Agenda item

Carole Nicholl, the Head of Democratic Services had declared a personal interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 35 she remained in the meeting during its consideration.

The Committee noted that the Parish Council had objected to the application raising concerns regarding access, flooding and rights of way.  Furthermore, it was noted that there had been 8 letters of objection regarding access issues, tarmacing the drive and the adverse impact on the area.

Further to the report it was noted that one additional letter had been received objecting to the application and advising that the access was shared and was not in the sole ownership of the applicant.

The Officers explained that this application was similar to the refused application but there were some differences as set out in the report.  It was explained that the applicant had demonstrated that the access could be widened and that the County Engineer had no objection to the access subject to conditions and also to the parking and manoeuvring proposals.  It was reported that the previous reason for refusal was now overcome.

The Officers reported that they had been informed that Land Registry had been unable to determine the ownership of the access. In view of this the Committee was asked that if it should be minded to approve the application, authority to do so should be delegated to the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) to allow him to serve the relevant notices.

Mike Brown speaking on behalf of residents made a statement objecting to the application.  He stated that two previous applications for development of this garden plot had been rejected by residents, the Parish Council and the District Council. He advised that this application was virtually identical to a previously refused proposal. He commented that the Land Registry and legal documents stated that the residents all shared common rights over the historic stone furrow track way which formed the access to the row of period cottages. He stated that the applicant wished to build over this track, which would require the agreement of other residents, which was not forthcoming. He raised concern over drivers having to make multi-point turns to be able to leave the parking bays in order to be in a forward gear. He felt it was likely that drivers would simply reverse out of the access way, impairing their line of sight. He further added that the applicant wished to build over a right of way, which the neighbouring residents would not agree to. He raised further concern that the residents of the existing cottage would have access to their gardens significantly impaired by the development. He added that objectors were concerned that the development’s provision for surface water drainage in times of flood or storm was inadequate. He considered that the development would place strain on the village infrastructure, the lane, the village school and the village sewerage plant. He was further commented that the additional visitor parking at the development would lead to further problems.

One Member commented that as the Officers needed to look at certificates of ownership, he suggested that consideration of the application should be deferred to enable the Officers to seek acceptable plans.  The Officers explained that the plans were acceptable but as they had been produced with blue ink they had not scanned well. 

Some Members spoke against the application making the following comments: -

·                    The plans were inadequate and it was difficult to judge the detail. 

·                    The tarmac area would increase and there was concern regarding this in terms of increased run off and impact on flooding, although one Member commented that porous tarmac could be used.

·                    There was concern that the ability for vehicles to manoeuvre was limited and that cars would need to drive very close to the fronts of neighbouring properties.

·                    Vehicles from the property would need to reverse down the access road.

·                    The proposed layout was similar to the refused application.

·                    The proposal was unneighbourly in that the proposal did not address the harm which would be caused by vehicles driving so close to the doors and windows of existing properties.  As such the reason for refusal of the earlier application was still substantiated.

·                    The benefit of the garden area did not outweigh the harm caused to the amenity of neighbours.

In response to a comment made, the Officers advised that ownership was generally not a material planning consideration, but in this case the applicant had claimed ownership and there was some uncertainty as the Land Registry had not confirmed the position. It was therefore explained that in this case ownership might be relevant.

The Officers explained that the current proposal provided for a larger garden area with turning space than was proposed previously and therefore there was less of an impact than the refused application. However, it was noted that vehicles would still have to manoeuvre in front of the existing and proposed houses.

It was proposed by Councillor Jerry Patterson that the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) be delegated authority in consultation with the Chair and/or Vice-Chair of the Development Control Committee to approve application STA/19592/3 subject to the conditions set out in the report and subject to the serving of the relevant notices in connection with land ownership.  This was lost by 9 votes to 2 with 4 abstentions.

It was there upon proposed by Councillor Terry Cox and seconded by Councillor Roger Cox and by 9 votes to 2 with 4 abstentions it was

RESOLVED

that application  STA/19592/3 be refused with the reasons for refusal to be formally endorsed at a future meeting of the Committee, such reasons to include the adverse impact of the proposal on the amenity of neighbours in terms of the proximity of manoeuvring vehicles to the front doors and windows of the existing and proposed properties along the access and, subject to further investigation by the Officers, the tight entrance and exit arrangements and the need for vehicles to reverse out of the site.