Proposed earth sheltered dwelling to replace an existing stable and storage building on a previously developed site.

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

(Proposed earth sheltered dwelling to replace an existing stable and storage building on a previously developed site.)

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.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr G Thomas, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application.

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

He made the following principal comments:

·        The development was sustainable.

·        It was designed to sit sympathetically within the landscape and with appropriate landscaping of the site the development would be suitable.

·        The development did not have an impact upon the garden view of Sufton Court.

·        The unregistered parkland surrounding the site had experienced significant change over the years and it had to be recognised that landscapes did change.  There had, for example been a change from stock farming to intensive arable farming.

·        There was substantial support for the proposal including support from the Parish Council.

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

·        The development was sustainable.

·        The Parish Council supported the proposal and there were also a number of letters in support.

·        There was no adverse effect on Sufton Court or the surrounding unregistered park and garden.

·        The development worked well within the landscape.

·        The design was good and had regard to the need for energy efficiency.

·        The development would be an improvement on the existing structures, or at least would have a minimal impact.

·        The dwelling was in open countryside with a high landscape value.  It was larger than the building it was to replace and the design was alien to the setting.  The scheme had little of benefit. It undermined the protection that should be afforded to such landscapes.

·        A smaller conversion scheme would be more appropriate.

·        The landscape was significant noting the link to Sir Edward Elgar.  However, it had been damaged over the years.

·        It was noted that officers had recommended refusal citing the detriment to the landscape that would be caused by a single dwelling.  It was requested that officers apply a consistent approach when preparing the report on the forthcoming application for the southern link road.

The Development Manager commented that permission for a house of standard design would have been refused.  Having regard to the consultation responses and the proposed design it was acknowledged that some might consider that the scheme did represent an enhancement.  English Heritage had no objection although concerns had been expressed by some other respondents.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He noted that the Committee had recently approved another single property at Cradley in the open countryside within an AONB given the quality of its design.  With the correct design the development proposed was sustainable.

RESOLVED:  That that officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to officers be authorised to grant planning permission subject to conditions considered necessary on the grounds that  that the proposal was sustainable and had no detrimental impact upon the unregistered park and garden.