Proposed residential development comprising 8 no. Dwellings and associated works (4 no. Affordable dwellings, 3 no. Self-build dwellings and 1 no. Open market dwelling).

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

(Proposed residential development comprising 8no dwellings and associated works (4no affordable dwellings, 3 no self-build dwellings and 1no open market dwelling.)

The Development Manager gave a presentation on the application.  He highlighted that certain elements of the application were shared with application 181975, the subject of the previous agenda item.  A key difference was the provision of 4 affordable houses and consideration of the weight to be attributed to this factor.

In response to a question he confirmed that the two applications were separate applications and the Committee could properly consider whether the planning balance for the second application was different from the first.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr G Blackmore, of Ocle Pychard Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr R Edwards, a local resident, spoke in objection.  Mr M Tompkins, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

As referred to in consideration of application 181975, the previous agenda item, the local ward member, Councillor JG Lester, had had to leave the meeting.   His comments on the previous application had been applicable in part to this application.

In the Committee’s discussion of the application the consensus was that the site was in the open countryside and the proposed affordable housing would not be near to services and would therefore be unsustainable.  The scheme was contrary to policy and the benefits of the scheme were not sufficient to outweigh this conflict.

The Lead Development Manager clarified that there were dwellings in the area and the site could not therefore be classified as isolated.  It was, however, in the open countryside.  He also highlighted the provisions of policy H2.

Councillor Guthrie proposed and Councillor Holton seconded a motion that the application be refused in accordance with the printed recommendation. The motion was carried with 14 votes in favour, none against and no abstentions.

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

1.         The proposed development lies beyond the defined settlement boundaries for Ullingswick and Burley Gate, contrary to Policy OPG2 of the emerging Ocle Pychard Group Neighbourhood Development Plan. The applicant has not provided any evidence to suggest that the proposal is to be considered under any exceptional circumstances, other than self build which is not identified as an exceptional circumstance in Policies RA3 and H2. It represents development in the open countryside without any exceptional justification and is thus also contrary to Herefordshire Local Plan – Core Strategy Policy RA3. The proposal is at odds with the strategic approach towards housing allocation in the rural areas and as a result, the proposal does not represent a sustainable form of development and is contrary to Policies SS1, SS6, RA2 and RA3 and H2 of the Herefordshire Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework

2.         In light of the conflict with the local planning authority’s approach towards strategic housing allocation in its rural areas, the landscape impacts caused are unwarranted.  The development would result in a degree of domestication in a countryside setting that cannot be adequately mitigated.  It is therefore considered that the proposal is contrary to Herefordshire Local Plan - Core Strategy Policy LD1, OPG1 and OPG11 of the Ocle Pychard Group Neighbourhood Development Plan, and the National Planning Policy Framework

3.         The application is not accompanied by a completed Section 106 Agreement which is considered necessary to ensure the delivery of the affordable element of the scheme.  It is therefore contrary to Policies H1 and ID1 of the Herefordshire Local Plan – Core Strategy and the Council's Supplementary Planning Document on Planning Obligations.

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 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(s) for the refusal, approval has not been possible.