Plans backed to redevelop derelict farmhouse

Richard Youle, local democracy reporter

A significant part of a derelict former farmhouse is substantially intact, according to councillors who voted in favour of redeveloping it.

Carmarthenshire planning officers had recommended that plans to create a three-bedroom affordable home from what was left of the property, Ty Isaf, near Pontyates, should be turned down because it was tantamount to building a new house in the countryside.

Although this is against planning policy, restoring derelict and abandoned buildings can be permitted in Carmarthenshire if certain criteria were met, including that a significant part of the original structure was physically sound and substantially intact, requiring only a limited amount of structural work.

‘Ruin’

Planning officers said the remnants of Ty Isaf did not meet this criteria, citing a structural engineers’ report submitted on behalf of applicant Geraint Jones which described it as a “ruin”.

At the same time the engineers’ report said the remaining walls were in a good structural condition, that there were no signs of subsidence, and that the property was “in a relatively good state of structural repair” given its age and method of construction. It was viable, it said, to renovate it into a new home. A majority of the council’s planning committee agreed.

A planning officers’ report said Mr Jones was born and raised near the application site and that his mother, grandparents and great-grandparents had lived in Ty Isaf, which had a blacksmith’s forge attached, after buying it in 1913.

First and second floors made of brick had been added to the original stone-walled building to create a three-storey property, which the family lived in until the mid to late 1980s before continuous damp caused it to start deteriorating.

Slate from the roof was stolen, Ty Isaf became uninhabited, and the family removed the upper floors around 20 years ago as bricks had begun falling on the shared access track below.

Addressing the planning committee, planning officer John Thomas said: “Residential use has long been lost and no measures have been taken to make the property weatherproof.” What was left, he said, was an “abandoned ruin”.

Mr Thomas also said the proposed new house could not be deemed affordable because it would be more than 50% larger in terms of square meterage than the three-bed affordable home guideline. He said a rural enterprise exception did not apply either because Mr Jones was “involved in the media” rather than a rural enterprise like forestry or agriculture.

‘Practical’

Ward councillor Meinir James addressed the committee in support of the application, saying it was “completely practical” to restore the building and that what was proposed was in keeping with what had stood before.

Cllr James said water bills for the property “have been paid to date” and that Western Power was willing to reconnect the transformer for free to provide electricity.

She said Mr Jones and his family would live in the renovated home and help his elderly parents run the farm, and that there was support from local residents.
“There is no intent from the applicant to profiteer from this dwelling, and it has been in the family since the 1900s,” said Cllr James.

She added that Mr Jones would be willing to discuss an affordable housing contribution with the council via a legal arrangement called a section 106 agreement.

Committee member Cllr Ken Howell said he felt the proposal gave a descendant of the family an opportunity to return. “It’s much better to see somebody local living on the site than just a mound of stones,” he said.

Cllr Dorian Phillips said the family maybe didn’t have the money to maintain the house in days gone by. He added that, as someone experienced in the building trade, he thought it could be renovated.

Cllr Steve Williams proposed that the committee voted against the planning officers’ refusal recommendation, saying disused buildings in the countryside were a blight and that many farmhouses had been targeted by thieves for their slate decades ago.

Cllr Russell Sparks seconded the proposal and suggested that the reasons for doing so should include that a significant part of the original structure was physically sound and substantially intact.

‘Emotive’

Cllr John James said it was “a very emotive” application and that he supported the refusal recommendation, saying he’d heard nothing “objective” from councillors.

Planning officer Hugh Towns said it would be a departure from policy if the committee voted in favour of the application, meaning that it would have to be advertised prior to a further report coming back to the committee for a final decision. He added that Mr Jones would need to confirm he’d be prepared to sign a section 106 agreement for affordable housing.

The committed voted in favour of saying they were minded to support the application to redevelop Ty Isaf by nine votes to five.