Agenda item

Proposal: Demolition of outbuilding, alterations to existing vehicular access and the erection of a new dwellinghouse (revised application).

The Planning Officer presented the application as detailed in the agenda, and noted that Historic England and Conservation officers raised no objections regarding the impact upon the listed building. She updated members that a further letter had been received from the agent, which referred to another location in South Petherton that had been approved with a similar roadside scenario to this application. It was noted that the associated listed building application was recommended for approval as it was for works to the wall with no additional traffic from the existing development.

Mr C Hockey, addressed members on behalf of South Petherton Parish Council and in a personal capacity. He commented the proposal would improve the access and he supported the application. He referred to a property in West Street which had similar access along a stretch of high stone wall. It was noted the highway at the current application site was yellow lined on both sides and was a no thorough road.

Mr M Merer, agent, noted the applicant wished to sell the current house in order to downsize, and if a large family were to move in then there was likely to be an increase in traffic using the access anyway. He highlighted that the timber building had been designed so that it did not look like a shed.

Ward member, Councillor Crispin Raikes, noted the site location was near to the end of North Street and close to a bus stop, and so most people using the road exercised caution anyway.

Ward member, Adam Dance, commented the proposal would make the access safer and enable cars drive into the site and turn around. He recommended approving the application.

There being no further discussion and as members were minded to approve the application, officers suggested the justification could be based on the design and layout being acceptable and not being prejudicial to highway safety. They advised that conditions would be required for time limit, approved plans, materials, reworking of the wall, external lighting and removal of permitted development rights. As the proposal was for a new dwelling, a contribution towards affordable housing would also be required.

It was proposed to approve the application, contrary to the officer recommendation, subject to the conditions and justification as suggested by the officers. On being put to the vote the proposal was carried unanimously.

(Voting: Unanimous in favour)