£250k B&B in Dundry must be turned back into barn - because roof is 75cm too high
A GUESTHOUSE owner faces losing his business – because a barn he converted into bedrooms was built 75cm too high.
Ed Smith converted the derelict barn into rooms four years ago as an expansion of his thriving bed and breakfast in Dundry.
-
Ed Smith by the converted barn Picture: Michael Lloyd BRML20120203E-003_C
But when officials from North Somerset Council inspected the building some years later, they found the height of its roof had been raised without planning permission.
Mr Smith was refused retrospective planning permission for the development – which the council believes spoils the greenbelt – and has now been ordered to return the 19th century barn to its original state by April.
The 44-year-old says changing the building from an 18-room guesthouse back to an agricultural barn would lead to the collapse of his business and the loss of six jobs.
He believes that the enforced closure of his guesthouse Bridgwater Farm, which is off the A38, would harm the local economy.
Mr Smith, who invested £250,000 converting the barn, says he only raised the height of the barn's roof to create a nesting space for migratory birds.
He said: "What's the point in bringing the roof height down if there are nesting birds and bats in there?
"I had an ecologist round and they said there were 10 or 11 swallow nests in there, as well as bat droppings. It's being used for its intended purpose – as a bird and bat loft.
"It seems that a bunch of pen pushers have bees in their bonnets about the barn. We've had letters of approval from the next door neighbours saying they are happy with what's happened here and that it's a credit to the community. The parish council has also approved of the development.
"I've had a supporting letter from my MP Liam Fox, who asked whether the council would consider looking at approving retrospective planning permission because there had been far worse infringements.
"The barn isn't overlooking anyone and it's not causing any harm to the greenbelt."
Nick Yates, spokesman for North Somerset Council, said Mr Smith had been unsuccessful in appealing the authority's decisions.
He said: "Two barns were converted and their roofs raised without planning permission.
"The owner has submitted a retrospective planning application which was turned down. He appealed but lost.
"We have served enforcement notices and he has also appealed against those – those appeals were turned down by the Planning Inspectorate. The enforcement notices state that the buildings need to be returned to their original condition by April."
60 Comments
View all
by threemasons
Sunday, February 12 2012, 12:38PM
“Planning applications have long been seen as a joke in Portishead especially if a singular councillor objects and then uses his position and party contacts to ensure the plans never get the go ahead however string public opinion is in supporting the plans. The skatepark is only the latest in a series of applications that have satisfied all planning criteria only for a very small handful of local councillors to have delibeertaely tried to thwart the appliaction wherever possible, not in the public interest but in their own. The skatepark passed all planning criteria but one councillor made a great effort to ensure it would be refused landlords consent. The landlord? North Somerset Council. Considering that counicllor cost the taxpayer the costs of appeals for other planning applications he took a personal involvement in, it is an insult to the commuinty that he should still be allowed to influence planning matters that he has a personal undeclared interest in., So who do you complain to in such cases? North Somerset Council, who investigate their own and never seem to find fault with their beloved councillors. Odd that.”
by Charlespk
Saturday, February 11 2012, 10:01AM
“Even 'sauce for the goose'.
http://tinyurl.com/7ojyop8”
by Charlespk
Saturday, February 11 2012, 9:57AM
“R_E_Knaw posted, if you let people ignore planning conditions, you might as well abolish the planning process altogether
My post was, "Yes that would certainly one be solution R_E_Knaw.
http://tinyurl.com/7ojyop8"">http://tinyurl.com/7ojyop8"
At NO POINT did I suggest it would be a good solution I would consider.
I simply said it would a solution. . I didn't say it would the right solution.
This is the level of intelligence that has been applied to this issue.
I repeat:- Envy rears it's ugly head and the pedants rule once more.
'What's good for the goose!'
http://tinyurl.com/7ojyop8”
by emmottl
Saturday, February 11 2012, 12:34AM
“You just jave to look at some of the monstrosities which are passed by planning to realise that they do not have a clue. This seems to be a case of stubborn pigheadedness by the planners who are determined that this man will not win at any cost. It is very unfair to take away the bird and bat habitat and also ruin a mans business and livelihood. Do they know what it is like to actually have to earn a living - no - they sit in their ivory towers being paid no matter what and rule peoples lives - little tin gods.”
by BishopstonMan
Thursday, February 09 2012, 4:40PM
“You do like your links don't you Charles? Why not check this one out...
http://tinyurl.com/7rk5683”
by Pyronaught
Thursday, February 09 2012, 3:45PM
“They are saying it spoils the greenbelt............how? the barn was already there and the roof pitch / height has no effect whatsoever on the greenbelt. Furthermore, if there ARE bats nesting there- then they cannot touch it - full stop.”
by threemasons
Thursday, February 09 2012, 2:54PM
“Welcome to the world of North Somerset Councillors. Several years ago in Portishead a Local NS Councillor protested loudly about her road becoming a ratrun and the corner outside her house being the most dangerous junction in town. Soon afterwards she applied and got for planning permission to build a house on the grounds of her own house on that very corner. Recently, another NS Councillor who has long campaigned about no changes being allowed to a certain road next to the Lake Grounds (ie the area he lives) also got planning permission to add a two storey extension to his own home in that very area. Here in Portishead we refer to these parasitical creatures as Councilliars. If you venture into youtube world and enter the word 'portisheadinboom' you will understand how apt that title has become.
Planning decisons have been become personal issues amongst our esteemed councillars so I can only assume this man has becaime the latest target of the power hungry arrogant few at the top of the North Somerset Council tree of deceit and self interest.”
by Charlespk
Thursday, February 09 2012, 2:18PM
“Yes that would certainly one be solution R_E_Knaw.
http://tinyurl.com/7ojyop8"”
by R_E_Knaw
Thursday, February 09 2012, 2:08PM
“If you let people ignore planning conditions, you might as well abolish the planning process altogether”
by bookworm65
Thursday, February 09 2012, 10:57AM
“How can this be right this man has 75cm TOO much on the building and has to put it back to original building but Costa coffee company can break the rules the have opened 2 new coffee shops in westbury on trym and Gloucester road ..and they were only allowed to open selling as food business and NOT selling coffee under the laws of which they were allowed ...but they BROKE the law and continue to sell coffee under the regulations they were NOT allowed ....were is the justice in that ...the law stinks !!!!”