Site for the proposed erection of 5 dwellings.

The Committee agreed that it was minded to refuse the application and authorised officers to defend an appeal on a number of grounds.

(Site for the proposed erection of 5 dwellings.)

The Chairman highlighted the statement in the update sheet that the application was now the subject of an appeal against non-determination.  This meant the Council was not entitled to make a formal decision on the application, but instead confirmation was being sought of the matters upon which the appeal should be defended.

The Development Manager 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 Development Manager added that the proposal was considered to be unsustainable development as a consequence of the failure to comply with policy MT1.  He also proposed that Chapter 4 of the NPPF – promoting sustainable transport should be a ground for defending an appeal.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr R Edwards of Titley and District Group Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr D Morris, a local resident, spoke in objection. 

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

He made the following principal comments:

·        There was considerable local opposition to the application.

·        As reflected in the representation from the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE), included in the update sheet, there was a feeling that the applicant was circumventing obligations by manipulating the Council’s procedures, damaging goodwill.  When approval had been granted for 5 dwellings on an adjoining part of the site it had been understood that a buffer zone would be retained between the farm and Eywood park. 

·        He considered that the policy grounds for refusing the application should be strengthened, specifying the following:  SS1, RA2, MT1, LD1 and LD4.

·        He added that in terms of housing provision in the settlement area there were two settlements: Titley and Staunton on Arrow.  To date of the minimum target of 23 dwellings, 11 had been identified in Titley and none in Staunton on Arrow.  He considered that it should be recognised that there were a large number of farmsteads capable of being converted to dwellings meaning that there was strong potential for windfall sites to meet the minimum housing target.

·        There had been two severe flooding incidents.

·        The proposal was detrimental to the nearby listed buildings and Eywood Park.

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

·        It was noted that an application for storage of caravans had been refused in 2008 on the grounds of landscape impact and highway safety.  It was questioned why both these grounds were not relevant to the current application.

·        It was also questioned why the strategic housing land availability assessment had assessed the site as brownfield land.

·        Regard should be had to the comments of the Hereford and Worcester Gardens Trust as set out in the report.

·        As the CPRE had identified, there was a lack of information with the application and the applicant appeared to have made no effort to engage with the local community. 

·        It was requested that, although not a statutory consultee, as a matter of course CPRE representations should be included in officer reports.

·        The following grounds for defending an appeal were advanced building on those advanced by the local ward member:  SS1, SS4, RA2 (points one and four and paragraphs 50 and 55 of the NPPF, LD1, LD4 (and paragraph 132 of the NPPF), SD4, LD2 and the Housing Supply minimum target for Titley had been met.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He reiterated his opposition to the application and his support for the additional grounds for defending an appeal.

The legal adviser commented that evidence would be required to support the proposed grounds for appeal.  Accordingly it was proposed that officers should be given delegated authority to finalise the appropriate grounds for appeal.

Members requested that the Chairman and local ward member should be consulted as part of this process.

RESOLVED:  That the Committee is minded to refuse the application and officers be authorised to defend an appeal based on the following grounds as they consider appropriate after consultation with the Chairman and local ward member: SS1, SS4, RA2 (points one and four and paragraphs 50 and 55 of the NPPF, LD1, LD4 (and paragraph 132 of the NPPF), MT1, Chapter 4 of the NPPF, SD4, LD2, and that the Housing Supply minimum target for Titley has been met.