Proposed new build part-earth sheltered dwelling.

The application was approved contrary to the case officer’s recommendation.

(Proposed new build part-earth sheltered dwelling.)

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.  He clarified how the planning balance should be undertaken in the light of a recent court case given the council’s lack of a five year housing land supply.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr G Thomas, the applicant’s agent, 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:

·        He disagreed with the interpretation of policy as set out in the report. In particular he believed the proposal did fall to be considered under policy RA2 rather than RA3. A map of developments within the area submitted as part of the application showed the application site to be at the heart of the historic pattern of development. 

·        The Parish Council supported the proposal as did he.  There were 18 letters of support.  There were no objections to the proposal from consultees and no letters of objection.

·        The proposal represented the type of organic growth favoured by the local community.

·        The authority had recently granted permission for two developments in the area comprising 40 houses, one development of 28 houses and one of 12 houses.  The application site was 2 ½ minutes walking distance by road and 2 minutes walk from the centre of Stoke Lacy.  A kissing gate leading from the application site would bring the residents out in front of the site where the 28 homes were to be developed.  It was not an isolated site. It was a sustainable location. 

·        The scheme was a high quality sustainable scheme.

·        The application was by a local family.

·        It was unjust to argue that the minimum target for housing provision in Stoke Lacy had been exceeded and that this militated against the provision of a single dwelling, the approval for 40 dwellings having significantly exceeded the minimum target.

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

·        The Parish Council supported the proposal.

·        There was support for the local ward member’s argument that the development was sustainable and should be considered under policy RA2.

·        In the absence of a Neighbourhood Development Plan the policy fell to be considered solely against the Core Strategy policies.  The settlement pattern of Stoke Lacy was typical of many Herefordshire villages in that it was not a nucleated village with a settlement around it.  There was a risk of setting a precedent for isolated developments of this type if the application were approved.

In response to questions the Lead Development Manager commented:

·        The Rural Areas Site Development Plan, once approved, would govern development of areas such as Stoke Lacy where there was no NDP.  In such cases a settlement boundary would be drawn and development considered within and adjacent to that boundary.  The application site would be outside a boundary drawn for Stoke Lacy.  The proposal needed to be considered under policy RA3.  Approval would set a precedent for development in the vicinity on adjacent land between the development and the village.  An argument could be made that such development might be inappropriate because of the impact it would have on social cohesion. 

·        The application site had been extended since the previous application to make it reach and become adjacent to the approved site for the development of 28 houses.

·        In terms of housing growth the minimum target for proportionate growth had been 24 houses.  Approvals and commitments now amounted to 47 houses, substantially over and above the minimum target.

·        The design was good but not exceptional.  There were other such developments in the county. There were no design criteria that had been externally validated that qualified the proposal for consideration as an exception under paragraph 55 of the NPPF. 

·        Vehicular access from the main road to the development was 270 metres and the footpath from the property to the road was 130 metres.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He reiterated his view that it was unjust to argue against the application on the grounds that the minimum housing target had been exceeded.  The application site was adjacent to the settlement and should be considered against policy RA2.

It was proposed that the application should be approved on the basis that it should be considered against policy RA2 and that it complied with that policy and represented sustainable development in accordance with policy SS1.

RESOLVED:  That officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to officers be authorised to grant planning permission subject to any conditions considered necessary by officers on the basis that the application should be considered against policy RA2 and that it complied with that policy and represented sustainable development in accordance with policy SS1.