Agenda item

To determine the application.

Kimberley Crow presented the report to members and drew their attention to the update report that had been circulated.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Liam Lunn-Towler, the agent. Mr Lunn-Towler stated that when this application came before the committee previously with the main issue which was of concern to the committee being with regards to highway matters, which led the application to be deferred and at that time he had agreed that any necessary amendments required by highways would be made. He added that the highways comments were received on 7 February, which he reviewed on Monday 10 February and he referred to the third line of their comments stating that they requested additional information from the applicant regarding the access in the site and the comments then go onto explain that a speed survey is required, with his colleague notifying the applicant of the requirement for a speed survey by Highways and commenced obtaining quotes.

Mr Lunn-Towler explained that he was advised on the 25 February that the application was being brought before the committee today and whilst he has tried to expedite the speed surveys there has only been a two-week time frame from receiving the Highways comments to having received the notification of the date of committee. He stated that a colleague requested whether the application could be deferred, however, that request was refused, and he is of the opinion that the item has been brought back to the committee too quickly.

Mr Lunn-Towler advised the committee that the speed specialist is ready to commence the survey, however, the timeframe for this is 3 to 4 weeks to obtain the survey report and then in turn seek advice from highways before making appropriate amendments to the scheme. He suggested that the committee scheduled to take place in May would allow for a survey and consultation period and he would agree to an extension of time to facilitate that in order that it is ready for members to consider.

Mr Lunn-Towler explained that he is still committed to amend the scheme in order that it satisfies the Highways Authority, and he asked the committee to consider a deferral to allow additional time for the survey to be undertaken. He made the point that the outside of the building has already been painted green.

Members asked Mr Lunn-Towler the following questions:

·         Councillor Mrs French asked Mr Lunn-Towler whether he had spoken to officers with regards to the application coming back to the committee too quickly? Mr Lunn–Towler stated that when the committee notification was received, his colleague spoke to officers on the same day and advised that there was not enough time to make the necessary arrangements. He expressed the view that due to the very quick turn around of the notification being released within 12 working days, he believes that officers were of the opinion that it was to come before the committee again anyway. Mr Lunn-Towler added that he did ask whether it could be moved to the April committee to allow more time to at least get the survey completed but that was declined.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Benney stated that he notes that the application is to be determined by 14 March, which means it would not come back to the April committee, and he asked officers whether an extension of time would have made any difference to the outcome of the officer’s recommendation.

·         David Rowen explained that the view of officers is that the lack of visibility is so great and, therefore, any speed survey conducted would not really serve a purpose, with the road having a 60mph speed limit on it and the visibility splays needed being 215 metres. He added that Highways Officers have stated that they have observed less than 30 metres visibility and even if a speed survey is undertaken and concludes that the average speeds along the road are 40mph, the visibility splays required would still be significantly more than 30 metres and, therefore, the view of officers is that it would mean that the applicant would be having undue expense and trouble to prove that there is not adequate visibility anyway. David Rowen stated that the officers view is the expeditious way to take the application forward is to bring it back before the committee at the earliest opportunity for a decision to be made on the basis on the Highway Authority’s comments.

·         Councillor Benney stated that when he visited the site before he had noticed that there are 6 new mobile homes which have appeared on the site, and he questioned whether they have planning permission? David Rowen stated that he was not aware of any permission being granted for the mobile homes although that was not a definitive answer, and he made the point that it was not a material consideration for the committee to take into account in the determination of the application before them.

·         Matthew Leigh stated that the reason for refusal is in relation to highway safety and, in his opinion, any extension of time with a very unlikely positive outcome is putting peoples lives at risk when considering highway safety.

Members asked questions, made comments and received responses as follows:

·         Councillor Benney stated that the application was initially deferred to see what the impact was on highway safety and now there is an additional reason for refusal which is on the grounds of highway safety. He expressed the view that the officer’s recommendation is correct.

·         Councillor Connor stated that sometimes the committee decry highways, however, in his view he believes that Highways Officers have been to the site and undertaken a survey, and all of the information has been provided. He added that it is a 60mph road and he knows for a fact that cars do drive at that speed down there as there is nothing to stop them from doing so. Councillor Connor made that point that if there is such a difference in that the visibility splays cannot be achieved for the distance the committee cannot go against the Highways Officer’s opinion. He stated that the applicant can bring a further scheme forward should they want to but reiterated that the current scheme cannot be approved, and the officers have made the correct recommendation.

Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Marks and agreed that the application be REFUSED as per the officer’s recommendation.