Erection of an agricultural barn together with appropriate landscaping and planting.

The application was refused, contrary to the Case Officer’s recommendation.

(Erection of an agricultural barn together with appropriate landscaping and planting.)

The Senior Planning Officer (SPO) 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 criteria for public speaking, Mr A Powers of Breinton Parish Council spoke in opposition to the scheme.  Dr J Hanks, a local resident, spoke in objection.  Mr G Owen, the applicant, spoke in support.

The Chairperson reported that a letter from Councillor Hitchiner, the adjoining ward member, who had been unable to attend the meeting, had been included in the schedule of updates.  He informed the Committee that the final paragraph of that letter should be disregarded as it was not a material consideration.

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

He made the following principal comments:

·        He shared the concerns of Eaton Bishop Parish Council as to the building’s true purpose.

·        The site did not slope gently, as described in the report, but fell away quite sharply towards the River Wye.  This meant there was a risk of run-off and pollution.

·        Historic England had commented that the development could have a negative impact on the setting of Eaton Camp, a scheduled ancient monument.

·        The access was via narrow lanes.  The proposed use would generate considerable heavy traffic destroying verges and wildlife and create risks for walkers and horse riders who currently used the lanes.

·        He believed there had been more previous applications on the site than recorded in the report, including one for a home for a disabled person.

·        All the previous applications listed in the report had been refused.  He referred to the grounds for refusal of the applicant’s most recent application, and the conclusion that it was contrary to Core Strategy policies SS1, SD1, LD1 and NDP policies B6, B7, B14 and B15.

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

·        In response to a question, the SPO commented that the building would offer some ventilation and would be able to house livestock.  The Development Manager added that animal welfare was subject to a control mechanism that was separate from planning considerations.

·        The legal adviser reminded the Committee that it needed to consider each application on its planning merits.  If any animal health concerns were to emerge that would be a matter for the relevant body to deal with under the relevant, separate, legislation.

·        Weight should be given to the concerns expressed by Breinton Parish Council.

·        No viable business case had been presented.  One view was that the land would be overgrazed.  Sheep had been lost during recent flooding.  The site did not appear suitable for grazing given the likelihood of increasingly frequent flooding.  A contrary view was that the building was not large. A barn could have enabled the sheep that had been lost during the flooding to be secured safely.  It was grassland suitable for grazing.  There were many fields in the county on the floodplain that were grazed.

·        The phosphate levels in the River Wye were of concern and the proposal would contribute to those problems.

·        The proposal was not sustainable.  It would entail the loss of green infrastructure with large vehicles using roads that could not sustain them. 

·        Historic England and the National Trust had expressed concerns about the impact on the historic landscape.  Great weight should be given to their comments.

The Development Manager commented that if the Committee was minded to refuse the application it would be consistent to cite the reasons for refusing the most recent application.  The impact on Eaton Camp had not previously formed a ground for refusal.  Landscaping impact had.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He requested that if the Committee was minded to approve the application it considered a condition restricting the use of the building to a barn for cattle and sheep with associated food storage.

Councillor Milln proposed and Councillor Fagan seconded a motion that the application be refused on the grounds that the proposal was contrary to Core Strategy policies SS1, SS6, SD1, LD1, LD4 and NDP policies B6, B7, B14 and B15.

The motion was carried with 10 votes in favour, 1 against and 3 abstentions.

RESOLVED: That planning permission be refused and officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to officers be authorised to detail the conditions and reasons put forward for refusal by the committee on the grounds that the proposal was contrary to Core Strategy policies SS1, SS6, SD1, LD1, LD4 and NDP policies B6, B7, B14 and B15.