Planning row over bid to turn rural building into home

Converting a rural outbuilding into a new home would have a “significant adverse impact” on the surrounding countryside, council planners in Newport have warned.

The building, in Penhow, has most recently been used as an agricultural shelter, but a backer of the conversion plan claimed it was likely a home 200 years ago.

He said the redevelopment would bring the building back into appropriate use, but his views clashed with those of planning officers, who alleged the work could lead to the “detriment of the area’s rural character”.

The future of the isolated building, found in the middle of a field off Arcade Road, has long been contested.

A previous proposal for the site was rejected in 2023 and ended up going before a Welsh Government planning inspector – who dismissed the applicant’s appeal – earlier this year.

Commenting on the new application, Andrew Ferguson, the council’s planning and development manager, said concerns had been “consistently raised” by officers regarding the “impact upon the local landscape”.

He said a “high-bar test” for the development was “entirely justified”, and told the committee bats were also nesting at the site.

“Conversion of rural buildings to residential [use], if repeated and without robust justification and policy compliance, could give rise to significantly harmful impacts to our rural environment,” Mr Ferguson warned.

He also said the proposed redevelopment of the building, including a small extension, would be considered too small for residential use.

The committee also heard from Mike Smith, a former Monmouthshire county councillor who said he supported the application but was not acting as a paid representative of the applicant, Pitman.

Mr Smith told the meeting he could see “nothing wrong” with the proposals and called the building’s redevelopment a “win-win” for the council and the applicant.

Seeing the building “restored” to residential use would be in keeping with evidence it had been a home dating back to the 18th century, he claimed.

“It is not an urban intrusion into the landscape – how can it be?” he asked the committee. “It is the landscape. It has been sitting there for over 200 years.”

Committee members raised questions about the structural integrity of the building, and what would happen if it was found to be unsuitable for redevelopment.

They also noted the application included proposals for a new stable block, which Mr Ferguson said would be much larger than the existing building and would be visible from the nearby road.

The committee voted in line with the officers’ recommendation and refused planning permission for the project.