Agenda item

The Officer introduced the report, and informed Members of an amendment to the report at para 9.28 which read “There were therefore no objections to the development on Highway grounds”  which was not consistent with what was in the report and was an error, and should have read “That because the necessary highway and visibility alterations cannot be achieved without adverse landscape impacts, development is also open to objection on grounds of highway safety”.

The following  spoke under the Public Participation at Meetings Scheme:

·         Ms Susan Baker, Objector

·         Mr John Inver, Agent

Members felt that although there was clearly a local housing need, this development was in the wrong place as it would be a building in the open countryside, and that a more suitable site could be sought. 

A motion to refuse the application in accordance with the Officer recommendation was moved, seconded, put to the vote and carried.

RESOLVED:

To REFUSE the application for the following reasons:

1.         The provision of new build affordable housing outside of a named settlement and in the open countryside is contrary to Development Plan policy LH1.

2.         A housing need has not been evidenced in support of the proposal, contrary Development Plan policy LH1.

3.         It has not been demonstrated that the identified housing need cannot be met within the existing housing stock, contrary to Development Plan policy LH1.

4.         It has not been demonstrated that the proposed housing would remain affordable to those on low to moderate incomes in perpetuity, contrary to Development Plan policy LH1.

5.         The isolated location of the dwellings would suburbanise the appearance of the landscape in this location, harming its character, contrary to Development Plan policies L1, and LC4.

6.         The design of the single storey dwelling does not follow the tradition of two storey dwellings in the locality, is therefore contrary to adopted design guidance and would detract from the character and appearance of the built environment, contrary to Development Plan policy LC4.

7.         The alterations required to the site access to meet highway requirements, including alteration to the drystone boundary walling and removal of mature trees, would detract from the character and appearance of the area, contrary to Development Plan policy LC4.

Cllr Lesley Roberts left the meeting at 12.30pm and returned at 12.45pm