Change of use of farm buildings to create 3 letting holiday cottages, 1 B&B letting room & an events venue facility.  Erection of 5 demountable Geo Domes for holiday/events letting use with wc/shower facilities in a new building & communal facilities in one farm building.

The application was refused in accordance with 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, Mrs Joseph, representing a number of local residents; and Mrs Compton, Chairman of Clifford Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application and Mrs Smolas, the applicant, spoke in support.

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

·         The application had received 112 representations with the majority being in objection to the application.

·         The surrounding area was a unique eco-system of agriculture built up iover many decades.

·         The land was serviced by a small road network which did not have capacity for wedding vehicles as well as the existing farm vehicles.

·         The proposition to force people to travel to the site by minibus was not enforceable.

·         There were no suitable passing points and vehicles could be required to reverse 100 yards or more.

·         Business diversification was vital, but this was in the wrong venue.

·         The proposed business had little chance of success with its current business plan.

·         The local community had concerns regarding the impact the application would have on the local area.

·         There were also concerns regarding the water supply.

·         The local residents could hear noise from Hay Festival, although this was accepted as it was for just 10 days and bough approximately £20 million into the local economy.

·         There were also concerns regarding light pollution.

·         The applicant needed to communicate better with the local residents and the parish council.

·         The application should be refused.

Members opened the debate by voicing their concerns in respect of the ‘events facility’ part of the application. It was considered that this usage was alien to such a rural area and that the highway infrastructure was not suitable for the proposed usage. Members discussed the proposed use of taxis and minibuses for visitors and considered that this would not be enforceable. Concern was also expressed regarding light pollution.

Members considered that the issues regarding water could be addressed through appropriate conditions

Councillor Price was given the opportunity to close the debate. He reiterated his opening remarks and made additional comments, including:

·         That he had met the applicants previously and had advised them that he was supportive of a training events venue however he could not support the current larger scale application.

·         The current application was half the size of the original application but it was still too large for the proposed location.

In response to a question, the Development Manager advised Members that they could not issue a split decision in respect of the application.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

1.         The proposal represents a significant risk to highway safety and the free flow of traffic through the resultant increase in vehicular movements generated by the proposal on the local network. The proposed transport mitigation can not be controlled, monitored or unenforced and conditions would not be compliant with Circular 11/95. Furthermore there is a reliance on the use of passing places adjacent to the public highway which are located on private land outside the applicant’s or Authority’s control and as such these can not be relied on for their availability or use. The submitted Transport Assessment is also deficient, having insufficient survey data and has not assessed adequately two substandard road junctions where traffic flow will be significantly increased. As such the proposal is contrary to Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan policies S1, S2, S6, DR1, DR2, DR3, T6, T8, E11 and RST13

2.         Given there will be a significant increase of vehicles and people into this isolated, tranquil landscape area and the land use and activities proposed, this will significantly reduce the character, amenity and tranquillity of this sensitive isolated area and therefore have a negative impact on the overall landscape character.  This is contrary to the stated aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework and Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan policies S1, S2, S7, DR1, DR2, E11, LA2 and RST13

3.         The proposal fails to demonstrate that the valued dark landscape and sky resource will be protected and not adversely affected. As such the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework and Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan policies S1, S2, S7, DR2, DR14, E11, LA2 and RST13 are therefore not satisfied.

4.         The proposal fails to ensure protected habitats and species will be suitably protected and safeguarded. The proposal, through the increased number of people into the area, traffic generated and requirement of unspecified vehicular passing places on common land, Special Wildlife Site and Ancient Woodland, and the location of the proposed package treatment plant all represent an unacceptable unquantified risk and impact to ecological and biodiversity resources, included designated resources and protected species, contrary to the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework and Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan policies S1, S2, S7, DR2, DR4, DR13, DR14, E11, NC1, NC4, NC6 and NC7.