Proposed 4 bedrooms low level dwelling.

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

(Proposed 4 bedroom low level dwelling.)

(Councillor Williams fulfilled the role of local ward member and accordingly had no vote on this application.)

The Principal Planning Officer (PPO) 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.

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

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

He made the following principal comments:

·        There was local support for the application including from the Parish Council and sympathy for the personal circumstances of the applicant’s family.  There were no objections

·        It was possible that Woodyatts field could be identified for development within the Neighbourhood Development Plan that was in preparation.

·        The proposal would contribute to the housing target, was unobtrusive and would not be unwelcome.

·        A footpath provided connectivity to the village.

·        He considered the proposal would be of value and enable the family to provide care that would otherwise have to be provided by health services.

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

·        The Parish Council supported the proposal along with a number of local residents.  There were no objections.

·        One view was that the site was surrounded by other dwellings and could well be identified for development within a neighbourhood development plan.  A contrary view was that no regard could be had to such a hypothetical point.

·        Whilst sympathetic to the applicants’ personal circumstances they were not a material planning consideration.  The proposal represented development contrary to policy in the open countryside. 

·        There were other ways in which the personal needs could have been addressed, for example through the provision of an annex.

·        Having regard to paragraph 6.17 of the report it was questioned whether the property was isolated and in the open countryside and represented unsustainable development.  It was noted that the site was some 300m from the church and shops by footpath and that there were 5 other properties in the immediate vicinity.   Improving footpath access would appear to be an option and a way of making the development sustainable.

·        The PPO commented that in the absence of a NDP and a settlement boundary the Core Strategy required consideration to be given to whether the site was in a main built up area.  The site, whilst it might not be isolated, was not in a main built up area. The B road did not have any footpaths alongside it.   Officers did not consider that a public right of way in itself afforded sufficient, safe accessibility to services and encouraged active travel. Officers’ judgment, supported by recent appeal decisions, was that, even if not isolated, the site was not sustainably located.  She added that this was the first time that the applicant had mentioned personal circumstances in support of the application.  Had these been raised previously other options such as the provision of an annex could have been explored.  A substantial open market property could not be tied to an existing dwelling.

The Lead Development Manager commented that had officers been made aware of the personal circumstances consideration could have been given to whether it would be possible to provide a policy compliant annex.  Very rarely could weight be given to personal circumstances.  In policy terms the site was in the open countryside.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He reiterated that he considered that there was connectivity. He questioned if an annex of sufficient size could be provided to accommodate the family.

A motion that the application be approved was lost on the Chairperson’s casting vote.

Councillor Seldon proposed and Councillor Norman seconded a motion that the application be refused in accordance with the printed recommendation.  The motion was carried on the Chairperson’s casting vote there having been 6 votes in favour, 6 against and no abstentions.

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

1.         The proposal represents unsustainable new residential development within a countryside location divorced from any identified settlement and as such the proposal is contrary to Herefordshire Local Plan - Core Strategy Policies SS1, SS7, RA1, RA2 and RA3.  The benefits would be significantly and demonstrably outweighed by the adverse impacts resulting from the locational unsustainability of the site, which conflicts with Herefordshire Local Plan - Core Strategy Policies SS4 and MT1 and the relevant aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Informative:  

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 and identifying matters of concern with the proposal and discussing those with the applicant.  However, the issues are so fundamental to the proposal that it has not been possible to negotiate a satisfactory way forward and due to the harm which have been clearly identified within the reason for the refusal, approval has not been possible.