Proposed redevelopment of Tower Lodge, 15 Linton Lane, Bromyard to include alterations to existing dwelling together with construction of two new dwellings.

The application was refused in accordance with the Case Officer’s recommendation, with additional grounds for refusal.

(Proposed redevelopment of Tower Lodge, 15 Linton Lane, Bromyard to include alterations to existing dwelling together with construction of two new dwellings.)

(Councillor Paul Andrews had left the meeting and was not present during consideration of this application.  Councillor Shaw fulfilled the role of local ward member and accordingly had no vote on this application.)

The Senior 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 for virtual meetings, Mrs G Churchill of Bromyard and Winslow Town Council spoke in opposition to the scheme as a virtual attendee. Mr M Darwood, a local resident, had submitted a written submission in objection to the application on behalf of himself and other residents.  This was read to the meeting.  Mr P Brooks, the applicant, had made a written submission in support of the application.  This was read to the meeting.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor Shaw, spoke on the application.  In summary, he highlighted the extent of local concern about the application and his view that there were additional grounds for refusal of the application which would remain even when the proposed ground for refusal the adverse impact on the River Wye Special Area of Conservation, had been resolved at some point in the future.  He suggested that the first additional ground was on highway safety in that the development would be contrary to paragraph 110 (d) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) as the development would not allow for the efficient delivery of goods, and access by service and emergency vehicles and accordingly the proposal was also contrary to Core Strategy (CS) policy MT1.  The second ground related to adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area and the amenity of overlooked dwellings.  The proposal was contrary to paragraph 127 of the NPPF and accordingly was also contrary to CS policies BY1, LD1 and SD1.

The Committee discussed the application.

The Development Manager highlighted the absence of an objection from the Transportation Manager on highway safety grounds and sought clarification from the Committee on this suggested ground for refusal.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He reiterated his suggested additional grounds for refusal and expanded further upon them concluding that the harm caused by the development outweighed its benefits.

A motion in support of refusal of the application based on the ground set out in the report, namely the adverse impact on the River Wye Special Area of Conservation,

and the following additional grounds was carried: the proposal was contrary to paragraph 110 (d) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in that the development would not allow for the efficient delivery of goods, and access by service and emergency vehicles and paragraphs 108 and 109 of the NPPFand accordingly the proposal was also contrary to Core Strategy (CS) policy MT1;  the proposal was also contrary to paragraphs 127 a and b of the NPPF and accordingly was also contrary to CS policies BY1, LD1 and SD1; and it was also contrary to policy SS4.

RESOLVED: That planning permission be refused on the grounds that the development was contrary to the ground set out in the report, namely the adverse impact on the River Wye Special Area of Conservation,  and the following additional grounds: the proposal was contrary to paragraph 110 (d) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in that the development would not allow for the efficient delivery of goods, and access by service and emergency vehicles and paragraphs 108 and 109 of the NPPF and accordingly the proposal was also contrary to Core Strategy (CS) policy MT1;  the proposal was also contrary to paragraph 127 a and b of the NPPF and accordingly was also contrary to CS policies BY1 and LD1; and it was also contrary to policy SS4.  Officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to officers be authorised to detail the reasons put forward for refusal by the committee.