Proposed two purpose built transformer housing (standard GRP green glass fibre polyester resin housing) each sat on concrete plinths for flood protection. With substations installed inside each housing to supply electricity to Welsh Water, Local residents and Businesses. Each glass fibre polyester resin housing is: width 3300mm, Depth 2400,Height 2270 to be mounted on 600mm concrete base. To be positioned side by side doors to face south into the meadow.

Application refused contrary to the case officer’s recommendation.

Councillor Catherine Gennard left the committee to act as the local ward member for applications 233134 and 240480.

The Senior Planning Officer provided a presentation on the application and the updates/representations received following the publication of the agenda. A verbal update of representations received following the circulation of the update sheet was provided[1].

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Milln, spoke on behalf of Hereford City Council, Mr Steel spoke in objection to the application and Mr Gammond spoke in support.

In accordance with the council’s constitution, the local ward member spoke on the application. In summary, she explained that the right of way across the site was popular and the area was an important setting to demarcate the urban area from the countryside. There was a scheduled ancient monument on Bartonsham Meadow and there were extensive views from the area across Dinedor and Aconbury Hills. The proposed development would have an unacceptable impact upon the local setting and the application contained insufficient detail regarding the proposed planting/screening of the housings which would take a significant time to become established. The development would restrict the width of the entrance to the Meadow to 4 metres which was felt to be too narrow for vehicles seeking access. Alternative sites for the housings existed but it was not the role of the committee to suggest such amendments to the application. The applicant had supplied limited noise data regarding the impact of the development on local residential amenity but the assessment was insufficient and the application did not take proper account of the low level hum produced from the development. There was very little supporting information or assessments concerning the application. A refusal of the application was encouraged due to the unacceptable impact on the landscape, contrary to core strategy policies LD1, SD1, LD4, SS6 and HD2.

The committee debated the application and the following principal points were raised:

• The position of the development in the entrance to the site caused an unacceptable impact on the landscape and was an impediment to access to the meadow.
• The impact of the development upon key views from the site was unacceptable.
• The impact of the development upon the setting and character of the local area was unacceptable.
• The benefit of the removal of the existing pylons was recognised but there was insufficient detail in the application to assuage concerns regarding the impacts of the development and inconsistency with core strategy policies LD1, LD4 and SS6.

Councillor Matthew Engel declared a non-disclosable personal interest as a share holder in National Grid. The level of shareholding did not meet the threshold as a disclosable pecuniary interest in the councillor code of conduct.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.

Councillor Roger Phillips proposed and Councillor Richard Thomas seconded the refusal of the application due to the unacceptable impact of the development on the landscape contrary to core strategy policies LD1, SD1, LD4, SS6 and HD2.

The motion was put to the vote and was carried by a simple majority.

RESOLVED: That the application is refused due to the unacceptable impact of the development on the landscape contrary to core strategy policies LD1, SD1, LD4, SS6 and HD2.