Erection of 3 bedroom house.

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

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.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Ms Floyd, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

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

·         The application was straightforward and should be approved.

·         The application was for a modest dwelling and would make available the applicant’s current social housing in the area.

·         The proposed plot was secluded with no overlooking issues.

·         Subsidence had been referred to in the report however this could be resolved through the removal of a number of trees which were not subject to preservation orders.

·         NPPF paragraph 2.2 indicated a presumption in favour of sustainable development, the proposed application fell into this category.

·         The Parish Council supported the application.

The Committee noted and understood the applicant’s personal circumstances and her wish to be closer to her mother in the hamlet of Upton Crews. Reference was also made to the possibility of the application being in accordance with the forthcoming Upton Bishop Neighbourhood Plan, the applicant was advised to engage with the Parish Council in respect of this matter.

In response to the reference made to a Neighbourhood Plan, the Head of Neighbourhood Planning advised that Upton Bishop Parish Council had not formally notified the Council of their intention to prepare a neighbourhood plan.

Members continued to discuss the application and noted that the proposed dwelling was of a similar scale to the existing dwelling at 1 Birtletons. The general consensus was that a small extension or annexe to the original dwelling may have been looked on more favourably by the Committee. Concern was also expressed in respect of the loss of garden space and trees as a result of the application.

In response to a point raised by the Committee, the Development Manager (Hereford and Southern Localities) advised that the Traffic Manager had recommended conditions but that these were not included in the report as the case officer had summarised his comments. In response to a further question he advised that the trees on the site were not protected through tree preservation orders.

Members went on to debate the issue of the care of elderly family members. A number of examples were given where people had wanted to move closer to their family members but had been unable to do so due to issues with Homepoint or the planning process. Some Members felt that there should be some leniency shown in the application of planning policies where people are giving up their time to care for the elderly.

Some concern was expressed in respect of the definition of open countryside in the Council’s Unitary Development Plan. It was noted that there were a number of houses within the vicinity of the proposed dwelling but it was still classed as being in open countryside in policy terms.

In response to a question, the Development Manager (Hereford and Southern Localities) advised Members that due to the scale of the proposal in relation to the existing house it would not be justifiable in planning terms to impose a condition to tie the new dwelling to the existing one. He further added that this would not be as problematic if the application was for a small extension or an annexe to the original house.

Councillor BA Durkin was given the opportunity to close the debate. He reiterated his opening remarks and requested that the application be approved.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

1.         The application site is located in the open countryside in a location that is not considered accessible by a choice of modes of transport, nor well related to local services or amenities.  Accordingly, the proposal, in the absence of any overriding exceptional circumstances represents an unsustainable form of development that would be contrary to policies S1, H7, H9 and H10 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.