Variation of condition 2 of 171321/F (Proposed residential development of 2 new dwellings). To allow revised drawings, with new access with drives and garages re-positioned at dev 1.

The application was refused contrary to the Case Officer’s recommendation

(Variation of condition 2 of 171321/F (proposed residential development of 2 new dwellings). To allow revised drawings, with new access with drives and garages re-positioned at dev 1.)

(Councillor Durkin fulfilled the role of local ward member and accordingly had no vote on this application.)

The Principal Planning Officer 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 D Teague, of Brampton Abbotts and Foy Parish Council spoke in opposition to the scheme.  Mr B Miller-Hall, a local resident, spoke in objection.  Mr P Smith, on behalf of the applicant, spoke in support.

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

He made the following principal comments:

·        The site was within the Wye Valley AONB.  It was important that the AONB was protected.

·        The Conservation Manager (Ecology) had objected to the proposal commenting that there was no evidence of there being an overriding public interest in allowing the additional loss and impacts on existing hedgerow. He considered the proposal to be contrary to policies SS6, LD1, LD2, LD3 and LD4.

·        It was stated that 3m of hedgerow would need to be removed.  It was likely that the impact would be more severe.  The existing proposal had involved the removal of 20m of hedgerow.

·        There had been 36 objections from 24 households.

·        The provision of an additional access created additional risk.

·        The NDP was at Regulation 16.  It attracted limited weight.  Policy BAF4 was relevant.

·        Weight should be given to the protection of the AONB. The proposal should be refused on the grounds that it was contrary to policies LD1, LD2, LD3 and BAF 4.

The legal adviser commented that references to uplift clauses and financial gain in the context of the proposal were not relevant and could not form part of the Committee’s consideration.

In the Committee’s discussion of the application the consensus was that there appeared to be no sound reason in support of the application.  The proposal would damage more hedgerow.  There was local objection to it.  It appeared to be of benefit to no one except the developer.  The existing access was large and more than adequate.

The Development Manager commented that it was not for the Conservation Manager (Ecology) to judge whether or not there was an overriding public interest in support of the application.   The proposal would provide benefit by improving public safety on the footpath.  The plans showed that 3m of hedgerow would be removed and the application had to be judged on that basis.  There would be new hedgerow planting along the existing boundary with the public footpath, so offsetting the hedgerow loss. He noted the visual and ecological concerns expressed about losing the roadside hedge

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He questioned the extent of the effect on the footpath  ...  view the full minutes text for item 91