Outline application with all matters reserved for the erection of a single dwelling.

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

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 Tony Johnson, as the applicant, spoke in support of the application and then left the meeting room following his submission to the committee.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Councillor Barry Durkin spoke as a proxy for the local ward member.

He made the following principal comments:

·        In 2010 a factory received permission close to the application site and at 1.3 miles was considered to be within walking distance of Colwall. The current application had not been considered sustainable development as the officer had concluded that the village was not within walking distance but would need to be accessed by car. Consistency between the two applications was required and permission for the current application should be granted in accordance with the assessment undertaken in 2010. The suitability of the site was established by the 2010 application and permission granted.

·        Within the previous five years there had been development around the application site including new houses, a factory and vineyard. The driveway to the application site was used as an access to these local developments together with a cricket pavilion and tennis courts which demonstrated that the locality was becoming a built up area.

·        The applicant wanted to build a single residential dwelling to provide suitable accommodation for his health needs.

·        The national planning policy framework required a presumption in favour of applications for sustainable development where there was a shortage in the supply of building land and the core strategy was out of date with regard to land supply.

·        The application site fell within the area of the Colwall neighbourhood development area and was therefore deemed appropriate for development.

·        The Malvern Hills AONB had advised that the colour and design of the development would need to meet their specification.

·        The application proposed a modest development but one which would benefit the county and there was no potential for harm posed.

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

·        The importance of incorporating wellbeing issues into planning matters and the potential that the applicant would need to leave due the area to his health needs if the application was not approved.

·        There was concern regarding development proposals located in the countryside. It was accepted by some members of the committee that the application site was set in open countryside and was therefore in an inappropriate location. It was the contention of some members that the area was a hamlet due to the level of local development.

·        It was acknowledged that the application site was set on a country lane but it was surrounded by commercial developments. The permission granted in 2010 was queried and if it concerned industrial usage.

·        There was disappointment that there was no supporting evidence provided as to how the application would meet the criteria under policy RA3 of the core strategy. 

·        A full application would have been preferable for the committee to consider detailed planning considerations relating to the proposed development.

·        The walk from Colwall to the application site was difficult and it was felt the owners of the property would use a car to access the village.

·        There was concern that the application, if approved, would encourage development in the AONB.

In response to questions officers commented:

·        The 2010 application for the furniture factory involved the conversion of existing buildings which policies support. It was important to distinguish between the 2010 application and the current proposal which was for the construction of a residential dwelling.

The Lead Development Manager commented that the lack of a 5 year housing supply did not represent a mandate for development to be undertaken in any area. Significant weight could be attributed to policy and the core strategy; a large proportion of appeals had been dismissed recently and policy and the core strategy had been cited. The core strategy supported business in the countryside but was clear on housing in this setting. This application was located outside of the development boundary of Colwall and was deemed to be in the countryside.

The proxy ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate. He explained that the application site should not be considered open countryside but was contained in a hamlet which was a built up area. The applicant was seeking to construct the dwelling for family reasons. The addition of a dwelling would benefit the village of Colwall. The developing neighbourhood development plan was at regulation 14 but the need for development in the village should be acknowledged. The distance of 1.3 miles to the village that had been considered to be suitable for walking in the 2010 application should be honoured in the current application. Any future application would take account of the requirements of the AONB. The presumption in favour of application if land supply was not being met was relevant and should be applied to the current application; the house would be used in future and was in an appropriate area that did not constitute open countryside.

Councillor Bernard Hunt proposed and Councillor Yolande Watson seconded a motion that the application be refused in accordance with the printed recommendation. The motion was carried 8 votes in favour, 4 against and 3 abstentions.

(The meeting adjourned at 11.28 a.m. and reconvened at 11.40 a.m.)

(Councillor Toni Fagan left the meeting at 11.28 a.m.)