Issue - meetings

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.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 161