Outline application with all matters reserved for the residential development of 3 dwellings.

Application refused contrary to the case officer’s recommendation.

The senior planning officer gave a presentation on the application and the updates/representations received following the publication of the agenda as provided in the update sheet and appended to these minutes.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking Ms Akers, spoke on behalf Walford Parish Council, and Mr Kendrick, spoke on behalf of local residents, an objection to the application.

In accordance with the council's constitution the proxy for the local ward member spoke on the application. In summary he commented that the application was not sustainable as there were very limited facilities locally. The local road network was not suitable for construction traffic. The local housing land supply had been achieved therefore there was not a pressing need for additional development in this location. The development was contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework which sought to restrict development in isolated locations. The application would have adverse effects upon the local wildlife. The water run-off from the site and surrounding hill was a significant problem which would be exacerbated by the proposed development. The proposed development was contrary to SS1 as it was unsustainable and SS4 due to the impact on the local traffic network. Furthermore the application was contrary to: SS7 as it increased the need to travel by private car; SS6 due to its impact on the local environment; and RA1 as the proposed number of houses was disproportionate to the size of Howle Hill. The neighbourhood development plan (NDP) was at an advanced stage and should be given more weight. The application would have an adverse effect upon the climate and ecological emergency which the council was committed to tackling.

The committee debated the application.

The proxy for the local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate and explained that government regulations regarding the climate and ecological emergency were not sufficient therefore local decision-making needed to seek to address the emergency. The local housing target had been achieved. The local area was not suitable for this form of development. The planning appeal concerning another development site locally was not considered relevant due to the significance difference with the current application.

The Lead Development Manager advised that Howle Hill was identified in the Core Strategy as an area for housing growth and was therefore considered a sustainable location. Developments of this nature was not dissimilar to a site nearby which was allowed on appeal and was the form of ‘organic growth’ that members had requested for such areas. The NDP could only be afforded limited weight in the planning balance due to objections to the settlement boundary which the examiner would have to consider.

A motion that the application be refused as it represented unsustainable development and was located in open countryside was proposed by Councillor Polly Andrews and seconded by Councillor Felicity Norman. The unsustainable nature of the application was contrary to policies WALF4 and WALF20 of the Walford NDP. The location of the development in open countryside was contrary to policies RA2 and LD1 of the Herefordshire Local Plan Core Strategy. The motion was put to the vote and was carried by a simple majority.

RESOLVED – that planning permission is refused; the application represents unsustainable development and is located in open countryside. The unsustainable nature of the application is contrary to policies WALF4 and WALF20 of the Walford NDP. The location of the development in open countryside is contrary to policies RA2 and LD1 of the Herefordshire Local Plan Core Strategy.