Proposed new build part earth-sheltered dwelling to include submerged integral garage.

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

(Proposed new build part earth-sheltered dwelling to include submerged integral garage.)

The Senior Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs N White, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

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

He made the following principal comments:

·        The application was the right type of development, innovative and exciting.  

·        There were no highway issues and no archaeological issues. 

·        The application was not detrimental to the amenity of neighbours.

·        The applicants were a local family.

·        The key issue was whether the application was considered as falling within policy RA2 or RA3.  He noted that an application for 28 homes at Stoke Lacy had recently been approved by the Committee.  The application site was as close to the settlement area as that site.  He therefore considered policy RA2 to be relevant and that the application met points 1, 3 and 4 of that policy. 

·        The Parish Council did not object to the application and there were letters in support of it.

·        The scheme was sustainable and represented the organic growth that the community expected.

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

·        Some members considered that the design was of exceptional quality and innovative.  Others considered that it was not exceptional or innovative enough to meet the requirements of policy RA3.

·        The design set high standards and was energy efficient, providing an example for other developers to follow.

·        The application was from a local family and had the support of the local community.

·        The application would not be out of keeping.

·        The application could not be considered under policy RA2.  It was not adjacent to the settlement, although it was close to it suggesting there might be scope to exercise some discretion.

·        The application site was in the open countryside.

·        As the recommendation stated, the application was contrary to policies SS1, SS6, RA2 and RA3.

The Lead Development Manager commented that the application was clearly not within policy RA2 as the application site was neither within or adjacent to the identified settlement. The application represented development in the open countryside. Whilst of good design officers did not consider the application represented exceptional design such as to merit approval under policy RA3 and paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework. 

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He reiterated that he considered the application site to be within the settlement of Stoke Lacy, and that the application was of exceptional design commanding local support.  It compared favourably with the application for 28 houses that had recently been granted approval.

A motion that the application be approved on the grounds that it was sustainable development and of exceptional design was lost following a named vote.

For (7): Councillors BC Baker, DW Greenow, EL Holton, JA Hyde, MN Mansell, FM Norman and A Warmington.

Against (9): Councillors CR Butler, PGH Cutter, PJ Edwards, KS Guthrie, J Hardwick, EPJ Harvey, TM James, WC Skelton and LC Tawn.

Abstain (1): Councillor EJ Swinglehurst.

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

1.         The proposal would be contrary to Policy SS1, SS6, RA2 and RA3 of the Herefordshire Local Plan: Core Strategy (adopted October 2015) which seeks to achieve sustainable development, as outlined in paragraphs 18 to 219 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

INFORMATIVES:

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 by identifying matters of concern with the proposal and determining the application within a timely manner, clearly setting out the reason(s) for refusal, allowing the Applicant the opportunity to consider the harm caused and whether or not it can be remedied by a revision to the proposal.  The Local Planning Authority is willing to provide pre-application advice in respect of any future application for a revised development.