Agenda item

Application Proposal: The erection of 3 no. dwellings along with associated access and parking

The Area Lead Planning Officer presented his report to members, with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation. He explained that the application had been considered by Area East Committee in October and that members resolved to defer the application for a traffic report to be produced by the SSDC Highways Consultant.

The SSDC Highways Consultant had now provided a report in response to this request, a copy of which was included within the agenda, which recommended that the applicant provide a traffic speed survey. Following the results of the traffic speed survey, the access arrangement had been modified very slightly and now the SSDC Highways Consultant could raise no objections regarding the application.

He advised members that since writing the report, a letter had been received from a solicitor, acting on behalf of an objector, which questioned restrictive covenants on the land, the land ownership and the certificates which had been completed on the application form. The Area Lead Planning Officer advised that the covenants were not a planning concern and that the certificates were to ensure that no land owner is prejudiced, and in this case the Area Lead Planning Officer felt that no one had been prejudiced and clarified who the owners of the land were. He also confirmed that the correct certificate had now been signed.

The Area Lead Planning Officer explained to members that additional letters of objection has been received which raised concern over the visibility splays and parking and questioned the methodology of transport/speed assessment and the impact of construction traffic.  He also advised that a letter had been received from the Parish Council, which explained that they unanimously recommended that the application be refused due to highway safety concerns and design of the dwellings.

The Area Lead Planning Officer provided images to show photographs of the site and proposed plans. He confirmed that he recommended that the application be approved as detailed in the agenda report.

Mr Howard Bentley-Marchant, a representative of the Parish Council, addressed the Committee. He explained that the Parish Council unanimously agreed to recommend refusal of the planning application. He explained that the site would result in over-development of the site and had concerns over the highway safety and parking on the site. He further explained that there had been a reduction in the visitor parking spaces and suggested that visitors and delivery vans would park on the busy A30.

Mr M Player, Mr S Cullum and Mrs O’Donnell spoke in objection to the application. Their comments included;

·         There is an obstructed view from the proposed access, due to the position of the brow of the hill.

·         Speeding on this stretch of road is common.

·         The speed assessment stated that the tubes were 40 meters from the access; however it was only 34 meters.

·         Delivery drivers will park on the main A30 road as all the properties will face the highway.

·         The whole village and the Parish Council are against this application. There is no benefit to the village.

·         The proposal is overdevelopment of the site and will over-shadow the existing listed buildings.

·         There is a covenant on the land which restricts the use for no more than one dwelling.

·         There will be a loss of light to the listed dwellings on the opposite site of the road, which will result in an increase in damp.

Councillor William Wallace, Ward Member, raised concern over parking and asked the Lead Planning Officer whether the speed assessment was valid as the tubes were situated closer to the access than stated. In response to this question, the SSDC Highways Consultant confirmed that he was comfortable with the positioning of the tubes as they are often influenced by positioning of lampposts on which the data logger could be chained to. He further advised that the application was for 3 dwellings, which would only generate low traffic numbers.

Councillor Hayward Burt, also Ward Member, pointed out that only one visitor space was proposed and felt that cars would park on the A30, which was a busy major road, and close to a primary school where cars were often speeding.  It was his view that the application did not satisfy SSDC local plan policies TA5 or TA6 and suggested that the application should be refused.

During the discussion, some members considered the light which would be restricted to neighbouring properties and recognised that there was little local support for the application. The use of yellow box road marking and ‘keep clear’ markings on the road was discussed. The Planning Lead – Specialist advised that this could not be added as a condition to the planning application.

Following the discussion, it was proposed and seconded that the application should be refused as the application site was too close to the busy A30 and did not allow adequate provision for parking.

The Planning Lead Specialist advised Members to consider carefully the reasons for refusal on highway grounds and reminded them that given the deferral of the application from the last meeting the SSDC Highways Consultant had written his report and those recommendations had been fully carried out by the applicant in commissioning a speed survey, employing an agent to assess the results and making a change to the plans. The reasons being put forward by Members in terms of parking would be difficult to sustain as it meets the guidance and the Planning Lead Specialist questioned whether Members wished to include the statement that the development did not provide safe cycle, pedestrian and public transport access. The Planning Lead Specialist advised members that in order to defend any appeal a third party Highway Consultant would be required given the clear views of the SSDC Highway Consultant.

With regards to Policy SS2 the Planning Lead Specialist reminded Members that this was an application for just three houses and referred them to the policy section of the officer’s report.

On being put to the vote, this was carried 8 votes in support with 1 vote against.

RESOLVED:  that planning application 17/02712/FUL be refused contrary to the officer recommendation for the following reasons;

1.            The proposal is contrary to Policy TA6 of the South Somerset Local Plan (Adopted 2015) because the development fails to take into account the application is on the A30 with regards to parking provision, its characteristics and accessibility.

2.            The proposal fails to secure inclusive, safe and convenient access on foot, cycle, and by public and private transport that addressed the needs of all contrary to Policy TA5 of the South Somerset Local Plan (Adopted 2015).

3.            The proposal would compromise the safety of the local road network contrary to Policy TA5 of the South Somerset Local Plan (Adopted 2015).

4.            The proposal fails to provide the benefits required by Policy SS2 of the South Somerset Local Plan (Adopted 2015) and generally does not have the support of the local community.

(Voting: 8 in support, 1 against and no abstentions)