Change of use of redundant farm buildings into 3 residential cottages to be used as holiday lets. Erection of 5 demountable geodomes (or shepherds huts). Purpose built shower/wc adjacent to farm buildings (to replace soon to be demolished new build stable block). Communal lounge/dining and kitchen for geodome guests in existing buildings.

The application was approved in accordance with the Case Officer’s recommendation, subject to an amended condition.

The Senior Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr W Bullough spoke on behalf of Clifford Parish Council opposing the Scheme.  Mrs P Cooke, a resident spoke in objection.  Mrs K Smolas the applicant spoke in support of her application.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor PD Price the local ward member, spoke on the application

He commented on a number of issues including:

·         The latest proposal was different to the applications previously refused

·         The area was significant and special in terms of its ecology and environment. 

·         Following the refusal of previous applications, the applicant had discussed the latest proposal with local people.  However, many still objected.  A few, in particular businesses who thought they might benefit supported the Scheme.  It was noted that some views were not consistent with the actual application.

·         The access was poor and there was some uncertainty and inconsistency in the documentation over the number of traffic movements that would in fact take place.  There was little if any scope to improve the access because the land that would be required was either common land or privately owned.  He questioned the extent to which a traffic management plan would be enforceable and noted that any enforcement would only take place after the event.

·         There was concern over the sufficiency of the water supply.  He questioned the accuracy of the Environment Agency’s analysis.

·         There was concern about the noise that would be associated with the development.

·         Visit Herefordshire’s reference to “exploiting” the County’s assets as set out at paragraph 5.7 of the report was unhelpful.

·         He believed that the number of visitors would need to increase from the stated level if it were to meet the income forecasts accompanying the application.  He was therefore also concerned about the longer term implications if planning permission were to be granted.

The debate opened and the following principal points were made:

·         Concern was expressed about the access and the number of vehicle movements.  It was suggested that the application could be approved if a suitable traffic management plan was in place and enforced.  It was proposed that the details of a Plan should be discussed with the local ward member to ensure that they were as resilient as possible.

·         Members questioned the enforceability of a traffic management plan.  Officers commented that the Traffic management Plan would form part of the S106 agreement.  Any proposal to increase traffic movements would require mitigation measures to be put in place before this could proceed.  Enforcement of a traffic management plan would be reactive and rely on local representations, notably from the Parish Council

·         The applicant had sought to address the concerns expressed by the Committee in refusing previous applications.

·         There was a need for diversification but it must be sympathetic to its location.

·         That the application was not in keeping with the location and its context.

·         The financial forecast was optimistic based on the number of people it was stated that it was expected would use the site.

·         The Development Manager commented that the applicants had addressed the technical issues relating to water management, water resources and ecology that had contributed to the refusal of previous applications.  The Highways Officer was satisfied with the Traffic Management Plan and this aspect would be reinforced by the involvement of the local ward member as proposed.

·         Members suggested that the Chairman of the Committee should be consulted in addition to the local ward member and no permission should be granted until the Traffic Management Plan was agreed.

·         The Planning Officer clarified the level of use of the site and limitations that may be placed on such use.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He reiterated his concerns about the impact of the proposal and his opposition to the Scheme on those grounds.

RESOLVED:

That subject to the completion of a S106 agreement and consultation with the Chairman of the Committee and the local ward member on the content of a Travel Plan, officers named in the scheme of delegation to officers be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions and any further conditions considered necessary by officers

INFORMATIVES: