Dear Ms Webster
PA193004: Land and barns at Upper Hill Farm, Breinton
PA193005: South Barn, Upper Hill Farm, Breinton
Breinton Parish Council makes the following comments:
Councillors are never content to see a Retrospective Application, and it is unclear in this case
why the normal due process was not undertaken by the applicant. This is particularly so
since it is now evident that the Council was misled during the preparation of the NDP when
it was informed the planning application had lapsed. From the information available, and
from its knowledge of the site and existing structures, councillors infer it was likely that the
involvement of Herefordshire Council’s Historic Buildings Officer led to the requirement for
retrospective permission(s) at this stage.
It is also unclear why it has been necessary for there to be two (apparently) identical
applications – 193004 and 193005 – for the site.
Breinton has a notable agricultural and horticultural heritage and the site is bounded to the
east by a developing orchard of vintage and rare cider apple trees. The grade 2 listed
buildings at Upper Hill Farm are a listed Heritage Asset in Breinton PC’s Neighbourhood
Development Plan. The council is pleased to note that the Historic Buildings Officer has been
involved in the planning process: these buildings are now in very poor condition but
nonetheless the council urges that, if permissions are granted, all due care and sympathetic
attention is given both to the heritage value of the buildings themselves and to their setting
on the site. This farmstead also features in the paintings of the celebrated local artist Brian
Hatton. (1887-1916).
The council is concerned at the applicant’s inclusion of ‘workshop’ facilities, large
polytunnel, extensive parking provision (for 6 vehicles) and covered parking for a JCB. In the
council’s view these leave open the probability that some of the site may be intended for
commercial/business activities which are not currently acknowledged or specified in the
applications.
The negative implications and potential impacts on local amenity of any such change of use
would include traffic movements and noise nuisance: these would be contrary to NDP Policy
B4 (Reuse of empty buildings for housing and community assets), specifically B4d:
“proposals do not harm the amenity of existing and future occupiers”. Councillors request
clarification and explanation of this matter, together with the opportunity for the council to
comment further, before any determination of the applications.
In the council’s opinion the applicant’s proposals for zinc roofing on some of the buildings
and feather edge fencing along one boundary are not consistent with NDP Policy B4b: “any
external alterations are in keeping with the rural character of the area”.
Councillors request that a condition be included with any approval granted that neither the
garage nor the barns/workshops could in future become separate dwellings.
Yours Sincerely
Emily Godsall
Clerk, Breinton Parish Council