Herefordshire County Council Planning Application No 131885/F
Proposal to erect 30 dwellings on Canon Pyon Hay Meadow
Mr A Banks, Planning Officer, PO Box 230, Blueschool Street, Hereford, HR12ZB
We wish to oppose this application on the following grounds:
It is regretful to see yet another planning application (6 so far) on this local beauty spot which has
developed into a perceived war of attrition between developers and the wishes of Local Democracy. It is
hoped the Planning Committee takes the unanimous opposition views of residents in the previous
applications into consideration as this latest version is indistinguishable from earlier rejections.
1. The site is in the countryside outside of the settlement boundary of Canon Pyon as defined in the
Unitary Development Plan. The applicant seeks to justify development by citing that Herefordshire
Council is currently unable to demonstrate a five year supply of housing land, and as such the
presumption in favour of sustainable development contained within the National Planning Policy
Framework takes effect and that the current UDP policy H7 cannot be sustained. We believe this to
be a distortion of a well-meaning Council edict to meet commercial needs.
There are suitable strategic and sustainable central sites within the settlement boundary of Canon
Pyon (see attached map) which have been assessed in the SHLAA as having none or minor
constraints and moreover have the support of the Parish Council who has actively engaged in Local
Consultation. It is clear the interim policy adopted by the Council in July 2012 was never designed
to allow development outside settlement boundaries when there are available and preferable sites
within the boundary. As the development does not satisfy any of the exception criteria within
Policy H7, the proposal is contrary to this policy.
The proposal for the Hay Meadow would have a gross impact on the visual character of this
stunning landscape and is contrary to Policies DR1, H4, H7 and DR13 of the Herefordshire Unitary
Development Plan and advice within the National Planning Policy Framework.
Page 1 of 5
2. Should permission be granted to build on farm land outside settlement boundaries while there is
adequate scope for development within settlement boundaries, Herefordshire Council would have
no grounds to refuse other applications using the same premise. The rich farm land on the other
side of the road from the Hay Meadow would be a prime example. Development of the village
must be from the centre out as proposed by Pyons Group Parish Council who are making this a key
condition of their emerging Neighbourhood Plan.
3. The last two major developments in Canon Pyon in the 1960s, (Meadow Drive and Brookside) were
designed to be sympathetic to the landscape, set well back from the roadside and avoided creating
a completely unnecessary streetscape impact in a small village. Fully appreciative of the impact of
the road traffic, they imposed a 45 foot building line from the edge of the road. This was also
imposed on the line of village bungalows. Despite a massive increase in traffic volume since the
1960s this proposal places the new housing in line with the few 18th Century houses which are
much too close to the highway. Any large housing development must be aligned at least as far back
as the 1960 housing as the volume of traffic is ever increasing.
The proposal design of a suburban road frontage is incompatible to the design of the existing
village and imposes a linear character which previous planning authorities managed to avoid and is
contrary to Policies DR1, H13 and H15 of the Herefordshire UDP and advice within the NPPF.
4. We note the applicant has submitted a fresh hydrology survey, which confirms the findings of their
survey carried out in 2011 that the site has serious flood issues.
Locals have always observed this area as flood land and indeed there was a natural pond area at
the North end until filled in in recent years. There are no water courses or ditches and the sub soil
is impermeable. This is exactly the type of surface which the Pitt report for the Government in
2007 on the Hereford/Worcester/Gloucestershire floods highlighted as unsuitable for housing
unless exceptional means are used to divert all water away from the site. The report stressed you
do not need to be in a traditional EA approved flood zone to suffer.
The introduction of over 50% of hard surfaces plus the removal of natural vegetation which
naturally retains water, must lead to increased runoff. Permeable paving (as yet not been
approved by for adoption by Herefordshire Council) offers no relief to drainage as the filtration of
the ground beneath (as the surveys confirm) is too slow for traditional soakaways. The report
offers a system to take the roof water to SEL soakaways which hold water for a time before slowly
releasing it. This is negligibly different to a traditional soakaway which acts in the same way but 2
hydrology surveys are categorical in stating that soakaways will not work on this ground.
Climate change extremes with heavy prolonged rain as last winter and flash floods are now the
norm, and the run off from a site like this with no piped drainage would be catastrophic. The
flooding to the existing housing sites will be greater than ever and the fact that the existing barrier
of the raised footpath would be breached, there would be no stopping the water from flooding the
highway and the existing settlement. In addition the 1:100 year scenario plus its 30%allowance for
climate change has not been catered for.
The Pitt report underlined the insurance risk on these sites, one flash flood and dwellings can be
swamped with overland flow, be uninsurable and householders cannot sell their homes. Would
Herefordshire Council be happy to accept a sticking plaster solution as suggested and indemnify
new home owners for flood risks, or insist as all previous planning authorities have done that
development on this site would be reprehensible?
Page 2 of 5
5. The large size of the housing development and the relatively long distance alongside a busy
highway to village amenities for young children negates the idea of an off-site contribution to play
facilities. The scheme fails to make adequate provision of outdoor play space and is contrary to
Policy H19 of the Herefordshire UDP.
6. The removal of one of the last traditional hay meadows in Herefordshire together with 400 foot of
mature hedging, which has been protected by its surrounding barriers and past planning authorities
for many years is completely unnecessary, totally opposed by villagers and would be an insult to
our farming heritage. The area is an important feature in the locality both in terms of its
appearance and biodiversity value and loss would be unjustified contrary to Policies DR1, NC1 and
NC7 of the Herefordshire UDP.
7. The mix of affordable housing types does not reflect the needs of the Local Affordable Housing
Needs Survey for the Canon Pyon Area (see table) published in March 2011. These houses must be
offered to local people by statute but the absence of bungalows for the elderly and infirm would
prevent them from doing so. This is contrary to Policy H9 of the Herefordshire UDP.
Household
reference
number
Canon Pyon
1
Canon Pyon
2
Canon Pyon
3
Canon Pyon
4
Canon Pyon
5
Canon Pyon
7
Canon Pyon
8
Canon Pyon
10
Canon Pyon
11
Kings Pyon 1
Kings Pyon 2
Kings Pyon 3
Returner 1
Returner 2
House
Specially
Flat /
adapted
Bungalow apartment home
Live / Work
unit for the
self employed
Sheltered
accommodation
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

-
-
-
-
-
-

-
-


-
-
-
-
-
-

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-








-

-


-
To summarise we object to the application for the reasons stated.
Gordon & Lyn McLeod, South Sizebrook, Canon Pyon, Herefordshire, HR4 8NT
Page 3 of 5
August 2013
Page 4 of 5
Page 5 of 5