For:      Mr & Mrs CA Gardiner, Brookview, Clehonger, Hereford, HR2 9TJ.

To consider a planning application which has been referred to the Committee because the Southern Area Planning Sub-Committee was mindful to approve it, contrary to policy and officer recommendations.

Ward: Valletts

A report was presented by the Southern Team Leader who said that said that the application had been referred to the Committee because the Southern Area Planning Sub-Committee was mindful to approve it, contrary to recommendation.  The Sub-Committee was of the view that the application was acceptable because two new houses there would assist with delivering the Council’s house building requirements. There were already four houses on this lane and the Sub-Committee considered that two more would not have any adverse effect on the area. 

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Gardiner spoke in favour of his application.

Councillor MJ Fishley, the Local Ward Member noted that the Parish Council did not object to the application. She felt that there was sufficient local need for the dwellings and advised members that there were already 4 existing dwellings on the lane. She felt that the application was not contrary to policy H7 or H10 of the Unitary Development Plan and that it should be supported.  Although the application site was outside of the settlement boundary, she felt that there was sufficient housing need in the area for this to outweigh the policy issues at stake.  She also said that the applicant had offered to use part of his garden to improve the issues surrounding the access onto the road.

Councillor DW Greenow was of the view that the UDP no longer represented the housing needs of the County and that it should be revised accordingly. He felt that the proposed application should be an exception and should be approved.  The Chairman pointed out that the UDP had been in preparation from 1998 and had gone through a lengthy public consultation and public inquiry process.  It was a very important document which set out the Council’s planning policies and should be adhered to.

Councillor PGH Cutter felt that the application was for infill development and should therefore be permitted. He also felt that the provision of two modest dwellings would benefit the village of Clehonger.

The Southern Team Leader advised that the Unitary Development Plan clearly stated that housing should only be permitted within the settlement boundary. He felt that the application was clearly contrary to the policies set out in the UDP which had only been adopted by the Council in March, 2007.  No survey of housing need had been undertaken to demonstrate a local need for affordable housing. There was no involvement of a Registered Social Landlord or other mechanism for the houses to be considered as affordable for the purposes of planning or housing policies.  The proposal amounted to speculative housing development in open countryside with no justification on planning grounds.  The Head of Planning Services confirmed these issues and said that the proposal would be harmful to the local landscape and setting and be unsustainable.  He felt that there was a very clear breach of policies and that the application should be refused.

The Committee discussed the merits of the application and noted the planning policies involved.  A proposal that the application should be approved was lost and it was decided that the views of the Sub-Committee could not be supported because the application was such a significant breach of policy.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

1.      The proposal would create two dwellings in the open countryside outside a designated village settlement, as defined in the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007 which seeks to restrict new residential development in the absence of any special justification in such areas.  As such the development would be contrary to Planning Policy Statement 7 ‘Sustainable Development in Rural Areas’ and Policies S1, S2, DR1, H7 and H10 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007.

2.      The site is in a relatively isolated location and would therefore likely to result in the increased need for travel by private car and as such is not a sustainable form of development thus being contrary to Government Guidance Planning Policy Guidance 13 ‘Transport’ and Policies S6 and DR2 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007.

3.    Furthermore, the proposal would necessitate a significant amount of hedgerow to be removed at the entrance to the site and mature trees to the south-west boundary and as such would be detrimental to the visual amenities and character of this country lane thus being contrary to the Policies S1, S2, DR1, LA6 and LA6 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007.