Agenda item

Mr Stuart Norman made a statement to the Committee on behalf of Upton Parish Council in objection to the application. He commented that the Parish Council had concerns regarding the access and the building itself. He stated that the proposed access from Station Road would lead to the loss of 5 or 6 trees and would have a detrimental effect on the appearance of the tree canopy. He stated his concern regarding the safety of the proposed access, given its steep incline. He expressed the concern of the Parish Council as to how the construction vehicles would access the site.

Mr Graham Dewilde spoke on behalf of the residents of numbers 2-4 Beeching Close in objection to the application. He stated that the proposed access was unsafe and inadequate and that the report had contained a number of errors and omissions. He commented that when the 2006 application was submitted the Highways Authority considered that Beeching Close should be the only means of accessing the site.  He stated that in July 2008 an application had been refused which sited the access 22 metres further along station road. He commented that the proposed access would be onto a busy and dangerous road. With regards to the design of the building he commented that although the other buildings in Beeching Close were large, they were not jammed in to the plots as this design appeared to be. He further commented that the plans were inaccurate.

Mr Mike Orr spoke on behalf of the applicant in support of the application. He commented that the site was not in the AONB, and it was not visible from points on the AONB. He reminded the Committee that the site had already been given outline planning permission. He commented that the design had little or no impact on the street scene. He made the point that the plans demonstrated that visibility splays could be achieved without the loss of other trees. He commented that the design complies with the Vale’s design guide and that this project would have little impact on the neighbouring properties.

In response to a question Officers confirmed that the Arboricultural Officer was happy with the proposals.

One Member commented that he had great doubts regarding the proposed access. He considered that the most remarkable comments appeared to come from the County Engineer. He stated that he considered that it should be rejected as the access was insufficient. He expressed concern regarding the use of the phrase “removal of a tree and vegetation” as it was unclear what the extent of the vegetation to be removed would be.

Another Member stated that he had visited the site and called upon the applicant who had explained that the preferable means of access via Beeching Close was not possible. He considered that the proposal would be acceptable were a 9^th condition added requiring the access to be agreed as acceptable by Officers prior to its use. 

One Member expressed concern in respect of the loss of trees and vegetation and commented that were the access built and Officers deemed it to be unacceptable, the applicant would be left with a useless access and the trees would be lost.

Another Member commented that the earlier proposed 9^th condition would address his concerns.

By 8 votes in favour and 7 against it was

RESOLVED

that application UPT18307(3) be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report and an additional 9^th condition requiring that the proposed access must be agreed as acceptable by Officers in writing prior to the commencement of the remaining development.