Historic country estate in South Cambridgeshire refused permission to host weddings

The owners of a historic country hall and estate have been blocked from holding weddings and other events within its grounds.

The Francis family wanted to host events, including weddings, within the grounds of Quy Hall in Stow-cum-Quy for up to 12 weekends a year.

They proposed a marquee on a lawned area to accommodate the events.

Quy Hall is a grade II*-listed building and the associated coach house, stables, bothies and garden walls are grade II listed.

The Francis family said Quy Hall had been in their family since 1855 and that they wanted to hold events such as weddings to help pay for the upkeep of the historic hall.

However, South Cambridgeshire District Council refused to grant permission for the change in use as it was not considered to be “farm diversification”.

The council said no justification or business plan had been provided to show how it would support the agricultural business and would be acceptable in the countryside.

An appeal was lodged by the family, which told the Planning Inspectorate: “The appellant, together with their estate advisors, have considered a range of options for Quy Hall to raise revenue to offset the considerable expenses of maintaining the heritage asset.

“With the benefit of advice from Historic Houses and the Country Land and Business Association, of which they are active members, the appellants have assessed that limited events (including weddings) offer the best opportunity for raising revenue whilst minimising the potential short and long-term impacts of which the Quy Hall Estate is very cognisant, being a landlord to many local residents and businesses as well as residents themselves.

“This use would also be compatible with maintaining the primary use of the hall as a domestic residence.”

But the planning inspector agreed with the council and dismissed the appeal.

The inspector said: “I have found the proposal would not constitute inappropriate development and therefore would not harm green belt openness.

“However, the proposal is not a type supported by the development plan in the countryside and is not justified by support for the continued operation of an agricultural or land-based rural business. Therefore, it would not be in a suitable location.

“The proposal fails to demonstrate harm to the setting of heritage assets would not occur, nor that harm would be outweighed by public benefit.

“In addition, the proposal fails to demonstrate that living conditions of occupants of nearby dwellings would not be adversely impacted, and that adequate highway safety would be achieved.

“In the absence of certainty, I have concluded harm would arise and conflict with the development plan would occur.”