Proposed new double garage including garden store, lean-to firewood store and home office above; to include change of use of land from orchard to residential.

The application was refused contrary to the Case Officer’s recommendation.

(Proposed new double garage including garden store, lean-to firewood store and home office above; to include change of use of land from orchard to residential.)

The Acting Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application. (The Committee update noted that at paragraph 2.1 of the Officer’s Report there should be reference to Chapter 11 – Conserving and enhancing the natural environment.)

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr M Simmons, Chairman of Fownhope Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr I Jones, a local resident, spoke in objection.  Mrs A Hayter, the applicant, spoke in support.

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

He made the following principal comments:

·         He supported the views expressed on behalf of the Parish Council and the public speaker opposing the Scheme.  The proposal was for a large structure that would dominate the main dwelling.

·         The area was rural and unspoilt and development in such areas was tightly controlled.

·         The development would overlook neighbouring properties such as Croft Cottage and was close to a listed building.  A single storey development with a pitched roof would be more appropriate.

In the Committee’s discussion of the application the following principal points were made:

·         A Scheme of the size proposed was out of character with the location and would have a detrimental effect on the landscape particularly as it was within the Wye Valley Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

·         There was support for the views of Fownhope Parish Council opposing the development.

·         There were other ways of meeting the need.  There did not seem to be any reason, for example, why a small extension could not be made to the existing dwelling.  A single storey dwelling would be preferable.

·         The applicant had taken pre-application advice from officers.  The Scheme did offer economic benefit.  The materials to be used in its design were satisfactory.  There were grounds for supporting the proposal in accordance with the officer recommendation having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework.

The Development Manager detailed the dimensions of the development noting that these were significantly reduced from the original application for a building of 96sqm.  The application now represented a very modest proposal for a development of just over 40sqm.  Such applications would normally be dealt with under delegated powers.  The proposed office space area was small, situated in what was in effect an attic.  The development was at a lower level than the host dwelling and so would not dominate it.   A condition could be imposed regulating slab levels.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He reiterated that the development would be dominant in the landscape.  The revised application had resulted in a proposal for a building that was only 0.7m lower in height.  A single storey development would be more in keeping with the location.

RESOLVED:   That planning permission be refused and officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be authorised to finalise the drafting of the reasons for refusal for publication based on the Committee’s view that the proposal was out of character with the location, would dominate the main dwelling, and would have a detrimental effect on the landscape particularly as it was within the Wye Valley Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.