Proposed erection of one dwelling.

The application was refused in accordance with the first two grounds set out in the Case Officer’s recommendation.

(Proposed erection of one dwelling.)

The Senior 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.

She highlighted that, for the reasons explained in the update, only the first two grounds for refusal set out in the recommendation in the report remained valid.

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

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

She made the following principal comments:

·        She outlined the family history and connection to the area and family circumstances. The proposal was for a single storey dwelling on land owned by the applicant to enable her to support her parents.

·        It was a redevelopment of the existing site.

·        The location was sustainable being 1.4 miles from Sutton St Nicholas Primary School, the village and public house, 1.5 miles from Marden village, public house and shops and 0.3 miles from the nearest public house with a bus stop five minutes walk away.  The site was amongst a cluster of dwellings, on a bus route, close to both villages and not isolated.

·        She referred to Marden Parish Council’s support for the application as set out at paragraph 5.1 of the report.

·        She noted that the policy was in conflict with the Marden Neighbourhood Development Plan. However, the report did acknowledge that in exceptional cases personal circumstances could be afforded some weight as a material planning consideration.  She elaborated on the family circumstances stating that in her view this was an exceptional case and the application should be approved permitting the family to remain in their local community.

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

·        It was remarked that the Committee had recently received a number of such applications where it was asked to give weight to personal circumstances even though the application was contrary to policy.  It was important that the Committee applied policy consistently and did not give weight to personal circumstances, which were not a material consideration, to avoid an increasing number of such applications.

·        The Acting Development Manager clarified that the proposal was for a new dwelling, not a conversion of an existing dwelling, and did not therefore qualify as an exception under policy RA3 criterion 4.

·        Although the Policy did not comply with the Neighbourhood Development Plan the Parish Council supported the proposal.  There was also support in the local community.

·        The legal adviser commented that planning applications related to the current and future use of land.  The Committee was required to determine the application having regard to the Core Strategy, Neighbourhood Development Plan and any other material consideration including the public interest. Personal circumstances were very rarely a material consideration.  Incorrectly giving weight to personal circumstances rendered a decision open to challenge.

·        It was asked whether the application would be worthy of support if the design and materials used were more in keeping with the nearest dwellings.

·        It was also asked if there was a way in which it could be secured that the dwelling was retained in perpetuity as an affordable dwelling.

·        A sympathetic redesign of the existing property would be a more acceptable approach.

The Acting Development Manager commented that the council supported ancillary development to meet needs where it related to the host dwelling and environment.  That was not the case with this application.   He reiterated that ill health needs were not in themselves a material consideration.  An applicant had to justify any such case.  A proposal for an affordable dwelling retained in perpetuity as such would best be progressed via a specific application.  He noted that no Member had indicated that the principle or design of the proposal was considered acceptable.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  She reiterated her support for the application.

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

1.         The proposal is considered to represent an unsustainable form of development where residential development of this type is not supported unless it meets exceptional criteria. As such, the application is found to be contrary to Policies M1 and M2 of the Marden Neighbourhood Development Plan and Policies RA2 and RA3 of the Herefordshire Local Plan – Core Strategy.

2.         The design of the proposal does not reflect the local context of the dwellings within the vicinity and intrinsically has a detrimental impact on the open countryside. As such, the proposal does not accord with Policies SD1 or LD1 of the Herefordshire Local Plan – Core Strategy.