Proposed three bedroom detached agricultural dwelling.

The determination of the application was deferred pending further discussions with the applicant.

The Development Manager (Hereford and Southern Localities) gave a presentation on the application and updates / additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided in the update sheet. He added that the update sheet contained details of drainage concerns and that the Council were unable to grant permission until these were resolved.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Davies, representing Bartestree and Lugwardine Parish Council, and Mr May, the applicant, spoke in support of the application and Dr Dowling, a neighbouring resident, spoke in objection.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor DW Greenow, the local ward member, commented on a number of issues, including:

·         The site visit had been beneficial in making a judgement in respect of the site.

·         The comments from the County Land Agent were endorsed.

·         Need to take all comments received from all parties into consideration prior to making a judgement.

The debate was opened with a Member of the Committee proposing that the application be approved contrary to the case officer’s recommendation. Unitary Development Plan Policy H8 was quoted in support of the application. It was considered that the other reasons for refusal contained within the report could be overcome.

Other Members were of the opinion that the application should be refused in accordance with the recommendation as the need for a dwelling on the site had not been demonstrated and the drainage issues had not been overcome. The impact the development would have on the nearby conservation area was also quoted as a reason for refusing the application.

The Committee discussed the application and had concerns in respect of the drainage on the site and also in respect of the lack of a clear financial case for a dwelling on the site. It was also considered that measures securing the long term retention and management of the orchard should be pursued.  The applicant was advised to address these issues in consultation with the case officer prior to the application being bought back before the committee at a later date. The Democratic Services Officer was asked to advise the Committee in respect of the Council’s Constitution. He advised that under standing order 4.1.16.24 a motion to adjourn the debate could be moved whilst another motion was under debate.

RESOLVED

That the determination of the application be deferred pending further discussions with the applicant.