Proposed erection of a dwelling of outstanding design and accompanying works, including a new access, extensive landscaping, biodiversity improvements, and drainage arrangements.

Application refused, contrary to the case officer’s recommendation.

The Development Manager North Team provided 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 Mr Stock, spoke on behalf of Colwall Parish Council, Mr Barnes spoke in objection to the application on behalf of local residents and Mr Yardley, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

In accordance with the council’s constitution the local ward member spoke on the application. A number of local objections had been raised to the proposal locally. The proposed development was located in a national landscape and was not sympathetic to the Malvern Hills area of outstanding natural beauty (AONB). It was not considered that the application met the conditions of paragraph 84 (e) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). There was an oversupply of 4 bedroom houses in the locality and the development site was not in an isolated position but was on the edge of the settlement. If the committee approved the application it would set a precedent and place a pressure on the committee to approve all similar applications.

The committee debated the application. There was division among the members of the committee.

There was support for the officer recommendation among some members of the committee.

There were objections to the development among other members of the committee who considered that:

-        The proposal did not meet the standard of exceptional quality or innovative design, contrary to Core Strategy Policy RA3 (6) and in accordance with paragraph 139 of the NPPF;

-        The location of the application site was in a rural area and due to the size and scale of the development did not meet a local housing need contrary to paragraph 82 of the NPPF; and

-        The scale and design of the building was not sensitive to the defining characteristics of the local area contrary to paragraph 84 (e) of the NPPF and did not further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the Malvern Hills AONB, contrary to section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate. The impact of the development on the landscape was unacceptable. The design, size and setting of the building was not sympathetic to the AONB.

Councillor Bruce Baker proposed and Councillor Dave Davies seconded the approval of the application in accordance with the case officer’s recommendation. The motion was put to the vote and was lost by a simple majority.

Councillor Richard Thomas proposed and Councillor Polly Andrews seconded the refusal of the application for those reasons in objection as set out above. The motion was put to the vote and was carried by a simple majority.

RESOLVED: That planning permission is refused due to:

-        The proposal does not meet the standard of exceptional quality or innovative design, contrary to Core Strategy Policy RA3 (6) and in accordance with paragraph 139 of the NPPF;

-        The location of the application site is in a rural area and due to the size and scale of the development does not meet a local housing need contrary to paragraph 82 of the NPPF; and

-        The scale and design of the building is not sensitive to the defining characteristics of the local area, contrary to paragraph 84 (e) of the NPPF and does not further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the Malvern Hills AONB, contrary to section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.

There was an adjournment at 10:56 a.m.; the meeting reconvened at 11:09 a.m.