A farmhouse extension estimated to be at least 180 years old has received approval in a protected landscape area despite opposition from local residents.
Members voted in favour of the plans for a two-storey addition to the side of Lower Glyn Farm, situated in open countryside adjacent to Devauden common and inside the Wye Valley National Landscape.
Planning official Phil Thomas informed Monmouthshire County Council’s planning committee that the property is bordered by public footpaths, though the council’s rights of way department raised no concerns.
He explained that officers viewed the addition as modest and subordinate to the original structure, consistent with council guidelines.
He noted the property carries no listed status but is historic and holds local significance.
Committee documentation highlighted that the farmhouse appears on mapping from 1846, though it probably predates that period, and represents a traditional Monmouthshire farmhouse and exceptional example of its type.
Devauden Community Council opposed the scheme submitted by Mr and Mrs M Lewis, with local county councillor and committee member Rachel Buckler expressing doubts about the decision before them.
The Conservative member stated she harboured significant reservations about the application and its assessment. She emphasised this was no ordinary residence but an outstanding example of a traditional Monmouthshire farmhouse within the Wye Valley National Landscape, meaning an extremely stringent standard applies to any extension.
She explained the addition would transform the linear farmhouse into one with an L-shaped roof at the gable end, which she considered significant.
The councillor also voiced worries about public footpath access, asserting that individuals had been deterred from walking in the area. She did not think the committee should decide due to alleged enforcement issues she said were connected to the property.
She mentioned warning signs about dogs had been erected along the footpaths, which had reduced usage.
Mr Thomas responded that the committee needed to assess the application on its own merits and said he could not address the enforcement matters.
The proposal secured approval with ten votes in support, three against and one abstention.