Proposed residential dwelling.

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

(Proposed residential dwelling.)

The Development Manager gave a presentation on the application.  He highlighted that although there had been discussions about revising the siting of the proposed dwelling these had not led to any change and the application before the Committee was identical to the application it had refused in October 2015.

Since the publication of the report 2 further letters of support had been received.

A counsel’s opinion had also been obtained by an objector.  In summary this argued for the weight that should be given to the Committee’s previous decision and the importance of consistency in decision making.

The Development Manager reminded the Committee of the grounds on which it had refused the previous, identical, application and that that decision was an important material consideration.  However, he added that since that consideration there had been two material changes.  The Council did not have a five year housing land supply as it had had at the time of the previous application.  This meant that development proposals that accorded with the development plan should be approved unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits,  

In addition the Wye Valley AONB Partnership Manager had this time submitted comments and had expressed no objection to the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs E Malcolm, Acting Clerk to Brampton Abbots and Foy Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr D Teague, a local resident, spoke in objection.  Ms V Simpson, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

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

He made the following principal comments:

·        The application was identical to the one refused by the Committee in October 2015.  The applicant had not appealed against that decision. Consistency of decision making was important.

·        The proposal had a ridge height of 6.5 metres, was on a plateau on a hill overlooking Ross-on-Wye.  It was in the AONB and weight should be given to paragraph 115 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

·        Development proposals in the Parish were sufficient to meet the indicative target for housing growth.

·        The design was not of appropriate quality.

·        He also expressed reservations about the redirection process and the fact that although the first application had been refused by the Committee it had originally been intended to approve the second, identical, application using delegated powers.

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

·        The application was on an exposed site and represented inappropriate development within the AONB. It did not conserve and enhance the landscape as required by policy LD1. 

·        It was questioned what weight could be given to the contribution one dwelling made to the five year housing land supply balanced against the adverse impact on the AONB.  A view was expressed that the adverse impact on the AONB outweighed the contribution to the five year housing land supply.

·        In response to questions about the five year housing land supply the Lead Development Manager commented that the supply in October 2015 had been calculated at 5.01 years.  The current calculation was 4.29 years.  The calculation would be reviewed in April/May prior to the production of the annual monitoring report. 

The Chairman undertook to establish whether more regular updates of the housing land supply figure could be supplied to the Committee.

·        A number of members expressed the view that it should be easier to secure a redirection and had reservations about the possibility of an application refused by the Committee subsequently being granted approval under delegated powers.  The Chairman explained the process under the current constitution.  It was noted that Council was to consider the Constitution on 16 December 2016.

The Lead Development Manager commented that the Committee needed to weigh the harm to the AONB against the benefits of the development.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He reiterated his opposition to the scheme and that weight should be given to the adverse impact on the AONB.

RESOLVED:  That planning permission be refused and officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be authorised to finalise the drafting of the reasons for refusal for publication, after consultation with the Chairman and local ward member, based on the Committee’s grounds for refusing the previous application: that the proposal was contrary to policies LD1, SD1 and the National Planning Policy Framework

(The meeting adjourned between 14.35 and 14.45.)