Access track using plastic mesh, grassed paving system/scalpings, re-seeding with grass and re-instating verges and ditches.

Access track using plastic mesh, grassed paving system/scalpings, re-seeding with grass and re-instating verges and ditches.

The Senior Planning Officer reported the following:

§         Correspondence had been received from the Conservation Manager; no objections subject to conditions.  A condition was recommended controlling species and timings of works and this was incorporated into the recommendation.

§         A letter of objection has been received from D. L. and J.A. Seeney of Sunset, Dinedor Cross and the comments were summarised.  It was noted that previous correspondence from the objectors had been received and considered but was not referenced in the report in error.

§         It was noted that the ownership of this lane was in doubt but land ownership matters were not a material planning consideration in this instance.

§         A condition regarding the introduction of a gate was recommended as a precautionary measure.  However, the applicant had made no suggestion that a gate was proposed.

§         Attention was drawn to the need to correct Page 34, 5.2, 3., so that it read ‘…the reinstatement has not been done as specified.’

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr. Joynt and Mr. Seeney spoke in objection to the application.

Councillor W.J.S. Thomas, the Local Ward Member, noted that the proposal had to be considered on its own merits and as if there had been no changes to the green lane in question.  On this basis, he felt that the application should be refused given the detrimental impact that it would have on the lane.

In response to a question from the Chairman, the Principal Lawyer (Corporate) advised that the lane was not regarded as a public right of way on the definitive map and civil disputes should not prejudice the determination of this planning application.

Councillor R.M. Wilson commented that the grass paving system could actually improve accessibility for users of the lane and supported the proposed reinstatement measures.

In response to concerns expressed by a number of Members about the reference made to the use of gates, the Senior Planning Officer advised that gates were not proposed as part of the application and condition 5 was recommended as a precaution to ensure that highways safety was not compromised in the event that gates were installed.  He also explained the background to the application and drew attention to the comments of the Conservation Manager.

Councillor Mrs. S.J. Robertson felt that the proposed surface treatment would have a detrimental impact on the character of the green lane.

In response to a question from Councillor Ms. A.M. Toon, the Senior Planning Officer explained that the landscape and ecological enhancement plan and associated conditions would ensure that historic features were maintained.

Councillor P.J. Edwards emphasised the need for the rural character of the lane to be restored and suggested that condition 5 should prohibit the installation of any gates.

Councillor Mrs. P.A. Andrews supported the Local Ward Member’s views and felt that the proposed use of materials would have an adverse visual impact on the landscape.

Councillor Thomas commented on other means of vehicular access to the field in question and maintained that this proposal should be refused.

RESOLVED:

That   (i)   The Central Area Planning Sub-Committee is minded to refuse the application subject to the reasons for refusal set out below (and any further reasons for refusal felt to be necessary by the Head of Planning Services) provided that the Head of Planning Services does not refer the applications to the Planning Committee:

1.   The development already undertaken, together with the proposed outstanding works, are detrimental to the landscape of the locality and harmful to the visual amenities of the area. The proposal is therefore contrary to Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan Policies S2, S7 and LA2.

(ii)  If the Head of Planning Services does not refer the application to the Planning Committee, Officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be instructed to refuse the application, subject to such reasons for refusal referred to above.

[Note: Following the vote on this application, the Development Control Manager advised that, although the resolution was contrary to the Officer’s recommendation, he was not minded to refer the matter to the Head of Planning Services given the grounds for refusal put forward by the Sub-Committee.]