Agenda item

Erection of 5 two storey, 3-bed, attached dwellings with associated parking and amenity space, involving demolition of existing detached house.

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED:

1)    That the application be refused;

2)    That delegated authority be granted to the Head of Planning and the Legal Advisor to word an additional reason for refusal in relation to a requirement for the retention of hedgerows.

Erection of 5 two storey, 3-bed, attached dwellings with associated parking and amenity space, involving demolition of existing detached house.

Officers introduced the application and highlighted the additional information in the addendum. It was noted that this item had been deferred on 4 December 2019 for a site visit which took place on 7 January 2020. Members were advised that, since the visit, further plans had been received following concerns raised relating to whether the access road was consistent with the measurements provided on the proposed and existing plans and whether it could adequately serve the proposed development as well as existing road users. An appeal against non-determination had been submitted; the recommendation had taken this into account.

A petitioner spoke in objection to the application. Key concerns raised included:-

·         The access way was a rural lane and was too narrow to serve the houses;

·         The proposed development would be unsympathetic to local features and would not respect the rustic character of the Area of Special Local Character;

·         The development would have a marked visual impact on the area;

·         The officer’s report made no reference to developments at numbers 12 and 15/16 where care had been taken to match the existing houses;

·         The ecological impact of the scheme had to be taken into account;

·         The proposed development was not suited to the site for a number of reasons - not solely because of access issues.

The applicant was not in attendance but had submitted a statement in support of the application which was read out by the Chairman. Key points highlighted included:-

·         Land Registry Title Deeds Plans indicated that the actual width at the front of the site was 4.6m;

·         The measurements as stated in the officer’s report were incorrect;

·         The access road was 67m not 80m as stated in the report;

·         Mini traffic lights could be used to manage traffic and ensure pedestrian safety;

·         The Fire Brigade could potentially use smaller appliances to facilitate access and it was claimed that fire hoses could reach distances over 45m;

·         BS 9991: 2015 was not mentioned in the report – the Fire Brigade accepted compliance with this as part of the fire engineering solution;

·         The new Highways report included new policies which was unfair as the application had originally been recommended for approval in December 2019.

Ward Councillor Martin Goddard addressed the Committee in objection to the application citing solid reasons for refusal. He noted that the development at number 12 was for a 1 x 2-bed house only whereas the proposed development in question was for 5 x 3-bed houses. Councillor Goddard expressed concern regarding the increase in traffic and commented that traffic lights would not be feasible on this occasion. Moreover, although the proposed development was on backland, it would result in overlooking and urbanisation of the area. Additional ecological concerns were highlighted.

The Head of Planning and Enforcement reminded Members that this was a non-determination appeal. It was reported that the hedgerows were important in relation to the semi-rural feel of the area. The Committee was advised that a decision regarding retention of the hedgerows was key. If the hedgerows were to be retained, the access way to the houses at the rear would not be sufficiently wide.

In response to Members’ requests for clarification, it was confirmed that both a wheel and digital instrument had been used on site to accurately measure the width of the access way. Members were informed that traffic lights would not be a viable option as they would be detrimental to the character of the area. Moreover, fire safety was a matter of some concern given the restricted width of the access way.

The Highways Engineer confirmed that the access way had been measured on the day of the meeting using a laser tool; the actual width was 4.07m narrowing to 4.06m – not 4.6m as suggested by the applicant. This measurement did not include the hedgerow; if said hedgerow were included, the access way narrowed to 3.2m. Members commented that this was unacceptable; concerns were raised regarding access for refuse vehicles, emergency vehicles and removal vans. Pedestrian safety was also a matter of considerable concern.

The Committee agreed that the hedgerows were an important part of the street scene and had to be retained. It was therefore agreed that authority be delegated to the Head of Planning and the Legal Advisor to word an additional reason for refusal in relation to retention of the hedgerows.

The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED:

1)    That the application be refused;

2)    That delegated authority be granted to the Head of Planning and the Legal Advisor to word an additional reason for refusal in relation to a requirement for the retention of hedgerows.