Agenda item

The Planning Officer presented the application as detailed in the agenda and with the aid of power point presentation showed the site and proposed plans.  He updated members on the further comments received from Yeovil Without Parish Council which included:

·         Proposal for a site adjacent to the new development of four flats on the old water tower site represented overdevelopment, in area in which the existing housing is already fairly closely spaced.

·         Noted that there appeared to be average of two cars per household in Ashford Grove with other cars parked in the street

·         This development of two more dwelling squeezed into a small garden can only serve to worsen the problems of congestion and difficult access in Ashford Grove

He also referred to comments made by the agent in support of the application.  This included:

·         Traffic generation/parking – this can be accommodated on site and the cul-de-sac has capacity to accommodate the additional traffic.

·         The access would be improved with passing places.

·         Amenity would be protected through the retained trees and no windows are proposed on the southern wall of plot 2.

·         Need does not have to be demonstrated and there is a requirement to provide additional dwellings in sustainable locations.

He referred to the key considerations regarding the impact upon residential amenity and the access and parking provision, however he considered that this would not adversely affect residential amenity or highway safety and therefore his proposal was to approve the application subject to the conditions as set out in the agenda report. 

Douglas Mason a local resident addressed the committee and spoke in objection to the application.  He felt that problems will increase with the 4 new flats already built and the addition of 2 further houses will make things worse.  He added it would increase the traffic problem in and around the area in what is already a dangerous area particularly during school drop off and collection times. 

Gordon Warren, the applicant felt that the proposed passing bays would allow two way movement to and from the site and that it was within a sustainable location and sufficient parking provision for the site.

Councillor Andy Kendall, Ward member voiced his concerns regarding the parking difficulties for existing residents and felt the increase with a further two dwellings would only exasperate these problems.  He believed it could set a precedent for further development in the area and create potential access problems for emergency vehicles and other large vehicles due to the cramped form of the site.

During members’ discussion, several points were raised including the following:

·         Previous planning application for 5 flats had already been refused and reduced to 4, due to concerns regarding impact to local residents

·         Parking and traffic issues already a problem for existing residents in the area

·         Frustrating that the Highway Authority refer to their standing advice, however members can consider this scheme on its own merits

·         Concern regarding the narrow access road which could cause problems for larger vehicles and cause further parking congestion

·         Already parking problems within the area for residents of Ashford Grove due to the nearby local primary school

·         A further 2 dwellings is considered overdevelopment for this site

·         Could set a precedent for further development in the area

In response to members’ comments, the Development Control Manager advised that the Highways Authority had delegated decision making to the District Council which introduced standard guidance advice for up to two dwellings.

During a short debate, members, led by the Development Control Manager discussed and suggested two reasons for refusal:

·         Restricted back land area/ cramped form of development

·         Adverse impact upon highway safety and amenity of existing residents

It was then proposed and subsequently seconded that planning permission be refused, contrary to the officer’s recommendation for the following reasons as read out by the Development Control Manager. 

‘The addition of 2 extra dwellings in this restricted back land area will be out of character with the existing pattern of housing and will represent an unacceptably contrived and cramped form of development. Furthermore, the generation of additional vehicle movements along this already very constrained and congested cul-de-sac will have an adverse impact upon highway safety and the amenity of existing residents.  The proposal is therefore contrary to ST5 and ST6 of the South Somerset Local Plan (Adopted 2006)  and the aims and objectives of the NPPF.’

On being put to the vote this was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED:

That application 14/03904/OUT be refused for the following reasons:

The addition of 2 extra dwellings in this restricted back land area will be out of character with the existing pattern of housing and will represent an unacceptably contrived and cramped form of development. Furthermore, the generation of additional vehicle movements along this already very constrained and congested cul-de-sac will have an adverse impact upon highway safety and the amenity of existing residents. 

The proposal is therefore contrary to ST5 and ST6 of the South Somerset Local Plan (Adopted 2006)  and the aims and objectives of the NPPF.

(Voting: unanimous)