New sustainable live/work dwelling with ancillary outbuilding.

Authority was granted to approve the application, subject to further clarification of aspects of the application, and to attach amended conditions as necessary.

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application, and updates/additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided in the update sheet, as appended to these Minutes.  The update included an additional proposed condition.  The Principal Planning Officer added that if the Committee was minded to approve the application it was also proposed that permitted development rights be removed.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr A Sheffield of Eardisland Parish Council spoke in broad support of the Scheme.  Mrs C Aldred, a resident, spoke in objection.  Mrs M Albright, the applicant, spoke in support.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor MJK Cooper, the local ward member, spoke on the application.

He commented on a number of issues including:

·         He noted that the Parish Council supported the application subject to conditions being met.  However, a number of local residents were concerned about the proposal.  The principal concern was that the development would exacerbate flooding problems experienced in the area.  There was evidence that the site had flooded and the Environment Agency had not taken account of this.  The numerous drafts of the report indicated a level of uncertainty about the scheme and the published report was inconclusive and did not provide categoric assurances to discount the potential flood risk.  In his view the flood risk assessment should be discounted.  Whilst the proposed building might itself be above flood waters, the technical assessments could not prove that water would not be displaced to the detriment of neighbouring properties

·         He suggested that if the Committee was not minded to refuse the application a deferral should be considered to allow further consideration of the technical aspects of the scheme.  If the Committee was minded to approve the application stronger conditions were required.

The debate opened and the following principal points were made:

In response to questions the Principal Planning Officer commented that the site was not classified as an isolated dwelling because it was immediately adjacent to the village and the settlement boundary.  Paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) did not therefore apply.  He considered that the proposal would help to sustain and grow an existing local business in accordance with paragraph 28 of the NPPF.

He added that the technical advice from the Environment Agency was clear.  The Agency did not object to the proposal, did not consider that the scheme would cause further flooding and in fact concluded that the scheme would provide flood betterment.  The Agency had also taken the unusual step of having its advice independently reviewed. 

Technical advice was that the proposed biodisc system was acceptable.  Its resilience if there were to be flooding was questioned.

The risk of flooding and the displacement of floodwater was a concern.  There appeared to be some contradiction in the report with the suggestion that the site would not flood sitting alongside a requirement for a flood evacuation plan.  Paragraph 6.15 of the report stated that significant parts of the application site and the village were prone to flood events.  It was noted in reply that the evacuation plan was proposed to address a circumstance where the development was cut off by floodwater; it was not being suggested that the dwelling itself would flood.  The precise location of the property itself was outside the flood zone.  The flooding was mainly fluvial and the property would not form a barrier to the dispersal of floodwater.

It was noted that the proposed condition 10 required the access road to be constructed in accordance with existing ground levels.

The attributes of the scheme were noted.

It was considered that deferring a decision would be of little benefit as officers considered all avenues had been adequately explored.

The Development Manager reminded the Committee of the outcome of a recent appeal for an application at land off Breinton Lee, Kings Acre Road, Hereford where the inspector had given weight to the advice of the statutory consultees on drainage issues and awarded costs against the Council

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He reiterated his concerns about flooding.

A number of grounds for refusal were put forward by Members, including concerns about the effectiveness of the flood plan and the biodisc system, development in the open countryside contrary to policy H7, and paragraph 100 of the NPPF relating to controlling inappropriate development in an area at risk of flooding.

The Development Manager commented that if the Committee wished to refuse the application, policy DR7 (flood risk) should be advanced as a ground for refusal and not the equivalent policy in the emerging Core Strategy.  However, Members appeared to be basing a proposal for refusal solely on a technical ground.  It had not been suggested in the debate that there was anything inherently unsustainable about the design of the scheme or its locational impact.  He expressed concern about the Authority’s ability to defend an appeal on flood grounds.

A motion that the application be refused was lost after the Chairman exercised his casting vote, stating that in doing so he was taking particular account of the Development Manager’s advice.

A proposal was made that authority should be delegated to officers to approve the application, but that there should be consultation with the Chairman and the local ward member over flood risk assumptions and the operation of biodisc systems in flood events and amended conditions attached as necessary.

RESOLVED:  That authority be delegated to officers named in the scheme of delegation to officers after consultation with the Chairman and local ward member to approve the application, subject to further clarification in respect of flood risk assumptions and the operation of biodisc systems in flood events and attach amended conditions to those listed below as may be necessary.

INFORMATIVES: