Proposed variation of condition 10 of planning permission DMS/102193/F – to allow unlimited access and flexible loading and unloading times.

Refused 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.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking Mrs Reynolds, representing Burghill Parish Council and Mr Roberts, a neighbouring resident, spoke in objection to the application and Mr Ball, the applicant, spoke in support.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor SJ Robertson, the local ward member, commented on a number of issues, including:

• The application came before committee in December 2010 and had caused the local residents some concern.
• Burghill Parish Council objected strongly to the application.
• The existing condition protected the amenity of the local residents and was in accordance with policy DR2 of the Herefordshire Council Unitary Development Plan.
• The translocation of the hedge had not been successful.
• The applicant was now requesting unlimited access to the site to feed goldfish and a cat, this seemed unreasonable.
• The speed of traffic along the road had increased and it was no longer safe for horse riding although it did not meet the criteria for a speed restriction.
• Applicant needed to work more closely with the local residents.

Members opened the debate by noting that the applicant needed to work more closely with the neighbouring residents. It was however considered that the proposed condition was reasonable and would address the concerns of the neighbouring residents.

However some members had concerns in respect of the enforcement of the existing conditions on the site and also raised the issue of highway safety as a concern. A number of members noted that they had visited the site in December 2010 and shared the concerns in respect of vehicular speeds along the highway.

The Development Manager advised the Committee that the enforcement issues referred to related to the applicant commencing work on the site prior to the discharge of conditions, he added that this was not uncommon. In response to other issues raised he advised that the hedge would have to be replanted and that although the application sought unrestricted access to the site the proposed condition kept some restrictions in place.

It was noted that the enforceability of the proposed condition regarding access to the site could be problematic and could cause issues between the applicant and the neighbouring residents. Some members were of the view that the proposed condition was not enforceable.

Another member of the Committee noted that the application was an agricultural usage and that there should be no restriction of access to the site. It was also noted that a farm on the site could result in more traffic movements than the existing use.

Councillor SJ Robertson was given the opportunity to close the debate. She reiterated her opening remarks and made the following additional comment:

·         The original conditions were put in place to mitigate the concerns of the neighbouring residents.

·         The removal of the original conditions would be contrary to policies DR1 and DR2 of the Unitary Development Plan.

A motion to approve the application in accordance with the case officer's recommendation failed and the resolution as set out below was agreed.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

1.         The application is contrary to policies DR1 and DR2 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan