Agenda item

Proposal: The erection of 4 no dwellings and the formation of access road.

The Planning Officer presented the application as detailed in the agenda report and explained the proposed access arrangements. He highlighted the main planning considerations for the scheme and noted a number of local objections to the proposal had been received. It was noted the Highway Authority considered the application to be acceptable, and reference was also made to the concerns raised about residential amenity.

He updated members that a further discussion had taken place with the SSDC Highway Consultant about manoeuvring space for the terraced housing. It was suggested that if members were minded to approve the application, that there was a condition to provide the appropriate turning space by slightly pulling forward the proposed parking spaces.

Two people spoke in objection to the application. Some of their points included:

·         Feel proposal is overdevelopment of the site.

·         Parking for two of the existing cottages has been lost to part of the development.

·         There is a condition for archaeology in the report but lorry loads of soil have already been removed. Some things seem to have been done prior to any permission.

·         Concern for safety during construction.

·         Concern about flooding and drainage - there is a drain outside Westover House and the inside of the house is lower than the outside. Surface water often reaches the doorway due to run-off from the road, and concern that with this development there will be even more run-off.

The agent addressed members and some of his comments included:

·         Site is in a sustainable location and within development limits.

·         Small family homes are proposed and will use local materials to respect the local area.

·         Application meets latest policies regarding highways and access

·         Local concerns are not severe and the application has the support of officers.

Ward member, Councillor Tiffany Osborne, explained that she had requested the application come to Committee due to the local objections that had been raised. She highlighted the concerns and also referred to the predicted number of additional vehicle movements, and felt there were some issues. Construction lorries were likely to have difficulty manoeuvring into the site and therefore what would happen about any future delivery or refuse vehicles. Two parking spaces were proposed for each property, but what about visitor parking if each property already had two cars. She felt that although the proposal may meet guidelines, in practical terms, future residents were likely to experience some difficulties. The local community was not against development on the site but it was felt this proposal would be overdevelopment in a conservation area. She referred to the policies for conservation areas and felt it could be argued that the proposal would detrimentally affect the character of the area.

During a lengthy discussion a number of number comments were made including:

·         Inspectors have made reference to the lack of a five year land supply and it not overweighing harm.

·         One plot is very close to a neighbouring property. The proposal is too tight and dense for the location, and will not enhance the conservation area.

·         There are industrial buildings nearby and it’s not the prettiest of areas. Access is tight but Highways have not objected. Proposal will tidy up the site.

·         Feels like over development. Less dwellings might be acceptable.

·         Access is appalling.

·         Access by emergency and waste vehicle is a concern.

·         Width of access seems narrow.

·         Design of the houses does not look like the local area.

·         Where will delivery vehicles be able to turn.

·         Feel application has come forward too soon with not enough detail. Comments raised by Wessex Water should have been resolved already.

·         Most surprised that Highways has not raised concerns.

·         Community agree something could happen here but not with this scheme.

·         This will be a private estate and not a public road.

The Planning Officer and Senior Planning Advisor responded to point of detail, including:

·         Pleased the developer and agent are present to hear the comments and issues that have been raised.

·         Points raised are relevant but can we prove the harm?

·         The design regarding the number of dwellings is not unreasonable and is acceptable to officers

·         Will look at why developer has been on site before this application has been determined.

·         Feel main issue is highway safety and access, and the important concerns raised by members is acknowledged.

·         Members could disagree with the Highway Authority and use our own consultants.

·         Officers form a view based on policy. On hearing valid comments made during discussion it is the role of officers to provide advice based on the concerns raised.

·         If demonstrable harm could be evidenced it would be reasonable to go against the advice of a statutory consultee.

It was proposed and seconded to refuse the application, contrary to the officer recommendation, on the grounds of access, highway safety, density and impact on the conservation area. The Planning Officer suggested wording for two reasons for refusal. One reason based on access and highway safety, and the second reason based on scale, appearance and the conservation area. On being put to the vote, the proposal was carried 9 votes in favour of refusing the application, 1 against and 2 abstentions.

(Voting: 9 in favour of refusal, 1 against, 2 abstentions)