Erection of a barn egg unit for fertile egg production at White House Farm, Watery Lane, Hay-on-Wye, Hereford, HR3 5TB.

The application was approved contrary to the case officer’s recommendation.

The principal planning officer gave a presentation on the application and updates/additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided in the update sheet as appended to these minutes.

In accordance with the procedure for public speaking Mr Gardiner of the Archenfield Campaign spoke in objection to the application and Mr Morgan, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

In accordance with the council’s constitution, the local ward member Councillor PD Price, spoke on the application.

He made the following principal comments:

·           The significant issue relating to the application concerned the impact of the proposed structure on the landscape. The planting and hedges that had been proposed as part of the application would help to mitigate the impact of the structure on the landscape. The barn proposed in the application was recessed into the hillside which reduced its impact on the landscape.

·           The view of the landscape officer had changed during the application process. At first there had been no objection and the application was likely to be determined by delegated, officer decision. Following objections from the Archenfield Campaign the officer had raised an objection.

·           Elements of the report from the landscape consultant (Carly Tinkler), on behalf of the Archenfield Campaign, were question and it was felt there were certain inaccuracies which could be misleading. The location of the application site was within the Wye Valley but there were consistent references in the report to the Golden Valley. The reference to the deer park was also questioned which was considered to be at a significant distance from the site.

·           A large barn, on higher ground than the application site existed at Upper Broadmeadow Farm, close to Archenfield. The area was a rural and agriculture landscape where structures of this type were found.

·           There were limited long distance views to the application site and contrary to the statement in the landscape report it was not felt that the development could be readily viewed from popular, long-distance paths nearby. The report had stated that users of the local footpaths would be adversely affected by the development but these paths were only rarely used and mitigation could be implemented including the planting of hedgerow.  

In the committee’s discussion of the application the following principal points were made:

·           The barn proposed in the application was for agricultural purposes located in a rural, agricultural setting. It was a rural enterprise which would support the local rural community and agriculture in the area.

·           The area in which the development was proposed was not a busy tourist area, the local footpaths were not regularly walked. The application site was not adjacent to a village. The proposed development when viewed from the higher ground at Bullens Bank would be recessed in to the foot of the hillside and the proposed paint colour would mitigate the impact of the structure on the landscape and wider panoramic view to an acceptable level.

·           The significant level of mitigation proposed, including planting and painting of the barn,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 49