Issue - meetings

That Planning Permission be refused for the reasons outlined in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment).

The Committee considered the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) in respect of this application which had been the subject of a site visit.  The usual considerations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.

The officer explained the proposal for a passing place in the south eastern corner of the site, as indicated in the late observations.  He summarised the reasons for recommending refusal of the application on the basis that the planning principle of the development did not meet policy requirements and did not enhance the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

Mr. H. Evans, representing the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  He pointed out that although in open countryside, the lawful use of the site was residential so there would be no change of use in the land.  He also felt that the site could not be regarded as open and therefore did not adversely impact on the AONB, and that the proposed development fitted within the historical settlement pattern.  He highlighted the passing area as a benefit to residents, the contribution to housing need in a rural area and compliance with Planning Policy Wales paragraph 932.

Councillor Ian Dunbar agreed with the officer recommendation and moved refusal in accordance with that recommendation.  He referred to the harm caused to the open countryside, the lack of proven local need and the site not being considered an infill plot.  He agreed with the officer’s view that this was an unjustified non-essential development in the open countryside.

In seconding the proposal for refusal, Councillor Richard Lloyd agreed with the findings set out in the officer’s report and referred to the potential conversation of a nearby garage.

Councillor Mike Peers also spoke against the application due to its location and asked for clarification on any permitted development rights.  He referred to comments on setting a precedent for similar detached plots and suggested that this may already be the case, as indicated by nearby developments.  This view was echoed by Councillor Nancy Matthews.

Councillor Gareth Roberts said that previous applications under permitted development had been allowed for buildings such as sheds, and raised concerns about the potential for setting a precedent in the case of dwellings.  He felt that housing need was a material consideration but did not outweigh the other considerations.

In response, the officer advised that permitted development rights should not apply in this case as the dwelling would create harm on the area.  On the potential for a garage conversion, he gave a reminder that each application was considered on its own merits.  On Mr. Evans’ comments, he pointed out that the site was visible from the main entrance to the development.

In responding to the points raised by Mr. Evans, the Planning Strategy Manager said that a different context applied on the historic pattern of development and that the infill policy was compliant as noted by the Inspector.  He reiterated the point that the lack of housing supply did not  ...  view the full minutes text for item 100