Agenda item

Councillors Jim Moley and Eddy Goldsmith had each declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 34 they withdrew from the meeting during its consideration.  Councillor Terry Cox had declared a personal interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 34 he remained in the meeting during its consideration.

Further to the report the Officers explained the comments of the County Engineer and it was reported that a Tracking Plan had been received earlier in the day setting out the vehicle manoeuvring capabilities.

The Officers referred to the impact on neighbours raised by the Inspector commenting that the Inspector had not concluded that this was sufficient on its own to warrant refusal. 

The objections received were highlighted and it was noted that the neighbour had raised concerns regarding parking, vehicle manoeuvring, design and impact. 

Finally, the Officers advised that they considered that this proposal overcame the previous objections.

At this point in the meeting, one Member drew attention to the comments of the Highways Authority which stated that “the present application had taken accounts the Inspector’s reasons for refusal of the previous appeal and therefore a refusal based on these grounds could not be sustained at appeal”.  She asked the Committee to disregard this as the Highway Authority could not predetermine an Inspector’s future opinion.

S Whitfield a planning consultant representing the views of neighbours made a statement objecting to the application raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  He specifically raised concerns regarding inadequate parking; vehicle manoeuvring and adverse impact on 5 and 6 Belmont.  He explained that the proposal was contrary to National Guidance DB32 in that there were only 5 metres in front of the bays and a strip of 200 mm at the back whereas the minimum requirements were 6 metres and 800 mm respectively.  He commented that whilst the Highways Authority had stated that there were additional clear areas either side, the width of the forecourt and parking spaces were the same as before with only a slight increase in depth due to the setting back of the dwelling.  However, he explained that there was still inadequate room to enter and leave the forecourt in one movement without encroaching on the land opposite.  He expressed concern regarding the effect on 6 Belmont in that the extension would be only 10 metres from habitable rooms whereas the minimum requirement was 12 metres.  He referred to the adverse visual and overbearing impact of this.  He raised concern regarding the effect on 5 Belmont in terms of the 2 storey rear element projecting 0.5 metres beyond the rear elevation of 5 Belmont which was beyond the 40 degrees angle struck from the rear window. He commented that the protruding element did not comply with planning guidelines.  Finally, he commented that the application had many deficiencies and was contrary to Structure Plan Policy T8 and Local Plan Policies DC5 and DC9. 

Mr Wolage made a statement in support of the application. He commented that whilst this application was similar to the previous application it had two significant differences namely the parking had been amended and it had been proved that vehicles could reverse onto the forecourt without many manoeuvring.  He commented that the road was a low grade road which was not busy.  He commented that the only people who would access the car parking spaces would be the occupiers of the dwelling. Finally, he commented that he welcomed the tracking document advising that principle of building a house on this site acceptable.

One of the local Members spoke against the application commenting that the proposal had the potential for conversion into a 4 bed house and she asked that if the Committee was minded to approve permission a condition be added to prevent the conversion of the garage. She expressed concern regarding vehicle manoeuvring   commenting that vehicles would need to take at least two sweeps to avoid using the land opposite.  She explained that the road varies in widths from 3 metres to 4.1; there were no footpaths and no passing bays making the manoeuvring difficult and unsafe. She commented that 6 metres was needed for one manoeuvring sweep and therefore the proposal was contrary to Planning Policy DC9 in this regard.  Furthermore, she commented that the late submission of a tracking plan had meant that there had been insufficient time for it to be properly considered.  She raised concern regarding safety referring to the use of the road by cyclists, pedestrians and mobility vehicles.  She commented that 6 Belmont currently had an extension being built which was not shown on this application.   Finally, she reiterated that the proposal was contrary to planning policy and guidance, namely Planning Policies DC1 and DC9.

The Officers explained that the 40 degree rule related to the impact of the proposed dwelling itself which was due north where there was the least likely possibility of impact on the light to the neighbour.  The Officers did not feel that this was so significant in itself to warrant refusal.

Some Members expressed concern regarding the application in terms of the impact on the neighbouring properties, breach of the 40 degree rule and the ability of vehicles to easily enter and leave the forecourt, particularly having regard to the road widths.  It was noted that notwithstanding the tracking plan, the measurements on site appeared less that the minimum requirements.  Furthermore, it was argued that the road was in continual use.

In response to the comments made it was reported that the County Engineer had not commented on the tracking plan and that a second opinion could be sought on the tracking plan and the vehicle manoeuvring capability.

It was proposed by Councillor Jerry Patterson, seconded by Councillor Terry Cox and by 8 votes to nil with 3 abstentions (with 2 of the voting Members not being present) it was

RESOLVED

that consideration of application WAN/18492/2 be deferred for the following : -

(1)        to enable the Officers to ask the County Engineer to comment on the tracking plan now received;

(2)        that having considered the tracking plan, the County Engineer still raises no objection to the application an independent highways opinion on the proposal be sought specifically considering safety;

(3)        to enable the Officers to clarify the extent of the breach of the 40 degree rule and its impact for inclusion in the next report to Committee on this application, to include the presentation of plans showing the breach setting out the exact position of windows..