(172345) Change of use of land for the siting of up to 95 no. caravans, and a change of use, and comprehensive redevelopment of the existing farmyard buildings and associated agricultural barns to provide additional facilities including indoor pool, gymnasium, spa, owners lounge, office area, play barn, children's entertainment area; and. 

 

(173946) Re-development of the existing farmyard buildings and associated agricultural barns to provide additional facilities including indoor pool, gymnasium, spa, owners lounge, office area, play barn, children’s entertainment area and petting farm.

Officers authorised to grant planning permission and listed building consent, subject to the outcome of further consultation with Natural England, Chairman and local ward member.

(172345 - change of use of land for the siting of up to 95 no. Caravans, and a change of use, and comprehensive redevelopment of the existing farmyard buildings and associated agricultural barns to provide additional facilities including indoor pool, gymnasium, spa, owners lounge, office area, play barn, children's entertainment area; and,

 

173946 - re-development of the existing farmyard buildings and associated agricultural barns to provide additional facilities including indoor pool, gymnasium, spa, owners lounge, office area, play barn, children’s entertainment area and petting farm.)

 

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.

He confirmed that there were two applications before the Committee, one for planning permission and one for listed building consent.

He added that a response had been received from Natural England too late for inclusion in the Committee update.  Accordingly it was now being recommended that officers be given delegated authority to grant planning permission for application 172345 subject to being able to resolve any material issues raised in Natural England’s response satisfactorily.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr A Elliott, of Acton Beauchamp Group Parish Council spoke in opposition to the scheme.  Mr M Venables, a local resident, spoke in objection.  Mr W Sockett, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor EE Chowns, spoke on the application.

She made the following principal comments:

·        There had been 47 letters of objection; the Parish’s population was 113.  This demonstrated the strength of local feeling.

·        She had thought that the dismissal of an appeal for a holiday park immediately adjacent to the site (Tom’s Patch, application no 162809, as referred to at paragraph 3.12 of the report) would have led to a recommendation for refusal.

·        In applying the planning balance she questioned at what point it would be considered that the site was large enough and further growth should be prohibited.  The site was already the largest in the County with 323 caravans, having a history of expansion, and the proposal was to add another 95.  The population of Stanford Bishop Parish was 113 and the Acton Beauchamp Group Parish Area was 342.  She considered the point had been reached when further expansion should refused.

·        There was uncertainty as to the extent of the benefits it was suggested the scheme would deliver. It was stated that the application would generate 8 full time jobs.  The effect on the local economy was, however, hard to quantify.  The proposal seemed designed to ensure its residents did not need to interact with the local economy at all given the nature of the facilities to be provided on site and it could be argued it might therefore even have a negative impact, reducing the interaction currently undertaken by existing caravan owners as well as new owners.  The site was not a locally owned business.  The proposal was extractive rather than sustainable.  A number of caravans were almost year round second homes placing a demand on local services but not contributing to the local economy as tourism would.  It was therefore not sustainable development in accordance with policy E4.

·        She asked whether site B was really different from Tom’s Patch in landscape impact terms.  The Committee had refused the Tom’s Patch application and an appeal had been dismissed. She highlighted paragraphs 12, 15, 17, 19 and 20 of the appeal decision, a copy of which had been circulated with the committee update, and the Inspector’s conclusion that the adverse visual impact of the proposal outweighed the benefits.

·        She considered that site B was more visible than the Tom’s Patch area from most of the road.

·        She did not accept the view in the report that the proposal was essentially filling in a gap, in the words of the report, compared with Tom’s Patch. She considered the gap had merit and should be retained.

·        The proposed mitigation would take many years to become established and would only be effective in summer.

·        There was concern about visual glare from higher viewpoints.

·        The points raised by Natural England on foul drainage in its late submission also needed to be addressed.

·        In summary, the caravan park was already too large; the economic benefits were mixed and could not be counted as diversifying the rural economy and creating sustainable tourism; and the landscape points upheld in the decision on the appeal on the Tom’s Patch site were directly applicable to the proposal before the Committee and it would be inconsistent to approve the application.

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

·        Whilst the inspector had judged in relation to the appeal on Tom’s Patch that that application, for 40 caravans, would not harm highway safety, the application before the Committee was for 95 caravans.  This must give stronger ground for highway safety concerns.

·        The effect on the grade 2 listed buildings was of concern.

·        It was unclear why site B would have a less adverse visual impact than the adjacent Tom’s Patch site, in fact it appeared more visible.  It was therefore questioned why the application was before the Committee and recommended for approval in light of the Inspector’s conclusion. Reference was made to Paragraph 34 of the appeal decision letter.

·        The scale of mitigation proposed was indicative of the scale of harm that a site in that location would have.  The Inspector’s criticisms at the Tom’s Patch appeal did not seem to be addressed in the officer assessment of the Malvern View application.  The application was contrary to policy LD1 which required the conservation and enhancement of the natural scenic beauty of important landscapes.

·        The scale of development was contrary to policy RA 6 in that it was not commensurate with the location and setting.

·        The current site was well managed and screened.  Site A would not have a visual impact.  Site B would be visible from the road but the colour of the facing on the caravans would be designed to make them blend in to the setting.

·        In terms of economic benefit it was asserted that the three caravan sites in the locality provided considerable economic benefit to the town of Bromyard. The proposal was an extension of an existing caravan park and the harm to the landscape would not outweigh the economic benefit.

·        Bromyard District Chamber of Commerce’s support for the application set out at paragraph 5.6 of the report was highlighted.

·        A contrary view was expressed that there was not sufficient evidence of economic benefit to balance against the clear evidence of environmental harm.

·         It was also suggested that, given the location, expenditure by residents of the site may well be in Worcestershire rather than Herefordshire

·        The Campaign to Protect Rural England was opposed to the development as set out in its response at paragraph 5.4 of the report describing it as urbanisation.

·        A number of Bromyard residents had settled in the area having first visited the as tourists staying at the caravan parks.  These residents contributed to the community and represented a social benefit.

·        It was requested that the proposed road junction improvements should be implemented prior to any development of the site.

·        The Principal Planning Officer clarified that Natural England had not objected to the application but had asked for further clarification on the drainage arrangements to ensure there was no adverse effect on the Leigh Brook Valley SSSI.  This was not considered to be a fundamental point leading officers to oppose the application.  It could be addressed through the submission of further information.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  She reiterated her grounds for opposition to the proposal.

 

Councillor Holton proposed and Councillor Shaw seconded a motion that application 172345 be refused on the grounds that it was contrary to policies LD1, RA4, RA6, E4, SS1 and SS6 with the economic benefit of the proposal being outweighed by the environmental impact.  The motion was lost on the Chairman’s casting vote there having been 5 votes in favour, 5 against and no abstentions.

 

Councillor Cutter proposed and Councillor Baker seconded a motion on application 172345 that officers be authorised to grant planning permission in accordance with the printed recommendation, following further consultation with Natural England, and being satisfied as to the outcome of that consultation, following consultation with the Chairman and local ward member.   The motion was carried on the Chairman’s casting vote there having been 5 votes in favour, 5 against and no abstentions.

 

Councillor Holton proposed and Councillor Shaw seconded a motion that application 173946 for listed building consent be refused on the grounds that it was contrary to policies LD4 and RA 6.The motion was lost on the Chairman’s casting vote there having been 5 votes in favour, 5 against and no abstentions.

 

Councillor Cutter proposed and Councillor Baker seconded a motion that application 173946 for listed building consent be approved in accordance with the printed recommendation.  The motion was carried on the Chairman’s casting vote there having been 5 votes in favour, 5 against and no abstentions

 

Application 172345

 

RESOLVED: That officers be authorised to grant planning permission following further consultation with Natural England, and being satisfied as to the outcome of that consultation, following consultation with the Chairman and local ward member, subject to the following conditions and any other further conditions considered necessary by officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to officers:

 

1.         A01 Time limit for commencement (full permission)

           

 

2.         B02 Development in accordance with approved plans and materials

 

3.         The number of caravans to be sited on the application site shall be limited to a maximum of 95.

 

            Reason: To conform to Policy LD1 of the Herefordshire Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework, to clarify the terms of the permission and minimise visual intrusion.

 

4.         No external surface of any static caravan hereby approved shall be of a colour other than one which has previously been approved in writing by the local planning authority for that purpose.

 

            Reason: To conform to Policy LD1 of the Herefordshire Local Plan – Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework, to clarify the terms of the permission and minimise visual intrusion.

 

 

5.         Prior to the first use of the development hereby permitted, full details of all external lighting to be installed upon the site (including upon the external elevations of the building) shall be submitted to and be approved in writing by the local planning authority. No external lighting shall be installed upon the site (including upon the external elevations of the building) without the prior written consent of the local planning authority. The approved external lighting shall be installed in accordance with the approved details and thereafter maintained in accordance with those details.

 

            Reason: To safeguard the character and amenities of the area and to comply with Policy SD1 of the Herefordshire Local Plan – Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

6.         The finished floor level of the holiday caravans and associated decking shall not be greater than 850mm above the existing ground levels denoted on the Topographical Survey drawing (NRG Survey dated 21/03/2016) received on 6th September 2016.

 

            Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and the character and appearance of the area and to comply with Policy LD1 of the Herefordshire Local Plan – Core Strategy.

 

7.         The development hereby approved is for the use of the land as a caravan holiday park.  The following shall apply:

 

(i)         the caravans shall only be occupied for holiday purposes only;

(ii)        the caravans shall not be occupied as a person’s sole, or main place of residence;

(iii)       the owners/operators shall maintain an up-to-date register of the names of all owners/occupiers of individual caravans on the site, and of their main home addresses, and shall make this information available at all reasonable times to the local planning authority.

 

            Reason: In order to conform to Policy RA5 of the Herefordshire Local Plan – Core Strategy so as to prevent the establishment of a residential use in the countryside where it would not normally be permitted.

 

8.         None of the (existing trees) (and/or) hedgerows on the site (other than those specifically shown to be removed on the approved drawings) shall be removed, destroyed or felled without the prior approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

 

            Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area and to ensure that the development conforms with Policies SD1 and LD1 of the Herefordshire Local Plan – Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

9.         A detailed landscaping scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development. The submitted landscaping scheme shall include a scaled drawing and a written specification clearly describing the species, sizes, densities and planting numbers proposed. Drawings must include accurate details of all existing trees and hedgerows to be retained with their location, species, size and condition.

 

            Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development in the landscape, in accordance with policies SS6, LD1, RA6 and SD1 of the Herefordshire Local Plan Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

10.       A landscape phasing scheme (implementation scheme) for the landscaping scheme as approved (condition 9) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development. The landscaping scheme shall thereafter be fully implemented in accordance with the phasing scheme (implementation scheme) so approved.

 

            Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development in the landscape, in accordance with policies SS6, LD1, RA6 and SD1 of the Herefordshire Local Plan Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

11.       The approved landscaping scheme as implemented by the landscape phasing scheme (condition 10) shall thereafter be maintained for a period of five years. Such maintenance is to include the replacement of any plant/tree/shrub/hedge that is removed, significantly damaged, diseased or dying, with plants/trees/shrubs/hedges of the same species and size within the next planting season.

 

            Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development in the landscape, in accordance with policies SS6, LD1, RA6 and SD1 of the Herefordshire Local Plan Core Strategy and the national Planning Policy Framework.

 

12.       The recommendations set out in the ecologist’s reports of phase 1 surveys and bat nocturnal surveys from deltasimmons dated August 2016 and January 2017 respectively should be followed unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Prior to commencement of the development, species mitigation method statement together with a habitat enhancement plan integrated with the landscape scheme should be submitted to and be approved in writing by the local planning authority, and the scheme shall be implemented as approved.

 

            An appropriately qualified and experienced ecological clerk of works should be appointed (or consultant engaged in that capacity) to oversee the ecological mitigation work.

 

            Reason: To ensure that all species are protected having regard to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (with amendments and as supplemented by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000), the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (and 2012 amendment).  To comply Herefordshire Council’s Policies LD2 Biodiversity and Geodiversity, LD3 Green Infrastructure of the Herefordshire Local Plan Core Strategy 2013 – 2031 and to meet the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

 

13.       With the exception of any site clearance and groundwork, no further development shall take place until the following details have been submitted:

 

•           A detailed surface water drainage strategy with supporting calculations that demonstrates there will be no surface water flooding up to the 1 in 30 year event, and no increased risk of flooding as a result of development between the 1 in 1 year event and up to the 1 in 100 year event and allowing for the potential effects of climate change;

•           Further detail for the north-east parcel to demonstrate how the combined runoff from this area will not increase flood risk during smaller rainfall events;

•           Results of infiltration testing undertaken in accordance with BRE365 guidance;

•           Drawings showing cross sections through the proposed attenuation basins and swales, demonstrating appropriate freeboard and overflow provision in the event of exceedance or blockage;

•           Confirmation of groundwater levels to demonstrate that the invert level of any unlined attenuation features can be located a minimum of 1m above groundwater levels;

•           Details of the proposed outfalls to the watercourses.

 

            The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

 

            Reason: To mitigate any increased risk of flooding and to comply with Policy SD3 of the Herefordshire Local Plan – Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

 

14.       H17 Junction improvement/off site works – to include:

 

•           White lining to junction of the B4420 junction and improved signage.

•           Applicant to ensure One way departure from the site towards B4420 only.

•           Passing bays and road widening to front of site to be constructed before works start on site, to be constructed to adoptable standards. All details to be agreed with highways including locations of passing bays.

 

15.       The leisure facilities hereby approved as shown on drawing no. 276-016 Revision B shall only be used by residents of Malvern View Holiday Park and shall not be otherwise made available for use by the general public

 

            Reason: The application has been determined on the basis that the leisure facilities proposed are only available for site residents and will not give rise to separate vehicle movements.  The local planning authority would wish to consider their wider use within the context of Policy MT1 of the Herefordshire Local Plan – Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

INFORMATIVES:

 

1.         The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by assessing the proposal against planning policy and any other material considerations, including any representations that have been received. It has subsequently determined to grant planning permission in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

2.         HN07 Section 278 Agreement

 

3.         HN10 No drainage to discharge to highway

 

4.         HN04 Private apparatus within highway

 

5.         HN01 Mud on highway

 

6.         HN28 Highways Design Guide and Specification

 

7.         HN05 Works within the highway

 

8.         HN22 Works adjoining highway

 

 

Application 173946

 

RESOLVED: That listed building consent (173946) be granted subject to the following conditions:

 

1.         D01 Time limit for commencement (Listed Building Consent)

2.         B02 Development in accordance with approved plans and materials