Proposed development of the conversion of two small redundant barns into a luxury 6-8-person holiday let.   

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

(Councillor Fagan left the meeting for the duration of this agenda item.) 

The 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 criteria for public speaking for virtual meetings the following spoke at the meeting as virtual attendees:  Mr P Lodge of Llangarron Parish Council, who spoke in objection to the scheme, Mr C Lyster, a local resident, speaking in objection; and Mr J Hitchcock speaking in support, on behalf of Herefordshire Wildlife Trust the applicant,

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor Swinglehurst, spoke on the application.  In summary, she commented that there was considerable local opposition to the proposal, the consideration of which involved striking a balance between economic gain and the environmental cost. She considered that there were a number of objections to the proposal including that the local road network and the access to the site were inadequate for what would be a car dependent development making the proposal contrary to policy MT1; the existing buildings would not be capable of conversion without major reconstruction making the proposal contrary to policy RA5; the potential to support the local economy was limited; and there would be an adverse effect on the amenity of a neighbouring property; the design entailed a lot of glazing that would introduce light pollution; and the proposal would be contrary to policy LD2 (c) in that it would harm the nature conservation value of the site or species of local nature conservation interest.  Any economic benefit would be limited.

The Committee discussed the application.

The Lead Development Manager commented that he considered it to be a well-designed proposal for modest holiday use.  If the proposal were to be approved he suggested an additional condition relating to refuse collection.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  She reiterated that there would be limited economic benefit to the local economy and this could not weigh heavily in the planning balance against the extent of the works that would be required to achieve the conversion of the existing buildings.  She considered the grounds for refusal she had outlined, MT1, RA5 and LD2 stood.

The Lead Development Manager expressed reservations about advancing policies MT1 and LD2 as grounds for refusal given the consultation responses from officers set out in the report. Policy RA5 offered the most appropriate ground for refusal but he also had concerns about this given the views set out in the report.

A motion that the application be refused contrary to the officer recommendation on the grounds that the development was contrary to policies RA5, MT1 and LD2was carried.

RESOLVED:  That planning permission be refused on the grounds that the development was contrary to policies RA5, MT1 and LD2 and officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to officers be authorised to detail the reasons put forward for refusal by the committee.