Agenda item

Erection of canopy and retrospective erection of store extension and widening of rear access.

The Committee considered the report of the Principal Planning Officer regarding the erection of a canopy and retrospective erection of a store extension and widening of rear access at Wheatley Hill Service Station, Durham Road, Wheatley Hill, Durham (for copy see file of minutes).

The Principal Planning Officer provided the Committee with a detailed presentation which included photographs of the site and a plan of the proposed layout.  He advised that this was a resubmission following deferral at a recent committee.  The applicant sought to address members’ earlier concerns by demolishing the car wash to facilitate easier manoeuvring for larger vehicles within the site, and a revised plan had been submitted.  Officers did not consider it necessary to impose a condition requiring demolition of the car wash within a specific timescale. 

Mr Wheatley, local resident, addressed the Committee to speak in objection to the application. Mr Wheatley was one of residents who lived at the rear of the application site and in referring to the previous Committee Meeting when the application had first been considered, it had been his understanding that the applicant was to be requested to look at alternative proposals. As such Mr Wheatley had been satisfied. His only concerns had been the encroachment onto the highway from vehicles using the rear access and Members were advised that the applicant had demolished the pathway without planning permission and with a total disregard for local residents. Furthermore, the applicant had now demolished the car wash.

Members were advised that despite a sign detailing that the exit was for local use only, heavy goods vehicles were still using the rear exit. This was a direct result of that access being widened by the applicant, so larger vehicles believed that it was suitable for their use also.

Mr Wheatley advised of the results from a traffic survey which found there to be approximately 800 vehicles per day using the rear exit and in widening that area, the applicant had introduced numerous heavy goods vehicles into the village. Members were advised that the very reason the adjacent by-pass was developed some 24years earlier was to prevent the flow of heavy vehicles through the village and to reduce the number of fatalities.

Local residents could not rely on trust or hope that the applicant would enforce restrictions on the rear exit, as such Mr Wheatley called for the restoration of the path and the introduction of height restrictions at the rear exit. Durham Road was an unclassified highway and so by definition was only suitable for local traffic.

Mr Wheatley wished the garage business well and stated that he had no objections to the proposals for the canopy or the store, his concerns were purely in relation to the hazards posed by the widened rear exit.

The Highways Officer informed the Committee that while Durham Road was an unclassified road, that did not make it exclusive for local traffic. Indeed many unclassified roads served to connect settlements. From the viewpoint of the Highways Authority, Durham Road was suitable for all traffic. Whilst it was acknowledged that there was an accident history near the filling station on the A181, it was felt that notwithstanding heavy goods vehicles, the widened access at the site was mutually beneficial for local traffic. Furthermore, the Highways Authority was unable to impose conditions relating to the use of the road.

Members were advised that the applicant had applied for the appropriate licence relating to the highways works, and so subject to the granting of planning permission, it was expected that the works would be undertaken.

Councillor Clark felt that the bypass was designed to reduce the flow of heavy goods vehicles through the village and she concurred with the concerns of the local residents.

In response to a query from Councillor Bleasdale, the Principal Planning Officer clarified the aspects of the application which were retrospective.

Councillor Conway felt that the objections of residents were reasonable and raised concerns that two major elements of the application were retrospective, stating that he felt that applicant should be required to reinstate the pavement and the original access/exit.

Councillor Jewell suggested that heavy goods vehicles may be more likely to use the rear exit as exiting onto the fast and busy bypass could prove difficult and dangerous. The Highways Officer clarified that the A181 was a derestricted single carriageway with a 60 mph speed limit.

The Solicitor advised that despite Members concerns regarding retrospective planning applications, such concerns must be disregarded and the application should only be considered against planning policy.

Seconded by Councillor Turner, Councillor Bennett moved approval of the application.

Resolved: 

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions detailed within the report.