Agenda item

            That planning permission be refused for the reason detailed 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.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report

                        The officer detailed the background to the report and explained that the site was outside the settlement boundary and was in open countryside.  The proposal did not warrant going against the strong policy presumption against development and was therefore recommended for refusal.  It was reported that two letters of objection and 11 letters of support had been received. 

                        Ms. A. Jones, on behalf of the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  She understood that the property was not in the settlement boundary but the family was passionate about the proposal and the design of the new building reflected the agricultural buildings and the property was smaller than the buildings it was replacing.  She spoke of the support that they had received from neighbours and she added that they wanted to build an appropriate dwelling which it was aimed would be carbon neutral.  Ms. Jones felt that there was a gap in the policy and that the proposal was not detrimental to the area and would not set a precedent if the application was approved.   

            Councillor Chris Bithell proposed the recommendation for refusal which was duly seconded.  He said that the site was in the open countryside and he felt that there was no reason to allow the application.  He said that the proposal would be welcome in another location but as it did not comply with national and local policy, it should be refused.  Councillor Derek Butler concurred and highlighted paragraph 7.03 where reference was made to policies in the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) and Planning Policy Wales (PPW) being out of date when compared with the National Planning Policy Frameworks in England in terms of brownfield sites and facilitating self-build.  He said that the UDP and PPW policies should apply and added that the site was not a brownfield site. 

            Councillor Owen Thomas felt that there were many redundant farm building sites across the county which could be converted to alleviate the housing shortage problem and suggested that policy should be changed to reflect such developments.  Councillor Carol Ellis spoke in support of the application and said that the building was not as big as what was currently in place and was only 15 metres from the settlement boundary.  She said that other applications had been permitted for new dwellings as original properties were not big enough and added that the two letters of objection were on the grounds of the use of the unofficial layby on the access lane. 

Councillor Gareth Roberts said that it was important to adhere to policy and that this application for a new build in the countryside should be refused.  He highlighted paragraph 7.07 where it was reported that there was no existing residential use and therefore the proposed scheme could not be considered as a replacement dwelling.  He felt that to approve the scheme would set a precedent and that the correct decision was to refuse the application. 

            The officer confirmed that the building was not considered worthy of retention in terms of a separate policy and that the property was 100 metres from Chester Road and was therefore not ‘just’ outside the settlement boundary. 

            The Planning Strategy Manager said that comments about the view and the applicant being passionate about the proposal were not material planning considerations and approval of the application would set a precedent.  There was not a single policy which supported this proposal. National policy was very clear about proposals in an open countryside location and one additional dwelling would not make a difference to the lack of five year land supply as it would have to be repeated 831 times to address the shortfall.  He referred to an application in a greenfield location for 120 units and asked how Members would be able to refuse such an application if they permitted this one dwelling in a similar location. 

            Councillor Halford referred to the earlier comment of Councillor Thomas about the gap in policy for replacement of redundant agricultural buildings with dwellings.  The Planning Strategy Manager said that there was not a gap in policy as we could allow the reuse of buildings with architectural merit . 

            In summing up, Councillor Bithell said that a precedent would be set if the application was approved and that the buildings of architectural merit could be converted.  This building was not worthy of retention and whether WG changed their policy to reflect National Planning Policy Frameworks in England was not something which could be considered for this application.          

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be refused for the reason detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment).