Agenda item

That planning permission be refused for the reason detailed in the report of the Head of Planning. 

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning in respect of this application which had been the subject of a site visit on 18 February 2013.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.  Additional comments received since the preparation of the report were circulated at the meeting. 

                        The officer detailed the background to the report explaining that this was a site in the open countryside and even though there were policies in place in the UDP which allowed dwellings in the countryside in exceptional circumstances, this application did not comply with policies HSG11 or HSG4.  The application was submitted on the basis of the  personal circumstances of the applicant but the advice in national policy was that this was seldom, if ever, justification to override a strong policy context against residential development in the open countryside and the recommendation was therefore for refusal. 

                        Mr. H. Evans spoke in support of the application and explained that the applicant’s current home had to be sold which would mean she would have nowhere to live.  Whilst the applicant qualified for a local housing need, here were no affordable units in Rhosesmor for sale or rent so the applicant had felt that the only option was to build a modest dwelling, which would not be prominent in the landscape, on land that she owned.  It would be a departure from policy but it was felt that the application was justified.  He referred to Policy HSG11 of the UDP which allowed developments in exceptional circumstances but in a freedom of information request, he had identified that not one had been granted in the 10 years since the plan had been put on deposit.  He also referred to TAN6, which he considered more sensitive to rural needs, and said that there was also agricultural need in this case which could be justified.  On the issue of local need all of the criteria of policy HSG11 could be met.  He asked that the application be approved.    

            Councillor H.G. Roberts proposed the recommendation for refusal which was duly seconded.  He said that it was clear that this was a new build in the countryside and was not even a brownfield site.  He raised concerns that other applications in the open countryside would have to be approved if this application was granted.  He said that, whilst it was very close to the settlement boundary, the application could not be justified. 

            The local Member, Councillor C. Legg, said that the applicant was a very well respected member of the community who was a widow and had been forced to sell her property, and would only receive one-third of its value.  He said that the applicant would be on the waiting list for a Council property if the application was refused and that it was important to remember that the applicant, who was an agricultural worker, owned the land.  He said that this was a unique case and he highlighted paragraph 8.01.  The applicant was happy to agree to any conditions.  He urged the Committee to approve the application. 

            Councillor W.O. Thomas spoke of TAN6 and said that only the Lixwm site which was in the open countryside had been permitted under policy HSG11.  He said that this was an opportunity to have a local need dwelling which, with a section 106 agreement, could be held in perpetuity.               

            In response, the Planning Strategy Manager said that the authority could be flexible if the policy allowed it but all of the criteria in Policy HSG11 had to be complied with to ensure that the open countryside was protected.  He spoke of criterion C which required that suitable sites should abut the settlement boundary and he reiterated that the application did not comply with HSG11.  The Committee were being asked to decide if the personal circumstances of the applicant were unique and the fact that the applicant owned the land did not mean that this was the case. 

            Councillor A.M. Halford felt that the application went against policy but said that the applicant’s standing in the community had to be taken into account.  She felt that the policies could be moved to allow the application. 

            In response to a request by a Member, the Development Manager detailed the personal circumstances of the applicant which had been presented with the application. 

            Councillor P.G. Heesom said that an application for an agricultural worker’s dwelling could not be sustained and the personal circumstances of the applicant should not be taken into account.  He felt that there were no grounds to approve the application unless it was an agricultural worker application.  Councillor M.J. Peers asked whether an agricultural assessment had been undertaken and highlighted paragraph 7.06.  He felt that as there was an affordability element to the proposal and queried whether it might be held in perpetuity by a Section 106 agreement.  Councillor R.B. Jones said that policy HSG11 was not satisfied, the applicant’s circumstances were not unique, and the application should be refused.  Councillor J. Falshaw queried whether the applicant would be able to be housed in a property in the area if the application was refused and queried who would look after her sheep if this was not possible. 

            In response to the comments made, the officer said that there was no case made or justification to permit the application as an agricultural worker’s dwelling and it had been accepted that it did not comply with the relevant policy.  The personal circumstances were not unique and if the application was refused then the applicant was potentially homeless.  However, there were other ways of addressing this and it was not a reason to go against policy.     

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be refused for the reason detailed in the report of the Head of Planning.