Proposed conversion of redundant mill to form livework unit.

Ward - Ledbury

Proposed conversion of redundant mill to form livework unit.

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application and updates / additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided as follows:

§               Correspondence had been received from Herefordshire and Gloucestershire Canal Trust.  The contents of the correspondence were summarised.  It was reported that the Canal Trust had attempted to negotiate with the landowner without success in respect of the land in the vicinity of the canal.

§               Further representations had been submitted by the agent for the applicant with regard to the flooding issue.  This suggested that the historic flood level was 1.45 metres lower than the floor level of the building.

Officer comments were also provided as follows:

§               The safeguarded route of the Herefordshire and Gloucestershire Canal crosses the application site (bi-sects the driveway) and traverses adjoining land within the applicant’s control.

§               Under the provisions of policy RST 9 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007 the Local Planning Authority would normally require the applicant to enter into a Section 106 legal agreement securing the transfer of the land the subject of the safeguarded canal corridor to the Herefordshire and Gloucestershire Canal at no cost and in this instance to commit to a single access and bridge across the restored canal in the vicinity of Hazle Mill to be shared with the owners of Hazle Mill House.

§               The agent for the applicant has not submitted any form of draft heads of terms in respect of a legal agreement to address this issue.  As such the proposal is also contrary to policy RST 9 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007 and a further ground of refusal is recommended.

§               With regard the flooding issue, the agent has not undertaken any modelling and relies on anecdotal evidence from the applicant. To require full modelling in such a small-scale case may be rather excessive and as no new built development (additional footprint) is proposed there would be no impact on flood storage or flood flows. However, the agent for the applicant has still not overcome the sequential test. The site remains in Flood Zone 2 (Medium Risk) and he has failed to provide any evidence that there are no suitable alternative sites entirely in Flood Zone 1 (Low Risk).

§               As a matter of clarification I understand that the building upon the site has no remnants of the original Mill and that the timbers within it were inserted by a person who operated a scrap yard business upon the site in the late twentieth century.

§               With regard the recently revised Central Government advice contained within Planning Policy Statement 4 ‘Planning for Sustainable Growth’, there is no mention within that document of “live-work” units. Furthermore with regard the re-use of rural buildings to employment related purposes the advice remains the same. Whilst the Government continue to encourage the re-use of rural buildings for employment related purposes they advise Local Planning Authorities to adopt criteria based policies. The Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007 has such criteria based policies and as such remains compliant with Central Government advice.

The following changes to the recommendation were indicated:

§               Amend reason for refusal 1 by deleting its last sentence only.

§               Add a further ground of refusal:-

7.         The proposal fails to provide any legal mechanism to secure the transfer of the land within and adjoining the application site that is upon the safeguarded route of the Herefordshire and Gloucestershire Canal to the Herefordshire and Gloucestershire Canal Trust.  Nor does the proposal provide for any other mechanism to secure the restoration of canal hereabouts. As such the proposal would prejudice the long-term policy objective of restoring the canal contrary to policy RST 9 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr. Lewis spoke in support of the application.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor PJ Watts, a local ward member, raised a number of issues, including:

·         Flooding: the flood risk assessment indicated that even an extreme flood event should not reach the side elevation of the building given the topography of the site; and the landowner had confirmed that the site had been unaffected by floods in 1998 and 2007.

·         Renovation: an engineer’s report in July 2009 had indicated that the building was capable of conversion; a building in the location was illustrated on historic maps; as there was an opportunity to bring a building back into use, it was not considered that housing need had to be demonstrated; the proposed charcoal burning activity required supervision; and reference in the report to the applicant’s proposed business as a ‘hobby’ was considered disingenuous.

·         Ecology: a full baseline protect species survey had been submitted.

·         Access and egress: the access had been used for a considerable time, particularly by slow-moving farm vehicles and by vehicles accessing the former scrapyard; whilst the visibility splay might not conform to modern criteria, there had not been any recorded accidents in the past year and there were many similar accesses throughout the County; the speeds of approaching vehicles on the B4216 were limited by factors such as hedges, road camber and slight bends; the proposed use would result in only a minor uplift in traffic movements per day.

A Member noted the enterprise of the applicant but did not consider that a good case had been made for this scheme, with substantial amounts of evidence still to be received or improved.

The Development Control Manager commented that a number of reasons for refusal had been identified in the report and a key issue for the committee was whether the proposal could be considered to comply with policy HBA13 (Re-use of Rural Buildings for Residential Purposes) of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.  In the opinion of officers, the proposal failed to meet any of the exception criteria set out in the policy.

A number of Members commented on the need to support rural businesses and felt that consideration of the application should be deferred for further information and discussions with the applicant; comments included the need for clarity about the source materials and about flood risk.

Some Members questioned the purpose of deferral if it was not considered that the building was worthy of retention or capable of conversion.  A comment was made that a number of different types of business could be considered to have important functions in rural areas but it did not necessarily follow that developments in open countryside should be permitted for such businesses.

The Head of Planning and Transportation requested Members to guide officers in respect of areas which they considered could be resolved to their satisfaction to overcome the policy objections.

Councillor Watts was given the opportunity to close the debate in accordance with the Council’s Constitution; he re-iterated that a survey had assessed the ecological considerations, that engineers had advised that the building was sound, and he said that emerging businesses needed to be encouraged.

RESOLVED:  

That consideration of planning application DMNE/092736/F be deferred for further information and discussions with the applicant.