Agenda item

To determine the application.

Nick Harding presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Adam Sutton, the agent. Mr Sutton stated that the application is before committee today due to the Parish Council views differing from the Planning Officer, who has recommended the application be refused. He made the point that an application for 5 dwellings on this land has been before committee twice before, once refused based solely on access and then approved by committee with access committed.

Mr Sutton stated that this application is a full application for 5 executive style dwellings as opposed to a reserved matters application following on from the outline approval and this has been undertaken so they could adjust the red line boundary of the site as it was felt that the dwellings they were trying to get approval on would benefit from slightly larger front gardens for parking and landscaping and larger rear gardens to suit the dwellings and to enable them to get a package treatment plant with drainage within those gardens as opposed to a septic tank, which meant moving the red line to the rear of this development back. He stated that there are no objections from statutory consultees, Highways have asked one or two questions relating to access and visibility but it is the same access point that committee previously approved with the same visibility splay, with the land in question either being in highway ownership as a highway verge or the applicant’s ownership.

Mr Sutton stated that Highways have suggested details regarding the footpath and have also suggested that these details will be subject to a Section 278 Agreement together with a condition that can be placed on the application of the technical approval of that Section 278 Agreement prior to works and he does not think this would be unreasonable. He referred to the refusal reasons, with the first one being principle of development but made the point that there is an existing approval for 5 dwellings on this site so the principle is, therefore, established and the second reason being an adverse impact on the occupants of Plot 1 due to proximity of the windows but this is a window on the side elevation to Bedroom 4 and as stated there is 2.6 metres between the buildings and the windows are offset, the roof line at this point is pitched away from the neighbouring property and there is not a big gable wall, so he feels there will be limited adverse impact if any.

Mr Sutton referred to the third reason for refusal due to access but as previously stated that has been addressed and flood risk and sequential test, a sequential test will show that this site is available to this applicant currently and would, therefore, pass. He hopes that members will give appropriate weight to the fact that there is already a permission on the site and limited weight to the emerging Local Plan that highlights this as residential development.

Members asked questions to Mr Sutton as follows:

·       Councillor Mrs French asked if the properties were going to be self-build or built then sold off? Mr Sutton responded that he is not sure the applicant has made a decision on this.

·       Councillor Mrs French asked how foul water was going to be treated? Mr Sutton responded that one of the reasons that a full application has been submitted is so they can provide a package treatment plant in the rear gardens of each individual property.

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that the speed limit along this site is the national speed limit and if this application is approved would the applicant be prepared to pay for a reduction in the speed limit and possibly a speed cushion? Mr Sutton responded that he could ask the applicant but queried what cost this would be. Nick Harding made the point that Highways have not requested the movement of the speed signs or any traffic calming. Councillor Mrs French stated that she is County Councillor for this area and does not think it is an unreasonable request. Councillor Connor agreed. Councillor Mrs French added that towns and parishes all have a local highway improvement scheme but do not see why a Parish Council should pay for a speed reduction when the development could actually pay. Mr Sutton confirmed the applicant would be prepared to contribute towards this.

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

·       Councillor Mrs French made the point that the site does already have outline planning permission which she believes expires in December but she does not understand why it has taken so long to submit a Reserved Matters application although the agent did say about giving the properties larger gardens. She does not see why this cannot be approved because it has already got planning in principle.

·       Councillor Imafidon stated that it is commendable that the applicant is willing to contribute towards speed calming measures on the highway.

·       Councillor Connor stated that Councillor Mrs French is right the site does have planning permission for 5 dwellings and he believes the agent said the land for the pavement is in the applicant’s control or highways control so it has not got to go through third party land even though this would be a civil matter. He made the point that there are no statutory consultee objections and feels that he could support it.

·       Nick Harding stated that there is the Highway reason for refusal and whilst the previous outline was deemed acceptable to Highways, the approved plan is different to the one that members are considering today and Highways have asked for a corrected visibility splay, the highway extent to be verified and the resubmission of speed data to support the reduction in visibility requirements.

·       Councillor Marks asked for clarification that if committee approved the application today then it might still fail on the agreement with Highways in that Highways have said there are issues that need resolving first. Nick Harding responded that no because if committee approve it they are approving a poor visibility splay resulting in reduction of safety which falls on the Council’s shoulders as decision makers having allowed that development as County cannot do anything about it.

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that having heard what officers have said, she does agree and an application cannot be approved that is going to have a potential danger to the highway. She suggested the application be deferred to resolve the Highway issues.

·       Councillor Connor stated that there are 4 reasons for refusal and is it being said that it should be deferred on highway safety reasons only?

·       Nick Harding suggested an alternative is that officers get delegated authority to deal with amended plans provided that Highways are happy then officers can issue a consent and if this route is taken on the proposal the committee would need to explain why it is content to not agree with each of the other reasons for refusal. He stated that he can ask the question of Highways about the issue of placing a condition on the application with regard to traffic calming and speed reduction and if they are not happy with this the application can be brought back to committee. Councillor Mrs French asked that when officers are taking to Highways they point out the local highway improvement schemes that all the parishes are looking at, with all the parishes looking at speed reduction as it does cost money to put these schemes in and it would be nice if could be discussed with Highways.

Proposed by Councillor Mrs French, seconded by Councillor Imafidon and agreed that the application be APPROVED subject to appropriate conditions and delegated authority being given to officers to obtain revised drawings to address highway concerns and submission of a speed survey, and Highways confirming that moving the speed sign and installation of speed reduction measures on the highway is appropriate/necessary in principle. If agreement of Highways cannot be confirmed, the application is to be returned to committee for determination.

Members do not support officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning permission as they feel the site is not an elsewhere location, would make a positive contribution to the character of the area, flood risk can be mitigated against, it is consistent with the previous decision of the Committee and the window relationship to a blank wall of 2.5 metres distance is not adversely detrimental and it is down to buyer’s choice as to whether they find this acceptable or not.