Outline application for the erection of dwelling and garage. Construction of new vehicular access and associated works.

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

(Outline application for the erection of dwelling and garage. Construction of new vehicular access and associated works.)

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.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs S Glover, of Callow and Haywood Parish Council and Mr D Whurr of Lower Bullingham Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr P Tufnell, a consultant on behalf of ocal residents, spoke in objection.  Mr P Smith, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

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

He made the following principal comments:

·        The site visit had enabled members to view the relationship of the site to the Grade 2 listed Twyford Brook Barn and Twyford Brook farmhouse.  The proposal was for a single domestic dwelling in the open countryside.

·        The site was some 6-8 feet above the highway.  The topography of the site was steep. This was key to consideration of heritage and landscape impact.   The site was within the property boundary of the Grade 2 listed barn and represented garden land to protect the barn from future development.  The land in front of the barn had been purchased by the owners to prevent development.

·        The application was for outline permission. It should be noted that extensive works would be needed to make the dwelling habitable.  The site was on a steep gradient and the necessary works would result in a change in the site’s character. It would not be in keeping.

·        The drainage comments had been based on the Environment Agency flood maps which showed the site as at low risk. However, a Welsh Water reservoir above the site had created run-off and previously Twyford Barn had been flooded more than once.  Ivy Cottage, below the site, had bunds along the road to protect it.  This property was directly opposite the proposed new entrance to the development site and water would run off that towards Ivy Cottage.

·        The proposal was contrary to the adopted NDP. 

·        The proposal should not be considered for approval without plans showing all the drainage and engineering works that would be required to protect the heritage and landscape of the properties directly affected.

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

·        Concern was expressed about the drainage issues and run off, as outlined by the local ward member.

·        The steepness of the site was a significant issue.

·        Although the Conservation Manager (Built Heritage) had not objected to it, a view was expressed that the proposal would have an impact on the listed buildings affecting their setting and the character of the area.

·        Two Parish Councils objected to the application and there were also 21 letters of objection.

·        There was concern about additional traffic on a minor busy lane.

·        Flooding was the only ground for objection.  There would be merit in looking at the detailed engineering works that would be required to mitigate that aspect.

·        The proposal was contrary to policy RA3, in conflict with NDP policy CH9, in the open countryside and contrary to policy LD1 and there were sustainable water management issues contrary to policy SD3.

·        Some surprise and concern was expressed that the proposal was being recommended for approval even though it appeared contrary to a made NDP.

In response the Development Manager explained in relation to the principle of development that the NPPF now provided that the Callow and Haywood NDP was out of date as it was over 2 years old.  Whilst it could still be given weight it was not as straightforward issue in assessing the planning balance as it might appear at first sight given the other issues that had to be weighed in the planning balance.

The Lead Development Manger cautioned against advancing heritage impacts as a ground for refusal given the view expressed by the Conservation Manager.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He expressed disappointment that the recent change to the NPPF reduced the weight that could be given to the NDP mindful of the work that had gone into to achieve its prompt production.  The character of the area, outside the urban extension at Lower Bullingham should be protected as the NDP intended.

Councillor Baker proposed and Councillor Williams seconded a motion that the application be refused on the grounds that it was contrary to policy RA3, in conflict with NDP policy CH9, in the open countryside and contrary to policy LD1 and there were sustainable water management issues contrary to policy SD3.

The motion was carried with 8 votes in favour, 6 against and no abstentions.

RESOLVED:  That planning permission be refused on the grounds that the application was contrary  to policies RA3, LD1 and SD3 and in conflict with NDP policy CH9 and officers named in the scheme of delegation to officers be authorised to detail the reasons for refusal.