importance of demonstrating that the proposed enabling development was a financially viable solution that would secure the ongoing maintenance, repair and conservation programme for the windmill. In order to consider the financial information supplied to support the proposal, the Committee
That, under Section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting on the grounds that the discussion involved the likely disclosure of exempt information, as defined in Part I of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, by virtue of paragraph 3 regarding information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person, including the authority holding that information, and in all the circumstances of the case the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.
Members concluded that the proposal did not guarantee the future of the mill and that other options had not been sufficiently explored. It was therefore proposed and seconded that the application be refused. The motion was carried.
That Planning Application DC/20/0321 be refused for the following reasons:
01 It has not been demonstrated, to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority, that the development will enable a financially viable solution to secure the future conservation of the heritage asset, and therefore the proposal cannot demonstrate that it will provide sufficient public benefit that will outweigh the identified harm to this important designated heritage asset. The proposal is therefore contrary to Paragraph 193 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy 34 of the Horsham District Planning Framework (2015).
02 It has not been demonstrated, to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority, that all other options have been fully explored for funding. In the absence of such, the proposal is not considered to justify the partial conversion of this building which would create identified harm to the designated heritage asset. The proposal is therefore contrary to Paragraph 193 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy 34 of the Horsham District Planning Framework (2015).
- 06) DC-20-0321, item PCN/68 PDF 163 KB
- 06) DC-20-0321 Appendix - previous committee report, item PCN/68 PDF 492 KB
- Appendix C - Addendum to committee December 2020, item PCN/68 PDF 769 KB
- 06) DC-20-0321 plan, item PCN/68 PDF 556 KB