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 9 December 2013.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report. 

                        Mr. D. Brimble, the applicant, spoke in support of the application, explaining how the family business had been running since the 1950s and then in 1970s production had expanded and a family home had been built on the site.  The horticultural market had reduced and in the current economic climate the business had become unviable and had closed.  He said that the site was naturally screened and he asked the Committee to agree that the circumstances to build a new dwelling in the countryside were exceptional and permit the application to build a small detached bungalow on the site.  Mr. Brimble spoke of other properties in the area which were larger than the proposed bungalow and had been permitted in the countryside.  He said that the new dwelling would provide a retirement home for his parents and said that the proposal had the support of Ysceifiog Community Council.       

            Councillor Jim Falshaw proposed the recommendation for approval against officer recommendation which was duly seconded.  He said that the proposal mostly complied with policy HSG5 and that the site should be classed as infill.  He spoke of a large property nearby which had been permitted and which was 75% larger than the original footprint.  He also referred to policy HSG6 and paragraphs A, B and C of HSG5 and said that the application complied with policy and should therefore be approved.   

            Councillor Owen Thomas felt that the application was a good opportunity to tidy up the rest of the site and develop part of it.  He also referred to other  larger executive home properties in the nearby area which had been granted permission.  He questioned why the applicant had had to undertake an archaeological survey and the application was still recommended for refusal.  He said that a developer should only be asked to undertake the survey via conditions once permission had been granted, not as part of the application stage, as had been requested on this applicaiton.  The Democracy & Governance Manager reminded the Committee that tidying up the site was not a valid reason to permit planning permission as it would lead to developers deliberately making their sites untidy. 

            Councillor Chris Bithell said that in planning training, one of the first principles of planning was the presumption against new build in the countryside.  He said that it was in local and national policy not to allow new build in the open countryside and that this application should be refused.  Councillor Bithell also said that he did not know why the item was on the agenda and why it had a site visit as it was clearly against policy.  An application for the same site had been refused in March 2013 due to it being in the open countryside and nothing had changed and Councillor Bithell said that it the applicant had any confidence in the application, they would have appealed the earlier refusal.  He asked Members to refuse the application as approving it would set a precedent and added that the application did not comply with the policies on infill and should be refused. 

            Councillor Derek Butler concurred that the application did not comply with four fundamental policies.  He said that each application had to be treated on its own merits and previous errors of granting permissions for dwellings in the countryside should not be used to make additional errors.  He said that the infill policy indicated that there needed to be a continuous frontage of six properties to consider an area as infill and as this was not the case, then the proposal did not comply with the infill policy. 

            Councillor Mike Peers referred to paragraph 7.08 about any brownfield nature of the site and said that there was little information in the report about this.  He also referred to paragraph 7.07 and asked if the issue of an affordable housing scheme to remain in perpetuity had been discussed with the applicant. 

            In response to the comments made, the officer said that in order to meet the requirement of policy HSG5 on infill, there would need to be a continuous frontage of six houses and as there was not, the application did not comply with policy.  The proposal was for a development in the open countryside which was not permitted in local or national policy.  On the issue of a brownfield site, he said that Planning Policy Wales guidance advised that brownfield sites should be used where appropriate but excluded land used for agriculture which this land was. 

            The Planning Strategy Manager said that the applicant had not provided details of exceptional circumstances as to why the application should be permitted and as it was not Unitary Development Plan compliant, it should be refused.  The previous permission of a large property in the area which had been referred to should not be taken into account when determining this application and the Planning Strategy Manager reminded Members that in any case two wrongs did not make a right.  On the comments made by Councillor Falshaw about the application complying mostly with policy, he said that all criteria had to be met and added that the infill policy had also not been complied with.  On the issue of exploring local need, the Planning Strategy Manager said that there was no need to look at this if the first part of the policy had not been met and he added that it was not a material factor that the business had closed down.  There was no identifiable group of dwellings to comply with the infill policy and the Planning Strategy Manager said that it had been the applicant’s choice to undertake an archaeological survey.  He concluded that the application was for a dwelling in the countryside and that it did not meet any exceptional criteria.  In response to a question from Councillor Peers about the site being used for a commercial venture, the Planning Strategy Manager said that it was his understanding that horticulture was the same as agricultural use. 

            In summing up, Councillor Falshaw said that:-

- the application complied with policy HSG5 paragraphs A, B and C;

- there was a small gap between two dwellings so the application therefore complied with the infill policy

- the development did not constitute ribbon development

- the proposal was not obtrusive and was not overdevelopment of the site

Councillor Bithell requested a recorded vote and was supported by the requisite five other Members.  On being put to the vote, planning permission was refused by 14 votes to 4, with 2 abstentions.  The voting being as follows:-

FOR – GRANTING PLANNING PERMISSION

Councillors: Jim Falshaw, Ray Hughes, Brian Lloyd and Owen Thomas

AGAINST – GRANTING PLANNING PERMISSION

Councillors: Haydn Bateman, Chris Bithell, Derek Butler, David Cox, Ian Dunbar, David Evans, Ron Hampson, Christine Jones, Richard Jones, Richard Lloyd, Billy Mullin, Mike Peers, Neville Phillips and David Wisinger

ABSTENTIONS

Councillors: Veronica Gay and Alison Halford  

            RESOLVED:

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