For:      Mr P Kelsall per Linton Design, 27 High Street, Bromyard, Herefordshire. HR7 4AA

To consider a planning application which has been referred to the Committee because the Northern Area Planning Sub-Committee was mindful to approve it, contrary to policy and officer recommendations.  Consideration of the application was deferred at the last meeting for more information.

Ward: Hampton Court

The Development Control Manager said that at the previous meeting the Committee had decided that there was a need for the officers to hold more discussions with the applicants about the issues that had been regarding a planning obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act and decided that the matter should be deferred to allow this.  He advised that Additional representations had been received, on 26th September 2007, from Mrs White of Pentwyn, Risbury as follows:

As stated in previous correspondence concerning this case Risbury is not the place for social/affordable house as there is no amenities for the type of people these houses are planned for, Risbury is served by a very inadequate public transport service no post office no shop no pub if people require to drink, no facilities for out of school activities, the roads are very inadequate to take the possibility of another 8 vehicles with access whatever works are carried out, you cannot get away from the fact it will be on the brow of a hill on a bend and the road is very narrow. These people would be coming to a completely different type of life in a very rural area from one that sure they have come from the town where they have most things on hand It is very hard for original villagers who have been born and bred in Risbury and reared a family and wish to build either in their gardens or land they own accommodation for their children to avoid them leaving the environment they have been bought in being refused permission, and we get someone like Mr Kelsall wanting to build on yet another money making scheme, and we all know of the recent ongoings of Mr Kelsall, so why should he be allowed to build for profit and villagers refused no wonder feelings are running high in Risbury

We ask with all respect that the meeting on 28th September will go along with what we all in Risbury want and that is a refusal and show that they will support us all in this matter.

Representations have also been received on 27th September 2007 from Mr Shelley of The Birches Farm as follows:

1. I believe the applicant - Mr Kelsall - is renowned in the area for flouting the planning system and abusing planning concessions. In the recent past he applied to build equine dwellings for stable workers in connection to alleged stables near the site, then not long after he got the permission he changed his mind (despite local objections) and applied to build executive dwellings instead. Not long after that he got the equine tie removed from the executive dwellings and sold the properties on the open market for maximum profit. These facts - all on your records - seem to show a pattern of non-genuine intent and I believe that Mr Kelsall is trying the same tactic again and has made a non-genuine application which he intends to change once permission has been obtained. Thus he would have deliberately abused concessions and made a mockery of the planning policies that are supposed to protect the locality.

2. The site is immediately next door to Gallop View which is a luxury private dwelling occupied by a family who have recently bought it. Prior to this, Mr Kelsall and his family owned and lived at the property. It is understood that Mr Kelsall applied to have the affordable dwellings built when he himself owned and lived at Gallop View. The affordable dwellings would have then been right on his doorstep, and severely blighted his home, but that didn't matter to him because he was reaping the profit and he was planning to ,move away. It is understood that when Mr Kelsall moved away and sold Gallop View to the current occupants he did NOT reveal to the agents or to the buyers that planning had been applied for the 4 affordable dwellings. Apparently the application failed to show up on searches made by the current owner/occupants of Gallop View prior to them buying the house. The current owners would not have wanted to live in a supposedly luxury home when 4 affordable dwellings were being built right on their doorstep. It may be that some underhanded tactics have occurred so that the application was 'hidden' from anyone looking? This is very fishy!  

3. Risbury is a middle class village containing luxury homes that house retired, professionals, solvent and financially sound people. It would be detrimental to the locality to build affordable dwellings which by their very name suggest they would house disadvantaged people and in turn would blight the current tone of the village. There is no public transport serving the area and no local shops or public facilities nearby to serve the area. People who buy affordable housing are usually people lower down the social ladder who would require bus services, shops and facilities and as there are none in Risbury it is foolish to build affordable housing there. There are eight 'housing association' houses four miles along the road (eastbound) at Sparrington. These houses contain several families on DSS benefit. Said families complain about 'no bus service', and 'no shops'. Some of these people are often seen hitch-hiking along the lane. Also, the houses are a blot on the landscape because there are abandoned vehicles strewn around outside, and caravans in the front gardens containing other occupants. You can see this for yourself if you go and look. These houses were originally built as farm workers cottages, one cottage for each of the local farms, but personal greed of the farmers saw them selling the properties on the open market. The Housing Trust bought them and filled them with disadvantaged families. This is not a suitable place to house people who are not solvent or comfortably off. Neither is Risbury or anywhere else around the locality. Affordable housing built in the locality is detrimental to the locality and its occupants.

He also advised that there had been further correspondence between the applicant’s solicitors and the Council to secure an agreed draft Section 106 Agreement to control the “Low Cost” nature of the houses and the means of securing that in perpetuity

He said that the view of the Officers was that the matters raised by the letters of objection above had already been covered where they raised material planning issues in the report.  The scheme had the tentative support of the Strategic Housing Team subject to final details of the draft Section 106 agreement to ensure that not only are the houses marketed at “Affordable” levels when first built, but that they are also pegged at below market rates for any subsequent sales. This may require a supplementary agreement with every subsequent sale. If this could be achieved then the scheme would deliver four low cost houses which fell within the definition of “Intermediate houses” in PPS3, Housing and therefore could be accepted as Affordable Houses. This was a significant change from the proposals as reported to both the Northern Area Sub-Committee and the Planning Committee at previous meetings.  He advised that the conflict with UDP Policy H10 was restricted to two issues:

1.      Officers remained concerned that the site was not a sustainable location for affordable houses because of its remoteness from services and facilities. The Housing Needs Survey has identified a needs in the group of parishes but it would be better satisfied in the larger settlements such as Bodenham or Stoke Prior rather than in Risbury. There was therefore conflict with criterion 5 of the Policy. 

2.      Criterion 7 of the Policy specified that in cases such as this only one affordable house would be appropriate. The proposal was for four houses.

He said that In the light of the continued conflict with criteria 5 and 7 of Policy H10 the recommendation remained one of refusal.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Vidler the Agent acting on behalf of the applicant spoke in favour of the application.

Councillor KG Grumbley the Local Ward Member said that the Housing Needs Survey had identified a requirement for 16 affordable homes in the Group Parish which he felt that this scheme would be ideal to contribute to. The applicant would enter into a legal agreement to retain the dwellings for social housing in perpetuity and would construct them to a high standard. He therefore requested that the Committee consider granting permission with appropriate conditions about vehicular access and drainage.

Notwithstanding the views of the Officers, several Members agreed with the Local Ward Councillor that it was difficult to provide suitable accommodation in the rural areas and that an exception could be made to the planning policies within the UDP.

RESOLVED:

1.         that the Head of Legal and Democratic Services be authorised to complete a planning obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in accordance with the Heads of Terms to be prepared by the Officers in respect of affordable housing and incorporating any additional matters he considers appropriate.

2.                  upon completion of the aforementioned planning obligation that officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be authorised to issue planning permission subject to the following conditions and any further conditions considered necessary by officers:

(i)                 vehicular access

(ii)               disposal of foul and surface water drainage