Proposed erection of a replacement dwellinghouse and the erection of 1 no. new dwellinghouse within the curtilage.

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

(Proposed erection of a replacement dwellinghouse and the erection of 1 no. new dwellinghouse within the curtilage.)

The Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr S Barter, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application.

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

He began by reading a submission from Bartestree with Lugwardine Group Parish Council.  This reinforced the Parish Council’s support for the application, commenting on and challenging the conclusions in the report on transportation and the principle of development.

He then made the following principal comments:

·         The applicants were seeking to provide a bungalow for their elderly parents.

·         The access was the safest of the accesses to properties in the immediate area.  There was no record of any accident in the area.  The proposal would not generate any extra traffic.  There was already planning permission for the access to the existing property that was being redeveloped.

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

·         One view was that the national speed limit applied on this stretch of the A465 and the access was dangerous.  A contrary view was that the development would not change the current situation for which there was planning permission.

·         Some support was expressed for approving the development to enable the family to care for their elderly patients.

·         The Parish Council supported the proposal and there were 21 letters in support.

·         The Development Manager commented that the personal circumstances of the applicant were not a material consideration.  The correct approach if the aim was to provide care for relatives was to seek permission for an annex.  The current proposal was for two dwellings in the open countryside in an unsustainable location.

·         The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He reiterated his view that the views expressed about transportation represented grounds for refusal and there was merit in enabling a family to care for elderly relatives.

RESOLVED: That planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

1.         The application site is situated away from any public services or facilities and is considered an unsustainable location for new residential development. The proposed new dwelling fails to meet any of the criteria for permitting housing outside of settlements and is subsequently contrary to Policy RA3 of the Herefordshire Local Plan - Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

2.         The proposed replacement dwelling is substantially larger than the existing bungalow. This form of intensification within a countryside setting is contrary to Policy RA3 of the Herefordshire Local Plan - Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

3.         The intensification in the use of the vehicular access presents an unacceptable risk to highway safety, contrary to part 4 of Policy MT1 of the Herefordshire Local Plan -  Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

4.         The parking provision is in excess of Council standards, encouraging dependency on the motor vehicle. This is contrary to part 6 of Policy MT1 of the Herefordshire Local Plan - Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Informative:

1.    The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by assessing the proposal against planning policy and any other material considerations and identifying matters of concern with the proposal and discussing those with the applicant.  However, the issues are so fundamental to the proposal that it has not been possible to negotiate a satisfactory way forward and due to the harm which have been clearly identified within the reason(s) for the refusal, approval has not been possible.

(The meeting adjourned between 13:32 and 14:00)