Agenda item

To determine the application.

Danielle Brooke presented the report to members and drew attention to the update report that had been circulated.

Members received a written presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Matt Taylor, the agent, read out by Member Services. Mr Taylor stated that this is an outline application as per the officer’s information provided to member with a recommendation for approval. He made the point that following positive pre-application advice from the Council they submitted an outline application using the existing access road to the proposed property, with the plans showing an indicative building on the site with a large parking and turning area to the front, which would allow vehicles to pass or wait if required.

Mr Taylor referred to the Highway comments which state that “since the site access already exists, on balance it would be difficult to refuse this development solely from the highways perspective” and they commented on bin refuse collection in which the site plan was revised to show that it is within the 30 metres travel distance required and Highways have also highlighted conditions which they find mutually agreeable. He stated that in respect to the comments on the fire appliance this will be dealt with under Building Regulations and with the new more stringent approved document B updates and the general public wanting better safety in their homes a sprinkler system could be specified and installed.

Mr Taylor expressed the view that the dwelling indicated is demonstrating that no overlooking to the neighbouring properties and was a chalet style to reduce an over bearing impact on existing gardens and again this would be dealt with at a reserved matters application in more detail. He feels that some comments from the residents indicate retaining the perimeter of trees for privacy and this would be allowed for and included in the landscaping at a reserved matters application.

Mr Taylor referred to the comments from Planning and Highways regarding the access road and lighting, making the point that there are many side streets and backland developments around the area without street lighting but a development could have lights such as low level LED posts or wall mounted lighting and they would welcome any condition that would need this to be approved at reserved matters due to any light pollution to existing residents.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·       Councillor Mrs French queried the Highway comments where it refers to 4 x 1-bedroomed units and asked for confirmation that it is one dwelling and it is not being divided into units? Danielle Brooke agreed there was some discrepancy here which had not been picked up but it is a four bedroom two-storey unit. Councillor Mrs French stated that she would hate it to be four flats which would impact the neighbours.

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

·       Councillor Gerstner stated that he used to live 50 metres away from this access road for several years, six nights out of seven last week that access was blocked by parked cars, there is double parking all the way down Stonald Avenue and only on 2 occasions was there access to get into this driveway at 7pm. He made the point that Highways have had three attempts at their report and in the second submission it clearly states that some of the criteria in 5.5 is unachievable in the application boundary and that the tracks serves a means of access to a substantial amount of properties but he totally disagrees with this as access for the residents of Stonald Avenue is another track off Commons Road, there are about 20 houses on Stonald Avenue that have their access on the adjacent track and the access for this proposal is not used by residents. Councillor Gerstner stated that he went down there yesterday in his nearly brand new car and was not happy with the amount of overgrowth, which just about allowed him to get down the track and there could be a management plan put in place if and when approval may be given for the property to mitigate how materials are taken to the site. He reiterated that Highways have had three attempts at this and there is a totally unacceptable splay, there will be cars parked all the way along, even with lines, and he is totally against this access.

·       Councillor Connor asked if Councillor Gerstner was saying that there was vegetation along this track stopping him getting his vehicle up there? Councillor Gerstner stated there was but he understands this could be cleared away. Councillor Connor asked that if the vegetation was cleared away and the management plan was put in place to keep it free at all times. Councillor Gerstner referred to the road being upgraded and Councillor Connor responded only the first 5 metres.

·       Danielle Brooke stated that the surface will be upgraded for the first 5 metres. Councillor Connor made the point that they have got to cut back the vegetation and tarmac for the first 5 metres and if a management plan was asked for to make sure that happens, would Councillor Gerstner be happy?

·       Councillor Gerstner asked if the road would be adopted or unadopted? Councillor Connor made the point that this roadway would not be adopted. Nick Harding stated it would be extremely unlikely for someone to reside on that application site and not keep the access to and from the site clear so they are able to park their car on their property and the Council is not in the business of agreeing landscape management plans for single plots as it would be difficult to enforce. He stated in terms of visibility it is dwarf walls and fences either side of the access and normally it would be 600 visibility but given that it is an existing access which is used, there is a dropped kerb there, the application could not be reasonably be refused on visibility.

·       Councillor Gerstner made the point that there is either a visibility splay criteria or not, the rules cannot keep changing and if the splay is not meeting Highway criteria it is not meeting the criteria. Nick Harding responded that it has to be taken into account the difference between an application site which has no access at all and a site which has an existing access point that can be used day in, day out and whilst it is not ideal it is an existing access.

·       Councillor Gerstner stated that as long as his objection to the access is being minuted so if and when approval is given residents of that property do not come back to the Council complaining they cannot get out of access due to parked cars in the way. Councillor Connor acknowledged Councillor Gerstner’s comments and sympathised but made the point that the application cannot be refused just on poor visibility.

·       Councillor Benney made the point this is a single plot, the access is not ideal but it is an access, building materials will find a way to access the site, it is a policy compliant application and there is nothing to refuse the application on. He recognises that people park over people’s driveways but it is not a Council matter, it is a Police matter.

·       Councillor Connor agreed with Councillor Benney but does sympathise with Councillor Gerstner’s comments.

Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Mrs French and agreed that the application be APPROVED as per the officer’s recommendation.