Change of use of part of paddock from equestrian to residential. Construction of new 3 bed dwelling with associated garaging, access and landscaping.

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

(Change of use of part of paddock from equestrian to residential.  Construction of new 3-bed dwelling with associated garaging, access and landscaping.)

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

It was noted that the update sheet contained a typographical amendment to the informative at the end of the report.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs J Du Cros, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

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

He made the following principal comments:

·        There were a number of letters in support of the application.  The applicants had made a significant contribution to the local community and were well regarded.

·        In terms of detail, he commented that the application entailed replacement tree planting, and appropriate landscaping proposals.  The property was well designed and would have no significant impact.

·        National policy was to facilitate people continuing to live in their communities as they grew older.  He considered that a number of core strategy policies could be interpreted to support the application which would provide accommodation to meet the applicants’ future needs enabling them to continue to live in their community.  It would also release a property for occupation by another family.

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

·        Provision of accommodation for an ageing population was a national problem.  The applicants’ proposal to make provision for themselves should therefore be welcomed.  A number of members expressed sympathy for this point of view.

·        A view was expressed that the proposal was sustainable development... 

·        A suggestion was made that the council’s policy should be reviewed to allow for account to be taken of social care needs.  Balanced against this view was the need to protect against encroachment into the open countryside and the precedent that granting permission might set.

·        The Conservation Manager (Landscape) had expressed concerns about the proposal.  It was questioned why the applicant had not redeveloped the existing stables which the Conservation Manager had suggested would reduce the landscape impact.  In addition, no consideration appeared to have been given to an extension to the existing property rather than a new building, or to a bungalow.

·        The proposal was for a dwelling in the open countryside contrary to policy. Weight had to be given to the fact that the site was in the Wye Valley AONB.  The proposed dwelling had a height of some 7.9 metres.  As an elevated site in a highly protected landscape it would have a demonstrable and significant impact on the AONB that was not outweighed by the benefits of the development.

·        The proposal was not compliant with the Little Dewchurch Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP) to which the report stated significant weight could be attributed.  The Committee should give due weight to the NDP.  The Parish Council had not supported the proposal.

·        The personal circumstances of the applicants were not a material planning consideration.

The Principal Planning Officer commented that the application was contrary to policy and outside the area designated for development.  Accordingly to avoid cost to the applicants there had been no discussion about alternative design options.  The applicant had not enquired about making an extension to the existing property.

In response to a motion that the application be approved the Development Manager commented that all parties, including the applicant, accepted that the proposal was contrary to policy.  If the Committee wished to consider granting permission it needed to conclude that the application met the test that it was one of those exceptional applications that would scarcely ever be granted.  He reiterated that the application was contrary to the NDP.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He reiterated his support for the application that would permit the applicants to continue to live in their community.

A motion that the application be approved was lost.

RESOLVED: That planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

1.         The proposal represents unjustified and unsustainable new residential development in an open countryside location contrary to Herefordshire Local Plan Core Strategy Policies SSI, SS7, SD1, RA2 and RA3, Little Dewchurch Neighbourhood Development Plan policy LD SB1 and the relevant aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.

2.         The proposal by its very nature and siting, scale and design would result in material harm to the character and appearance of the protected landscape, designated as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, as it represents an unacceptable encroachment into the open countryside, contrary to Herefordshire Local Plan Core Strategy Policies SS6 and LD1, Little Dewchurch Neighbourhood Development Plan policy LD ENV1 and the relevant aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Informative:

1          The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by assessing the proposal against planning policy and any other material considerations.   The applicants were advised of these key policy issues during the pre-application advice stage.  The issues are so fundamental to the proposal that it is not possible to negotiate a satisfactory way forward and due to the harms which have been clearly identified within the reasons for the refusal and the Officer’s Report, approval is not possible.