Agenda item

Proposal: Raising of front garden to form private parking space. (Part retrospective)

The Case Officer, Service Delivery presented the application as detailed in the agenda and with the aid of a powerpoint presentation showed the site and proposed plans.  She confirmed the application was part retrospective and that Yeovil Town Council support the application.  

Referring to a plan which she distributed to members of the committee, she confirmed that she had offered the applicant what she believed to be an improved scheme but that the applicant did not wish to accept this approach.

The Case Officer confirmed that there were no further updates to the report and summarised the key considerations being visual impact, impact on residential amenity and highway safety.   She concluded that her recommendation was to refuse the application for reasons as set out in the agenda report.

In response to questions, she informed members that the Somerset Parking Strategy guidance states that the minimum length of a parking space should be 4.80m long.  The proposed space is 4.60m long. She also confirmed that the Highway Authority had confirmed that the standard advice apply to this application and therefore the 4.80 is their optimum length.

The Case Officer also confirmed that advice had been regarding the option for a disabled parking space.  However, believed the applicant did not wish to pursue this option as understood this space could not be solely dedicated to them and could conflict with other local residents.

Two members of the public then spoke in support to the application.  Their comments included:

·         Emphasised that Yeovil Town Council support the application.

·         Believe the proposal would improve the streetscene view due to lowering of the front wall.

·         Believe the measurements stated in the officer’s report are slightly misleading and inaccurate and the 4.80m is only a recommendation.

·         Similar driveways built in the area.

·         Driveways are very steep and this proposal will aid the owner of the property.

·         This proposal would remove a vehicle from the street.

The agent then addressed the committee and said that he was willing to replace any plants and make good any damaged caused in the construction phase.  He explained that he had kept the neighbours fully informed of his plans throughout the building phase and expressed his disappointment on the lengthy process and time taken.    He referred to the Planning Appeal and the Inspectors comments and hoped that this application addresses these concerns and that members would support this application.  

Ward member, Councillor Wes Read stated he was not comfortable with the current proposal and believed was demonstrably harmful to the visual amenity and raised concern over the safety issue of the current plan. He would therefore not support the application.

Ward member, Councillor Pauline Lock also raised safety issues over the current plan and impact on the adjacent neighbour’s view.  She felt a disabled parking bay should be considered and a way forward and that the proposal was contrary to the standard guidelines and could set a precedent.  She would therefore not support the application.

During discussion, members raised comments including the following:

·         Felt the proposal was contrary to the Somerset Parking Strategy guidelines of 4.8 m with the proposal only being 4.6 m in length.

·         The 4.8 m was only a guideline and that the current proposal was acceptable.

·         Could set a precedent for further applications.

·         Believed there were other similar driveways within Yeovil.

·         Questioned the weight to be given to the SPS guidelines and whether on balance this proposal was acceptable

Following a short discussion it was proposed and seconded to refuse the application as set out in the agenda.  On being put to the vote this was carried by 8 votes in favour, 5 against and 0 abstention.

RESOLVED: 

That planning application 19/00825/HOU be refused for the following reasons:

SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING:

01.       The proposed development, due to its design, scale, height and position, is considered to result in demonstrable harm to visual and residential amenity and given its insufficient depth is detrimental to highway safety and is therefore contrary to the aims and objectives of TA5 (Transport Impact of New Development), TA6 (Parking Standards) and EQ2 (General Development) of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006-2028) and the principles of the National Planning Policy Framework (2019).

Informatives:

01.       In accordance with paragraph 38 of the NPPF the council, as local planning authority, takes a positive and proactive approach to development proposals focused on solutions.  The council works with applicants/agents in a positive and proactive manner by;

·                     offering a pre-application advice service, and

·                     as appropriate updating applications/agents of any issues that may arise in the processing of their application and where possible suggesting solutions

In this case, the applicant/agent did not take the opportunity to enter into pre-application discussions and there were no minor or obvious solutions to overcome the significant concerns caused by the proposals.

(voting: 8 in favour, 5 against, 0 abstentions)