Proposed extension to existing pub with 10 bed accommodation and 2 staff dwellings.

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

The Senior 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.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Ms Coombes, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor JG Jarvis, the Leader of the Council speaking in his capacity as the local ward member, commented on a number of issues, including:

·         The application related to a popular public house which fell within the Wye Valley Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

·         There was not a shop in the village although the public house did have planning consent to open a small shop on the site.

·         There was a village hall nearby which was often oversubscribed so the meeting facilities applied for would be welcomed.

·         There was a need to improve tourism facilities throughout the County, the application would result in improved facilities for visitors to the area.

·         The staff quarters applied for only resulted in a net increase of 1 room.

·         The applicants had always worked closely with the local community; this had led to a number of previous applications being withdrawn.

·         A number of the local residents had supported the application. There was also a petition of support within the public house which had gained a number of signatures.

·         The main issue seemed to be around the site being deemed as in open countryside due to the settlement boundary falling within Coughton and not Walford.

·         The forthcoming Parish Plan would be including this area for housing development as the Parish Council felt that it was not within the open countryside.

The debate was opened with a Member discussing the merits of the application. It was noted that the application was in compliance with Policies RST1 and RST2. It was felt that there was a functional need for staff accommodation on the site to service the proposed additional accommodation block which meant the application was also in accordance with policy H7 of the UDP. It was also noted that the local residents would not be adversely affected due to the proposed screening.

The Locum Lawyer (Planning and Regulatory) noted that a motion had been tabled to approve the application contrary to the case officer’s recommendation. She requested confirmation from the Member who had moved the motion that they were of the opinion that the application was in accordance with Policy H7 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan as there was, in their opinion, a functional need for the staff accommodation.

The Development Manager (Hereford and Southern Localities) concurred with the Locum Lawyer (Planning and Regulatory) and stated that Policy H7 of the UDP was key in determining the application and that Members had to decide whether they were of the opinion that the staff accommodation was necessary on the site.

Members confirmed that the accommodation was required and that the functional need was met, and therefore the application complied with Policy H7, they also confirmed that the other relevant policies where referred to in the Report.

The Locum Lawyer (Planning and Regulatory) noted that the Committee had made a judgement in respect of Policy H7 but advised them that there were other issues that needed to be considered. She advised Members that they may wish to consider issues such as the size and scale of the proposed development; the visual amenity of the area; and whether the residential amenity for the neighbouring residents could be addressed through the proposed screen.

The Development Manager (Hereford and Southern Localities) further advised that both the functional need and the impact on the AONB needed to be addressed. He noted that Walford was an established cluster of dwellings even though it fell outside the settlement boundary. He advised Members that a condition tying the business to the proposed dwellings would be required and asked for Members to consider any further conditions that they felt necessary.

The Councillor who had moved approval of the application confirmed that he was moving grant of the application for the reasons and on the basis of the policies, and with the conditions referred to above, and that the wording of the decision notice, and the wording and  inclusion of any additional conditions in respect of the application be delegated to officers in consultation with the Local Ward Member and the Chairman of the Planning Committee.

The Locum Lawyer (Planning and Regulatory) advised Members that they would need   to consider conditions relating to highways; lighting; flooding, landscaping and the privacy screen, as referred to in the report; as well as the conditions referred to by the Development Manager (Hereford and Southern Localities). The Committee agreed to include all of the conditions referred to.

The Committee continued to debate the application and were of the opinion that the application would also not have a negative impact on the AONB.

Members felt that the application for an accommodation block would result in a need for further supervision on the site and therefore the application for staff accommodation was fully justified. Members echoed the need for the proposed dwellings to be tied to the existing business.

In response to a question regarding the concerns raised by Walford Timber in respect of the application, the Senior Planning Officer advised that their primary concerns related to noise as a result of timber being moved around their site and the potential for complaints from this activity from people staying in the new accommodation block. They were concerned that this could impact on their business operations. In response to a further question the Senior Planning Officer advised that there was no impact on the setting of Goodrich Castle as a result of the proposed application.

One Member of the Committee raised concerns in respect of the location of the proposed accommodation block and to its proximity to Nelson Court. It was noted that there were no windows proposed in the façade facing Nelson Court and it was felt that there would be no impact on the residential amenity of the local residents as a result of the application.

Councillor JG Jarvis, the Local Ward Member, was given the opportunity to close the debate. He reiterated his opening remarks and added that the sewerage system was being replaced by the applicant which would be an additional benefit to the neighbouring residents. He therefore requested that the application be approved contrary to the case officer’s recommendation.

Neither the Local Lawyer, representing the Monitoring Officer, or the Head of Neighbourhood Planning requested a further information report so the Committee proceeded to the vote.

RESOLVED

THAT planning permission be granted  for the reasons set out above  and with  relevant policies referred to in the report,  and with the conditions referred to above, and  that the wording of the decision notice, and the wording and inclusion of any additional conditions in respect of the application be delegated to officers named in the scheme of delegation to officers and in consultation with the Local Ward Member and the Chairman of the Planning Committee.