Burchatt’s Barn Saved for Community as Objectors Win Change-of-Use Refusal

Published on: 28 Mar, 2019
Updated on: 28 Mar, 2019

Burchatt’s Barn – photo Mandy Millyard

A controversial planning application for the change of use of the Grade II-listed Burchatt’s Barn at Stoke Park was refused last night (March 27) by Guildford Borough Council’s planning committee.

The decision to ignore the council officer’s recommendation to allow the change of use, a move that surprised many, given the community asset status of the Barn, comes close on the heels of an embarrassing council climb-down over the future of a campsite at The Chantries.

Cllr Moseley asks Cllr Spooner if he has a seconder for his motion to defer.

The Burchatt’s Barn application had caused a Facebook furore and drew 84 objections as well as 43 comments of support for the change of use to allow a chiropractic business as tenants, which would require some interior remodelling.

Attempts to delay a decision, described by one councillor as “kicking the can down the road”, to allow a site visit or an examination of its existing use were defeated, once with the casting vote of Marsha Moseley (Con, Ash Vale), the planning committee chair who, with her normal no-nonsense style, gave no quarter to any committee member, regardless of party affiliation or standing.

Of the four public speakers, two objectors and two supporters, John Harrison representing the Guildford Society, spoke against the proposal.

Gavin Morgan spoke against the proposal

He was followed by Gavin Morgan, founder of the Guildford Heritage Forum, who said: “Under the Principle of Development section, the [council officer] report claims a ‘new community facility’ will be created in line with guidelines in existing Local Plan and NPPF [National Planning Policy Framework]. “But,” he continued, “the applicants’ clinic already exists. Nothing new is being created but a community facility is being closed. It cannot be said the town is gaining something when it is actually losing something.”

Andrew Plumridge spoke in support of the applicant.

Andrew Plumridge, the agent for the application said: “This simple and innocent application has attracted a considerable amount of objection, most of which appear to have been orchestrated by a handful of local people.

“Their comments seem to have been based on a misunderstanding of the facts and although they have sought to intimidate, threaten and impose on all of us the user of their choice it is up to you to choose the one which is best serving for the long-term solution of this building. They focus their objections on the user rather than the use, putting personality before purpose.”

Cllr Matt Furniss, after seeking a delay with a site visit eventually voted with the majority to refuse the application.

Cllr Matt Furniss (Con), who represents Christchurch ward where Burchatt’s Barn sits, moved that the decision be deferred to allow a site visit. But no seconder surfaced until a rather startled Cllr Philip Brooker (Con, Merrow), apparently intending to raise a separate point, agreed. It didn’t help. The motion was outvoted 6-3.

A second bid to delay a decision came from Cllr Paul Spooner (Con, Ash South & Tongham), the council leader who also sits on the committee. He suggested the decision be deferred because there was “no evidence of its current use” detailed in the report.

Cllr Paul Spooner requesting a deferral.

Cllr Nils Christiansen (Ind, Holy Trinity) said deferral was unnecessary. “I don’t see why we have a problem with this. All of the facts are here, let’s debate what’s in this report.” Then, in an apparent reference to the impending council election, added: “The rest of it is kicking the can down the road and I think people might wonder why that might be.”

This time the vote was tighter 6-6, the businesslike chair giving her casting vote against deferral.

Cllr Nils Christiansen labels attempts at delay as just “kicking the can down the road”.

When the debate itself started, Cllr Christiansen, appearing to enjoy the process and warming to his task, said: “What we are proposing is that the existing use [of the Barn] disappears and we move from two community facilities in the town down to one.

“The chiropractor, I am sure, delivers an excellent service to the community but by moving them in here we are losing an existing use. [Policy] CF2 [of Guildford’s existing Local Plan] doesn’t allow it. So on that basis, we have to refuse this.”

Cllr Liz Hogger adding her weight behind the argument to refuse.

Cllr Liz Hogger (Lib Dem, Effingham) added that under paragraph 92 of the NPPF there was a requirement to guard against the unnecessary loss of community facilities.

A motion to refuse the application was moved and after a time-out huddle to agree the reasons, a council officer read out: “The proposal would result in the loss of community use contrary to para 92 of the NPPF 2019. The second reason for refusal would be by virtue of the internal alterations the proposal would result in harm to the heritage asset contrary to policies HE1 and para 196 of the NPPF.”

Significantly there was no mention of the CF2 policy in Guildford’s existing Local Plan, raised by Cllr Christiansen. Ten committee members voted for refusal. Cllrs Caroline Reeves (Lib Dem, Friary & St Nicolas) and Paul Spooner abstained.

The question remains, what will happen next? Some objectors fear that the proposal might be brought back after the council election in May.

The applicants, Guildford Chiropractic Centre, has been invited to comment and asked if they intend to appeal. It is understood that the lease they have already signed with GBC was on condition that planning permission was obtained.

To see other articles on Burchatt’s Barn click here. To see the planning application record on the GBC website click here.

A webcast of the planning meeting can be viewed on the GBC website.

Share This Post