Proposed five bedroom dwelling to the rear of Swan House.

The application was refused contrary to the Case Officer’s recommendation.

(Proposed five bedroom dwelling to the rear of Swan House.)

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

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.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr A Pace, of Pembridge Parish Council, spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr A Whibley, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

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

He made the following principal comments:

·        The site formed part of the village’s historic burgage plot layout.  The burgage plots had consistently been protected by the planning policies of Herefordshire Council and its predecessors.  The Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP) had been adopted and continued this protection.

·        When consulted on the NDP Historic England had stated that, amongst other things, the protection of the burgage layout of the village was to be applauded.  It was unclear therefore as to how this related to Historic England’s response to the application included in the report to the Committee.  The NDP, as approved, by the Planning Inspector, reflected the earlier comments.

·        It was important the Committee supported adopted NDPs and confirmed that development on the burgage plots was restricted.  The proposal was contrary to core strategy policies LD1 and LD 4 and a range of policies within the Pembridge NDP in particular PEM 19 that specifically related to the protection of the burgage plot layout.

In the Committee’s discussion of the application it was observed that NDPs should conform to strategic priorities of the local plan but in policy decisions where there was a conflict between the neighbourhood policy and a non-strategic local policy the neighbourhood policy should take precedence.  The Pembridge NDP at PEM 19 provided for the protection of the burgage plot layout.  The NDP was adopted and attracted full weight.  The application should therefore be refused.

The Lead Development Manager commented that Historic England and the Historic Buildings officer had raised no objection to the principle of development on the site leading to the officer recommendation for approval in this particular instance.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He noted that PEM 4 identified sites for new housing development to meet the housing need.  The burgage plots had not been identified for development.

Councillor Shaw proposed and Councillor Bowen seconded a motion that the application be refused on the grounds that it was contrary to core strategy policies LD1, LD4, and NDP policies PEM 3,4,19 and 20, and relevant paragraphs of the NPPF. The motion was carried with 12 votes in favour, none against and no abstentions.

RESOLVED: That planning permission be refused on the grounds that the application was contrary to core strategy policies LD1, LD4, and NDP policies PEM 3, 4, 19,and 20 and relevant paragraphs of the NPPF and officers named in the scheme of delegation to officers be authorised to detail the reasons for refusal.