Proposed restoration and residential use of the farmstead at Aubreys including: the conversion of and extension of the existing farmstead, proposed detached building for garaging, workshop and plant storage, extensive landscaping and rewilding of the wider site, the installation of an access track and associated works.

Application refused, contrary to the case officer’s recommendation.

The Development Manager Hereford and South team provided a presentation on the application and the updates/representations received following the publication of the agenda. A verbal update was provided on a recent application to Heritage England for listed building status for the farmstead at Aubreys and the implications for decision making on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking Mrs Tribe, spoke on behalf of Longtown Group Parish Council, Mrs Griffiths, local resident, spoke in objection to the application and Mr Gardener, the applicant, spoke in support.

In accordance with the council's constitution the local ward member spoke on the application. In summary, he explained the location of the proposed development was in a landscape of outstanding and unspoilt quality which should have received statutory protection. The location of the application site was prominent in the Olchon Valley due to its setting high on the hillside. Had an application been received for a new house at the application site it would have been denied. In the present application, policy RA5 of the core strategy was used to make use of existing buildings at the farmstead. It was noted that an earlier application for the site had been refused and the current application had been adjusted in line with that refusal. The very late receipt of the structural survey concerning the existing buildings (as required under core strategy policy RA5) was raised. The description of the existing buildings on site in the survey was at odds with the assessment of their condition within the officers report. The value of the structural survey from the applicant was questioned as it presented a partial view of the state of the existing buildings. The impact of the proposed development on the landscape was unacceptable. The development would be clearly visible from vantage points around the local landscape and would have a detrimental impact on the beauty and outstanding quality of the local area. There was no support for the application in the Olchon Valley where it was felt that the development would tarnish the beauty of the Valley and harm tourism. It was felt that the case officer’s report should contain greater regard for the opinions of the Landscape Officer and Heritage Officer and their objections regarding the impact of the application with reference to core strategy policies LD1 and LD4.

The committee debated the application. There was division among the members of the committee regarding the acceptability of the application.

In judging the application as acceptable some members made the points below:

- the application would be positive in its reinstatement and renovation of heritage buildings. The reuse and repurposing of existing stonework would ensure that the development was not intrusive upon the landscape.

- the prominence of the application site and it's visibility from other vantage points locally was not felt to be a significant concern.

In judging the application as unacceptable some members made the points below:

- the scale of the proposed development, the proposed building materials and the impact upon a sensitive environment was unacceptable. The application site was prominent and exposed on the side of a hill in the Olchon Valley and was visible from a number of local vantage points. The addition to the existing buildings of the new barn, retaining wall, garage and access track would have a significant and unacceptable impact upon the landscape. The application was contrary to core strategy policies SD1, SS6 and LD1 of the core strategy due to its impact on the landscape.

- The scale of the proposed changes to the existing buildings on-site was unacceptable. Regard should be paid to the Heritage officers and Landscape officers’ assessments of the proposed changes to the existing buildings which would be detrimental to their original form, appearance and setting. Due to the impact of the proposed modifications to the original buildings, in particular, to their form, appearance and setting, the application was contrary to core strategy policies LD1, LD4, RA3 and RA5 and neighbourhood development plan (NDP) policies LGPC4. The application did not represent reinstatement but rather expansion and change of use from farmstead to residential dwelling and was therefore contrary to core strategy SS1 and NDP policy LGPC4.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate. In summary, he warned that in the event of an approval of the application a precedent would be set for similar developments in the Olchon Valley which would change the nature of the area.

Councillor Stef Simmons proposed and Councillor Catherine Gennard seconded the refusal of the application due to the unacceptable scale and nature of the modifications to the existing buildings, the scale of the new buildings on site and the detrimental intrusion on the landscape contrary to core strategy polices LD1, LD4, RA3, RA5, SD1, SS1 and SS6 and NDP Policies LGPC4 and 10.

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

RESOLVED    – That the application is refused due to the unacceptable scale and nature of the modifications to the existing buildings, the scale of the new buildings on site and the detrimental intrusion on the landscape contrary to core strategy polices LD1, LD4, RA3, RA5, SD1, SS1 and SS6 and NDP Policy LGPC4.

– That the application is refused due to the impact on the landscape, in accordance with those reasons set out in LGPC10.