Proposed ancillary annexe.

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

(Proposed ancillary annexe.)

The Development Manager 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, Mr M Rowberry of Goodrich and Welsh Bicknor Group Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr P Chatterton, Company Secretary to Coppett Hill Common Trust, spoke in objection.  Mr A Fisher, the applicant, spoke in support.

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

He made the following principal comments:

·        He highlighted the beauty of the location within the Wye Valley AONB and the importance of tourism to the area’s economy.

·        The draft Neighbourhood Development Plan was due to gain weight within some 4 weeks.  The proposal was contrary to that Plan.  Weight should be given to the Plan.

·        An original application had been made to develop a new dwelling in the open countryside.  There had been no reference to it being an ancillary dwelling.  This application had been refused by officers. 

A revised application had subsequently been submitted for an ancillary annexe.  However, the application was the same as the original one, a two storey dwelling, on the same footprint.  A single storey structure on the existing footprint would provide adequate accommodation.  The proposal was a rebranding. It was unacceptable in such a sensitive, protected location.

·        There was concern that approval would set a precedent, permitting all the scattered properties along Coppett hill to be interspersed with substantial two storey new build structures described as annexes.

·        He opposed the application.

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

·        Whilst there was sympathy for personal circumstances, it was questioned why a separate structure was being proposed rather than an extension to the existing dwelling.

·        Regard had to be had to the importance of the landscape and the risk of setting a precedent for development.

·        The Lead Development Manager confirmed that the Neighbourhood Development Plan was at Regulation 14 Stage.  No weight could be given to it until it had completed Regulation 16 Stage.

·        The DM commented in response to points raised that the proposal was for a new build not a conversion of the existing garage.  He did not have the information to say whether there were any constraints preventing an extension to the existing dwelling. The question to be considered was whether the proposed building was of sufficiently modest scale to be considered ancillary.

There was no formula or guidance as to what floor area might qualify as an annexe.  It was a matter for the decision maker to determine having regard to the size of the dwelling, constraints of the site and relationship to the existing dwelling.

The revised scheme reduced the ridge height to 5.3m which he considered limiting in terms of potential for future use as a self-contained separate dwelling.  It had an appropriate and reasonable relationship to the existing property.

He also considered that the constraints of the site and its access militated quite strongly against, and gave the authority the ability to resist, any future speculative attempt to create a dwelling or holiday accommodation.

It had also been indicated on behalf of the Coppett Hill Trust that there would be potential legal barriers to such development.

In relation to a suggestion that permitted development rights should be removed he undertook to investigate the need for such a provision, in particular in relation to an extension to the side or the roof of the annexe.  He had not included such a provision in the list of recommendations because as the site was within an AONB that meant that a number of restrictions on development were automatically in place.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He reiterated his concerns about the proposal being for a 2 storey development and its description as an annexe, noting also how soon it would be possible to give weight to the NDP.

Councillor Edwards proposed and Councillor Hardwick seconded a motion that the application be approved in accordance with the printed recommendation. The motion was carried with 6 votes in favour, 4 against and no abstentions.

RESOLVED:  That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions and any other conditions considered necessary by officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers:

1.         A01  Time limit for commencement (full permission)      

2.         B01  Development in accordance with the approved plans (Drawing Nos. 809 PL02  Rev A)

3.         C01  Samples of external materials

4.         CG3  Roofing Materials 

5.         F08   No conversion of garage to habitable accommodation

6.         F13   Restriction on separate sale

7.         F28   Occupation ancillary to existing dwelling only (granny annexes)

8.         G04   Protection of trees/hedgerows that are to be retained

9.         H27   Parking for site operatives

10.       I16    Restriction of hours during construction

11.       Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority; as advised by the applicant in an email (“Subject: Re: 182086 - 3 Rocklands Cottage” dated 17th August 2018,) foul water shall be managed through connection to the existing septic tank that discharges final outfall through a soakaway drainage field.

            Reason: In order to comply with Habitat Regulations 2017, National Planning Policy Framework, NERC Act 2006 and Herefordshire Local Plan Core Strategy policies LD2 and SD4.

12.       Prior to first use of the new annexe evidence (such as photos/signed Ecological Clerk of Works completion statement) of the suitably placed installation of at least two bat roosting enhancements and two bird nesting boxes built in to, or attached to the new annex should be supplied to and acknowledged by the local authority; and shall be maintained hereafter as approved unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. External habitat boxes should be    made of a long-lasting material. No external lighting should illuminate any habitat enhancement feature, adjacent track or habitat.

            Reason: To ensure that all species are protected and habitats enhanced having regard to the Wildlife and    Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c) Regulations 1994 (as           amended) and Policy LD2 of the Herefordshire Local Plan – Core Strategy and the National Planning      Policy Framework, NERC Act 2006 and Dark Skies Guidance Defra/NPPF 2013

13.       CE6   Efficient use of water

INFORMATIVES:

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. Negotiations in respect of matters of concern with the application (as originally submitted) have resulted in amendments to the proposal.  As a result, the Local Planning Authority has been able to grant planning permission for an acceptable proposal, in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework. 

2.         N11C General