Proposed ancillary annexe.

The application was approved in accordance with the Case Officer’s recommendation.

(Proposed ancillary annexe.)

The Development Manager gave a presentation on the application, and updates/additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided in the update sheet, as appended to these minutes.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr M Rowberry of Goodrich and Welsh Bicknor Group Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr P Chatterton, Company Secretary to Coppett Hill Common Trust, spoke in objection.  Mr A Fisher, the applicant, spoke in support.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor PD Newman, spoke on the application.

He made the following principal comments:

·        He highlighted the beauty of the location within the Wye Valley AONB and the importance of tourism to the area’s economy.

·        The draft Neighbourhood Development Plan was due to gain weight within some 4 weeks.  The proposal was contrary to that Plan.  Weight should be given to the Plan.

·        An original application had been made to develop a new dwelling in the open countryside.  There had been no reference to it being an ancillary dwelling.  This application had been refused by officers. 

A revised application had subsequently been submitted for an ancillary annexe.  However, the application was the same as the original one, a two storey dwelling, on the same footprint.  A single storey structure on the existing footprint would provide adequate accommodation.  The proposal was a rebranding. It was unacceptable in such a sensitive, protected location.

·        There was concern that approval would set a precedent, permitting all the scattered properties along Coppett hill to be interspersed with substantial two storey new build structures described as annexes.

·        He opposed the application.

In the Committee’s discussion of the application the following principal points were made:

·        Whilst there was sympathy for personal circumstances, it was questioned why a separate structure was being proposed rather than an extension to the existing dwelling.

·        Regard had to be had to the importance of the landscape and the risk of setting a precedent for development.

·        The Lead Development Manager confirmed that the Neighbourhood Development Plan was at Regulation 14 Stage.  No weight could be given to it until it had completed Regulation 16 Stage.

·        The DM commented in response to points raised that the proposal was for a new build not a conversion of the existing garage.  He did not have the information to say whether there were any constraints preventing an extension to the existing dwelling. The question to be considered was whether the proposed building was of sufficiently modest scale to be considered ancillary.

There was no formula or guidance as to what floor area might qualify as an annexe.  It was a matter for the decision maker to determine having regard to the size of the dwelling, constraints of the site and relationship to the existing dwelling.

The revised scheme reduced the ridge height to 5.3m which he considered limiting in terms of potential for future use as a self-contained separate dwelling.  It had an appropriate and reasonable relationship to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 59