For:      Mr K Jones per Brian Griffin P&CC Ltd, The Cottage, Green Bottom, Littledean, Gloucester, GL14 3LH

To consider an application which has been referred to the Committee because the Southern Area Planning Sub-Committee was mindful to approve it contrary to recommendation. 

Ward: Pontrilas

The Southern Team Leader presented the report of the Head of Planning and Transportation.  He said that at its meeting on 24th September, 2008, the Southern Area Planning Sub Committee was mindful to approve the application contrary to Council policy and officer advice.  The Sub-Committee was of the view that the six dwellings proposed in the application were needed in the area and that local need

could be met through a planning obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure affordability in perpetuity, allocation to local people and an appropriate standard of accommodation provided.  He reported that the applicant had submitted a further statement which largely reiterated the case put forward within the Committee report. The key points raised were as follows:-

-          flexibility is required relating to the issue of “affordability” otherwise schemes will not come to fruition;

-          there is little difference between the 40% discount on offer and the value derived from the use of the Councils average earnings methodology;

-          40% discount has been accepted on other sites in Herefordshire;

-          UDP policies do not specify the actual methodology for calculating affordability;

-          the Sub-Committee considered that landscape and sustainability issues are acceptable;

-          the Parish Council and majority of local people support the scheme;

-          PPS3-Housing offers support for this type of housing; and

-          S106 Agreement would ensure discounted value would remain in the future.

The view of the officers was that in order for the application to meet the affordability test, all six dwellings must accord with the Councils adopted policy based upon average earnings. The applicant acknowledged that this was not the case but maintained that a flexible approach was required in order to promote the supply of affordable housing in rural areas.  Notwithstanding that, there had been much discussion about the extent of the discount required to achieve a level of affordability that accorded with Council policy. It was stressed that there remained a fundamental policy objection to the application because Orcop was not a defined settlement and as such Policy H10 only allowed for the construction of a single affordable dwelling. There also remained strong concerns regarding the landscape impact of the scheme and the unsustainable location of the site having regard to access to local services and public transport.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr B Griffin the agent acting on behalf of the applicants spoke in favour of the application.

Councillor RH Smith, a local Ward Member, noted the reasons for refusal outlined in the report. He felt that despite the housing needs survey having identified a need in the area, the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan left no scope for the provision of new housing in Orcop whether it was discounted or not.  He said that there was still a need for seven affordable dwellings there.  He also questioned the concerns raised about the visual impact of housing on the area.  The site was brownfield and set below the skyline and he felt that the proposed scheme would not detract from the character and appearance of the area and therefore was not contrary to Policies DR1 and H13 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.  He also felt that although Orcop was in a very rural location, there were existing facilities and transport links or access to them, which would make new development sustainable.  In summing up, he felt that the applicant had addressed the majority of the Officers concerns but felt that the 40% reduction in open market cost failed to qualify the development as affordable and that he therefore opposed the application.

Councillor MJ Fishley, another local ward member, noted that the 2003 housing needs survey had identified a need for eighteen affordable or full-market dwellings, but that only six of these had been provided through a previous application. She said  that the application had the full support of the local parish council and that the six recently constructed houses had been allocated to local people. She added that she did not consider the site to be in the open countryside and felt that the 40% market value discount would enable the dwellings to be affordable by local people.  She was of the view that the application merited provided that it would be the subject of a Planning Obligation under the terms recommended by the Sub-Committee.

The Committee discussed the merits of the application and in particular the issues which had been raised about whether the dwellings would be affordable in the long term, the sustainability issues and the impact of the site on the locality.  The planning policy implications in relation to the application were debated at some length and were reiterated by the officers.  The Head of Planning and Transportation confirmed that the site was in an isolated rural location and did not fulfil any of the Council’s planning policies for affordable housing in such areas.  The Committee explored the issue of whether a Planning Obligation could support the application but decided that on balance it should be refused because of the reasons set out in the report of the Head of Planning and Transportation.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

1. the proposal constitutes development in open countryside where there is a strong presumption against new residential development unless there are exceptional circumstances to justify otherwise.  The development will not meet an identified local need for affordable housing and does not satisfy the requirements of the rural exceptions policy. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies H7 and H10 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan and the guiding principles of PPS7 – Sustainable Development in Rural Areas.

2. the proposed development by reason of the layout and elevated position of the site would  detract  from the character and appearance of this part of Orcop Hill and the surrounding countryside and therefore the proposal is contrary to Policies DR1 and H13 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

3.   the proposal by reason of its isolated rural location would not be sustainable in terms of reducing the need to travel by private car as required by Policies S1, S6 and DR2 and as set out in Government advice contained in PPS7 – Sustainable Development in Rural Areas and PPG13-Transport.