Proposed conversion of redundant mill to form live/work unit.

Proposed conversion of redundant mill to form live/work unit.

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application and updates / additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided; the schedule of committee updates is appended to these minutes.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Harding spoke on behalf of the Town Council, and Mr Lewis, the applicant, spoke in support of his application.

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

• The topography of the site had not been considered in the flood risk assessment.
• Evidence proved that there was no risk of flood with the floor level 1.45 metres above flood level.
• There had been a mill on the site as far back as 1066.
• Restoration of the building had been required due to a fire in the 1950’s.
• The production of charcoal required 24 hour supervision.
• There was an identified local housing need.
• There had been no reported accidents on the access road.
• The business plan should be viewed as an indication of the applicant’s plans and not set in stone.
• The canal route did enter the site but the application site itself was not on the canal route

Some members felt that the Council had a responsibility for shaping and supporting rural enterprises and should strive to accommodate young people in the countryside. They felt that it was imperative that the proposed dwelling be tied to the farm with an appropriate condition. It was noted that there had previously been a scrap metal yard on the site and that the entrance to the site had been historically used with no reports of any accidents. Members noted that in their opinion the application was in accordance with the government guidance in relation to sustainable development (PPS1) and also accorded with national policies PPS4, PPS7, PPS9, and UDP policy H8.

Other Members agreed that the Council should support rural enterprises and recommended that the applicant contact the Council’s Economic Development team who could offer guidance and advice. They also voiced concerns regarding the profitability of the enterprise and felt that the application should be refused in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation. It was noted that the Committee were not trying to prevent the applicant from pursuing his career but that temporary accommodation could provide the solution to any possible functional need for a dwelling on the site.

In response to a number of points raised by Members the Principal Planning Officer advised that local and national planning policies aimed to encourage rural enterprise and that the applicant’s proposed live/work unit was divorced from the woodland. He added that the functional need to live on the site could be provided through temporary accommodation. Finally he advised Members that the proposed woodland planting outlined in the application would take a number of years to mature and that there was no alternative source of timber near to the proposed dwelling.

Members went on to discuss a number of issues in respect of the application including possible funding for woodland enterprises through English Nature; the support for live/work units as outlined in Council planning policy; the fact that the applicant had access to alternative woodland; the support being offered by the family in respect of the application and the benefit to the environment and wildlife of the proposed nine and a half acres of planting.

One Member noted that there were currently 5000 – 6000 people on the waiting list for housing in Herefordshire. He proposed that permission for the application be granted subject to the following three conditions; the removal of permitted development rights; the use of the site to be limited to a rural enterprise; a large percentage of willow be proposed for the planting to provide an earlier source of material.

The Planning Policy Manager noted that live/work sites had been mentioned in Ross on Wye but confirmed that these were on an allocated site. He advised members that planning policy did not stop the applicant pursuing his career but did not justify a permanent residential unit on the site.

The Principal Planning Officer suggested possible conditions that could be incorporated into any approval decision in order to ensure that the dwelling was only occupied by someone employed solely in the woodland industry.

Councillor Watts was given the opportunity to close the debate in accordance with the Council’s Constitution. He reiterated the issues raised in his opening statement and also made a number of addition points, including:

• The applicant has access to 40 acres of woodland prior to the proposed planting scheme coming to maturity.
• The existing building could be easily converted.
• Members should be positive and encourage the acceptance of the application.

The Chairman noted that the committee were minded to approve the application contrary to the Officer’s recommendation and requested guidance from the Locum lawyer in respect of the Further Information Report process.

Both the Locum Lawyer, representing the Monitoring Officer, and the Development Control Manager felt that a further information report was required due to the critical policy issues at stake and due to the fact that granting the application could leave the authority open to judicial challenge. The Locum Lawyer noted that there was a need for a functional and economical test for the application; he noted that the economical test had been met but in his opinion the functional need test had not.

Members were advised that the Constitution did not permit them to take a vote against Officer’s recommendation where a Further Information Report had been requested and therefore the motion had to be withdrawn. The substantive motion to refuse the application was voted on and failed resulting in the determination of the application being deferred pending a further information report.

Members felt that a vote should be taken contrary to the Officer’s recommendation. The Democratic Services Officer read out the relevant section of the Constitution to clarify the issues resulting from the Further Information Report.

RESOLVED:  

That consideration of planning application DMCE/091754/F be deferred for further information.