Agenda item

Erection of single detached dwelling and garage (resubmission)

The Committee considered a report of the Planning Officer regarding an application for the erection of a single detached dwelling and garage on land south of Garden House Lane, Cockfield (for copy see file of Minutes).

A Caines, Principal Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation on the application which included photographs of the site.  Members had visited the site and were familiar with the location and setting.

Councillor H Smith, local Member, addressed the Committee.  She informed the Committee that Garden House Lane was an old, narrow lane with properties on it which dated back to the 18^th century.  This was the only site on Garden House Lane which had not been developed.  The applicant had withdrawn a previous application, addressed the design comments made on the previous application and resubmitted this application.  The applicant had done all possible to ameliorate highways issues on Garden House Lane by moving his field wall to increase the highway width, laying some tarmac over the widened road and would move the telegraph pole towards the boundary wall if planning permission was approved.  Local residents were concerned regarding access to the proposed property and poor lines of sight and also feared that the application, if approved, could lead to further development of a greenfield site.  The applicant had indicated a willingness to enter into a legal agreement to not further develop the site or sell any part of it for further development should the application be approved, and Councillor Smith asked that this be added as a condition of the planning permission if approved.

M Ferguson, agent for the applicant, addressed the Committee.  The applicant had been a resident of Cockfield for all of his life and currently rented a property on Kensington Terrace.  The applicant owned the field which was the subject of the application in which he kept horses, which he visited 2 to 3 times a day and therefore the traffic generated by the proposed development would be no greater than that already generated.  The applicant had done all he had been asked to overcome as many concerns as possible regarding this application, including moving the field boundary wall to create extra width in the highway, laying tarmac to the highway and would move a telegraph pole to widen the highway if permission was granted.  Although the County Council Guide for Residential Development limited the maximum number of dwellings served by a private drive to 5, there was already more than double this number of dwellings served by this section of Garden House Lane.  The application site was a greenfield site within the development limits of Cockfield.  Paragraph 14 of the NPPF stated that permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

K Hebdon, local resident addressed the Committee to object to the application.  As a mother of two children who used Garden House Lane she informed the Committee that there could be no certainty there would be no accidents on the Lane as a result of increased vehicle movements should the application be approved.  Garden House Lane already served 12 properties, which was well in excess of the County Council Guide which limited the maximum number of dwellings served by a private drive to 5 and Garden House Lane also served as access to allotments and a school playing field.  Garden House Lane was not a through road, had no footpath and had inadequate turning arrangements.  The area had no gas supply and delivery of fuel was by oil tanker, and any further development on Garden House Lane would result in increased tanker deliveries.

Although the application had received 7 letters of objection, 2 letters of support and 11 pro-forma letters of support, the objection letters contained many reasons why the application should be refused whereas the pro-forma letters did not state any reasons for support.

The benefit from this application did not outweigh that it was a greenfield site in an area of outstanding natural beauty and the application should be refused as recommended in the Committee report.

Councillor Dixon informed the Committee that the application appeared to hinge around highways issues and invited the council’s highways officer to comment.

J McGargill, Highway Development Manager informed the Committee that the access road comprised a lit unadopted highway and adopted highway up to Raby Terrace.  It was shown as a footpath on the Definitive Map.  The Council design standard for a shared drive was a maximum of 5 dwellings or no more than 25 metres in length which related to practical issues, for example refuse collection.  Although Garden House Lane was not a private shared drive it was also not an adopted highway and any increase in the number of dwellings would lead to increased use of the road and increased risk of an incident occurring, especially with vehicles needing to reverse along the Lane and emerging onto the Lane.  Although it was accepted that the likelihood of an incident occurring was low, risk did increase with each additional dwelling.

C Cuskin, Planning and Development Solicitor referred the Committee to the applicant’s proposal to enter into a legal agreement that no further development would take place if permission was granted.  She informed the Committee that such an agreement would not meet the required statutory tests and any further development would be subject to a requirement for further planning permission.

Councillor Davidson asked if the application had not been called to the Committee by the local Members whether it would have been refused under delegated powers.  The Principal Planning Officer confirmed that this would have been the case.

Councillor Richardson informed the Committee that quite often the suitability of highways was questioned when applications for large scale developments were being considered.  However, this was an application for only one dwelling and he was finding difficulty in reconciling the highways reasoning for refusal of the application.  When the Committee had carried out a site visit two vehicles had been using the highway and had slowed considerably for Members in the highway and this is what would normally happen on a road such as Garden House Lane.

Councillor Dixon reminded the Committee that the Council’s Highways Officers worked to legal and national standards and had provided strategic reasons for refusal of the application.

Councillor Clare informed the Committee he found this a very difficult application to determine.  The applicant had done all in his power to meet planning requirements and mitigate highways issues, and were it not for the objection on highways grounds then the application would be recommended for approval.  He was not convinced by the increased highways risk argument, adding that an additional dwelling would not lead to a dangerous level of vehicular movement on the road.  While the road was narrow, he felt that drivers would adopt a common sense approach and proceed slowly along it.  Had the field, the subject of the application, been some 4 to 5 metres to the east of its current location there would be no highways issues because access would have been onto the adopted highway.  However, there was also an argument that rules and policies were in place to be adhered to otherwise there was no reason for having them.  Rather than being a private shared driveway the road was more of a country road and would be used as such.  He informed the Committee that he was inclined to grant approval of the application.

Councillor Patterson informed the Committee that while she appreciated the highways concerns regarding access the application would not involve creating an access which was not already there to gain access to the field.  The applicant could currently visit the field as often as he wished without any restriction and Councillor Patterson could not support refusal of the application on highways grounds.

The Highway Development Manager replied that the level and type of use of the access would change to service a new development and this was considered to be over and above the current usage level.

Councillor Davidson informed the Committee that he considered the highways objection to the application to be a reasonable one and added that Garden House Lane had several tight pinch points along its length.

Councillor Wilson informed the Committee that she was erring on the side of approval of the application on the grounds put forward by Councillor Patterson.

Councillor Davidson moved refusal of the application, seconded by Councillor Gray.  Upon a vote being taken the proposal to refuse was carried on the Chairman’s casting vote. 

Resolved:

That the application be refused for the reasons outlined in the report.