Outline planning application for construction of a three bedroom dwelling.

Ward - Pontrilas

Outline planning application for construction of a three bedroom dwelling.

The Principal Planning gave a presentation on the application. Updates received following the publication of the agenda were provided as follows:

• A letter of objection had been received from Mrs West and a letter of support had been received from Mr Whistance. The contents of the letters were summarised.

Officer comments were also provided as follows:

• The workshop referred to in the Committee report was approved on 23 December 2009 by the Southern Area Planning Sub-Committee. The site for the workshop is approximately one kilometre away from the application site. No new issues are raised. The refusals referred to above relate to the adjoining site which is between the application site and the C1234 road.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Macrae spoke in objection to the application and Mr Heath, the applicant, spoke in support.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s constitution, Councillor RH Smith, the local ward member, spoke in support of the application and raised a number of points, including:

·         An application for the applicant’s workshop had been approved by the Southern Area Planning Sub-Committee.

·         The applicant would like to live nearer to his workshop but could not live on the workshop site as this land was owned by his grandfather.

·         Under paragraph 1.3 of the report it was stated that the applicant had a ‘desire’ to live in the proposed location, the application was submitted as the applicant needed to live near the workshop.

·         Garway Parish Council had not responded as the site did not fall within the Parish Council Boundary.

·         The applicant offered a local service to agricultural workers and employed one other person.

·         The applicant’s business had been growing for the previous 3 years. This had been evidenced through the submission of the applicant’s accounts.

·         The applicant and his fiancée had previously lived in Brilley but had deemed this too far away from the workshop to be an acceptable housing solution.

·         The application was in accordance with H7.1, H7.2, H8.1 and H8.2 of the Unitary Development Plan.

·         The application site was associated with the small settlement of Garway and was walking distance away from the workshop.

·         The proposed dwelling would be in keeping with policies H8.3 and H8.4 of the Unitary Development Plan.

·         The applicant was happy for an agricultural tie to be added as a condition of any approval, he was also happy to have any permission restricted to a bungalow if the committee so required.

·         Approval of the application would be in accordance with Policy S6 of the UDP as it would reduce the applicant’s need to travel to his place of work.

• The application should be approved in accordance with policies H7 and H8 of the Herefordshire Council’s Unitary Development Plan.

The Development Control Manager advised Members that PPS7 did not state that a dwelling could be permitted now that the workshop had been approved and that both the financial test and the functional need tests had to be satisfied. He noted that the applicant had stated that it was not possible for the proposed dwelling to be sited at the farm where the workshop permission had been recently approved. He added that in his opinion the functional need could not be met as the business could not be served from a dwelling situated 1 mile away from the workshop.

Councillor ACR Chappell noted the applicant’s comments in respect of the lack of affordable housing in the area. He felt that young people should be retained in rural areas and felt that the applicant was offering a valuable service to Herefordshire’s agricultural workers. He noted that the map submitted with the application was outdated as there were a number of new dwellings in the area and therefore the application would not be setting a precedent. He did voice his concerns in respect of the access onto the C road although he noted that there had been very few accidents on this road and felt that any concerns in respect of highways could be addressed through appropriate conditions.

Councillor DW Greenow congratulated the applicant for establishing a profitable business in the current economical climate. He noted the lack of affordable housing in the area and added that the applicant was in ownership of the land proposed for development. He also felt that the business was of great importance to local agriculture in the area and felt that the application should be approved in accordance with Policies H7, H8 and H10 of the Unitary Development Plan.

Some Members had reservations regarding any possible tie between the house and the workshop due to the distance and the difference in ownership of the two separate developments, they noted that the two nearest dwellings to the application site had not objected but felt that it would be easier to support the application if it was closer to the workshop.

The Committee noted that the application had been fully supported by the Southern Area Planning Sub-Committee

Other Members supported the Officer’s recommendation and stated that the application was clearly contrary to the Unitary Development Plan. A member also felt that the application would not be looked on so favourably if the applicant was not working in an agricultural based trade.

Councillor B Hunt spoke in support of the application, he noted the policy issues but felt that they should be flexible to deal with exceptional applications. He requested clarification regarding the possibility of an agricultural tie between the workshop and the proposed dwelling. In response to the question the Development Control Manager confirmed that it could prove problematic to tie the dwelling to land that was outside the control of the applicant. He added that this could be investigated more thoroughly by the Planning Department if members were minded to approve the application contrary to Officer’s recommendation.

Members noted the Officer’s recommendation but they were minded to approve the application as they felt that the applicant offered a vital service to the local agricultural industry. They also noted the lack of affordable housing in the locality and felt that the applicant should be given the opportunity to live near to his workplace. They did however feel that the dwelling and the business enterprise should be tied through appropriate conditions and a section 106 agreement.

Councillor RH Smith was given the opportunity to close the debate in accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution. He made the following comments:

·         The dwelling was key to the management of a rural business.

·         The applicant’s grandfather was not in a position to give the applicant additional land for a dwelling at the farm.

·         The proposed site was the nearest practical site to the workshop.

·         The lack of affordable housing in the area meant that the proposed dwelling was the applicant’s only realistic option of housing in Garway.

• Any concerns regarding access and landscaping could be addressed through conditions.

The Democratic Services Officer noted that the Committee were minded to approve the application contrary to Officer’s recommendation and drew Members attention to paragraph 5.14.11.4 of the Council’s Constitution. The Head of Planning and Transportation felt that there were fundamental policy issues at stake and that a further information report was necessary in order to address any possible conditions. The Locum Solicitor, representing the Monitoring Officer concurred that a further information report would be required to address these concerns.

RESOLVED

THAT the application be approved subject to appropriate conditions to be recommended by Officers and approved by members through a further information report.