Conversion of redundant barn to office.

Conversion of redundant barn to office.

Councillor Mrs. J.E. Pemberton, the Local Ward Member, commented that Hampton Bishop suffered greatly from the threat of flooding and that information that came to light before the strengthening of the Stank flood defences had heightened concerns further.  Councillor Mrs. Pemberton emphasised that the threat was not just from the River Wye, as recent flooding of the River Lugg had clearly demonstrated.  She commented that much good work had been undertaken on evacuation procedures but, nevertheless, the fears of the Parish Council and local residents were genuine and justified.  It was noted that the site was within open countryside and was also designated as a flood plain.  Given these considerations, Councillor Mrs. Pemberton felt unable to support the application.  She also noted that another planning application at this site for the demolition of barns and the erection of offices and a swimming pool had recently been refused.

The Principal Planning Officer explained that the application that had been refused did not pass the sequential test when dealing with new developments in flood plains; i.e. it involved the introduction of a new footprint in the flood plain rather than utilising existing structures and it was likely that other sites were available outside the flood plain.  Whereas, for the application under consideration, the Environment Agency had not objected to the proposed development as it involved the conversion of an existing building.

Councillor Mrs. Pemberton commented that the Environment Agency had previously indicated that development in the flood plain was unlikely to be supported in Hampton Bishop in the foreseeable future and she maintained that this development would introduce unnecessary additional risks into the flood plain.

Councillor W.J.S. Thomas noted the important work that had been undertaken at the Stank adjacent to the Bunch of Carrots Public House but suggested that the location of the application site meant that it would not be protected by the improved stretch of the defences.  He felt unable to support the proposal as it was not free of risk and was not the only site available.

Councillor P.J. Edwards noted that recommended condition 7 would require measures to protect the building from flooding in the event of extreme flood and supported the application.  In response to a question from Councillor W.J. Walling, the Principal Planning Officer advised that the precautions sought by the Environment Agency would be addressed through condition 7.

A number of Members expressed concerns about the flood risks, both from the Wye and the Lugg, and felt that the application 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 application site lies within an area at risk of flooding and in the absence of a Flood Risk Assessment it is not considered that the potential flood risk arising from the development is acceptable or can be satisfactorily mitigated.  Accordingly the development is contrary to Policy DR.7 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007 and the advice contained within PPS.25.

(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 he was minded to refer the matter to the Head of Planning Services as the Sub-Committee’s view might not be defensible if challenged.  However, following further discussions with the Environment Agency it was considered that in the absence of a Flood Risk Assessment and in view of the potential risk of flooding on the site, that a reason for refusal could be substantiated.]