Erection of a 3 bed dwelling, amended access and bio-disc drainage.

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

(Erection of a 3 bed dwelling, amended access and bio-disc drainage.)

The Senior Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr J Long, the applicant, and Mr B Griffin, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application.

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 site was in the open countryside but the application had to be put in perspective.  There were some 10 properties close by including a gated estate of 4 bungalows next door.  The application site was not isolated but would form part of a hamlet and intrude no further into the open countryside than the estate next door.

·        The Parish Council supported the proposal.  There were 29 letters in support and 2 objections.

·        He noted the circumstances of the applicant, an agricultural worker, as at paragraph 6.12 of the report.  He acknowledged that the application did not comply with policy RA3 but considered that it had merit.

·        In summary the site was not an isolated development, but would form part of a viable hamlet in the open countryside on a brownfield site.

The Chairman commented that he was the local ward member for the applicant’s current dwelling but not the ward member for the application site.

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

·        The application for a small development on a brownfield site would not intrude any further into the open countryside than the existing development which formed a small hamlet. It was sustainable.

·        There was local support for the application including the Parish Council.

·        The applicant was a council tenant losing his tenancy and seeking to provide accommodation for himself on waste land. 

·        Weight could not be given to the personal circumstances of the applicant, however sympathetic to these Members may be.  The application was contrary to policy RA2 and did not meet the exception criteria in policy RA3. 

·        Reference was made to the reasons for the refusal of an earlier application set out at paragraph 3.22 of the report and it was suggested that nothing had changed since that refusal.

The Lead Development Manager commented that the adjacent bungalows had been approved on appeal.  The inspector had commented on the unique nature of the application and the significant harm presented by the poultry units then on that site.  The application needed to be determined in accordance with the development plan.  The application was contrary to policy.  The site was in the open countryside.  The applicant owned an adjoining property.  The applicant had submitted no evidence, for example the requested additional information on transportation aspects, to counter the reasons for refusal of the previous application. 

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He had no additional comments.

A motion that the application be approved on the basis that it represented a sustainable location for a single dwelling was lost.

A motion that the application was refused on the grounds recommended in the report was carried.

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 RA2 and RA3 of the Herefordshire Local Plan – Core Strategy.

2.         The proposal is considered to be out of keeping with the pattern of the surrounding development, introducing an uncharacteristic ‘backland’ development. As such, the character of the landscape has not positively influenced the site selection with the application therefore being contrary to Policy LD1 of the Herefordshire Local Plan – Core Strategy.

3.         In the absence of sufficient information, the highways implications of the proposal cannot be adequately assessed in relation to visibility splays, connection to the highway and increased vehicle movements onto the highway. The proposal is therefore unable to be assessed favourably against Policy MT1 of the Herefordshire Local Plan – Core Strategy and paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework.