Agenda item

Erection of 2no. detached dwellings

Consideration was given to the report of the Planning Officer regarding an application for the erection of 2no. detached dwellings (for copy see file of Minutes).

M O’Sullivan, 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.

Members were informed that since the report had been published an additional letter had been received in objection to the application, citing highway safety and visibility issues. The Committee was also advised that 1 of the 3 letters of objection had been withdrawn.

Councillor K Thompson, local Member and Town Council Member addressed the Committee in support of the application which had been rejected previously but for which consent had also been granted in 2004.

The Manual for Streets and the NPPF did not refer to former pit villages which were developed before the use of motor cars. It was difficult to travel at speed along the street and vehicles had to inch out of the junction because of parked cars. He referred to the junction of Wilkinson Street and High Street located only 50m away where 2 houses had been built on an in-fill site around 4-5 years ago. It was impossible to exit this junction without edging into the middle of the road.

The visibility splay appeared to be the main concern. The calculation had been based on 2.4m, however the Manual for Streets stated that a minimum of 2m could be considered in a low speed situation. The applicant had undertaken his own speed survey which showed the average speed to be 22mph.

Councillor I Geldard, local Member also addressed the Committee in support of the application. He stated that the scheme presented an excellent opportunity to improve an unattractive site. The main stumbling block was the access road and visibility splays. This situation had existed for decades in Byers Green and the track was already used by a number of properties. The proposals would improve the current situation and would allow large vehicles to access the properties safely. This corner would always be used and the dangers existed regardless of the proposed development. The applicant sought to improve the road structure for the benefit of both the proposed and existing properties at no cost to the Council.

He urged Members to allow the improvements which would ensure that the risks would be minimised and which would support the local community by allowing the family to stay in Byers Green.

Alexis Williams on behalf of the applicant was invited to address the Committee. She stated that her family was originally from Byers Green and their personal circumstances meant that larger accommodation was now needed. Byers Green comprised of small terraced houses which were not designed for modern living. A traffic survey by the applicant showed that the average mean speed was 22mph and this had been submitted to the Planning Authority. The applicant had been advised that the adjacent properties should be demolished to provide the required visibility splay. DCC had found that 85th percentile speed was 28mph, however this calculation was from a survey carried out over a Bank Holiday period when a vehicle travelling in the middle if the night at over 50mph had skewed the figures.

The proposed scheme would improve footpaths, drainage and the existing track and would make it easier for service vehicles to access the properties. The proposed dwellings were well-designed and sustainable with on-site parking for 3 vehicles per dwelling. Local tradesmen would be used to undertake the construction and a recent Government publication had encouraged self-build. Her family did not want to leave the village which she envisaged could become a Category D area. Whilst towns such as Spennymoor were benefitting from new developments villages like Byers Green were suffering.   She cared about her local surroundings, the scheme would help members of her family onto the property ladder and they had pledged to improve the road at their own cost.

A Glenwright, Highways Officer responded to the highway safety issues. He advised that the Highways Authority, in considering the proposals, had firstly looked at the earlier refusal of the application for 2 dwellings which had been subsequently dismissed on appeal. 

The applicant had funded a speed survey for 7 days between March and April when test splays had been relaxed at 2.4 x 40m based on the actual 85^th percentile speeds of 28.3mph. The reference to average speeds was therefore irrelevant and could not be used. The required 2.4m x 40 metres visibility splay could be achieved to the north but was not achievable to the south, with the resultant 16m ‘Y’ distance equating to approach speeds of only 14mph. Councillor Thompson was correct in saying that a minimum of 2m may be considered in lightly-trafficked and slow speed situations but this was not an ‘X’ distance used at any sites in the County due to the necessity for some, if not most, vehicles to protrude out into the running carriageway of the main road.

Councillor Thompson had also referred to the junction at Wilkinson Street but this was a long-standing existing public highway which already served 19 dwellings. Greenfield Street was a private narrow access that would have to be brought up to an adoptable standard.

Councillor Geldard had made the comment about other junctions in Byers Green, however these were created many years ago when standards for visibility splays were different. Since 2007 standards had changed and it was not possible to provide a safe and satisfactory access arrangement. Whilst he sympathised with what the applicant was trying to achieve the objections of the Highways Authority remained valid.

In responding to the reference to the previous planning consent the Planning Officer explained that outline planning permission had been granted in October 2004 contrary to the Officer’s recommendation for refusal on highway safety grounds.         

Councillor Kay noted the comments of the Highways Officer with regard to approach speeds to the south and asked if there had been any reported accidents as the existing junction was already used by a number of properties.

The Highways Officer advised that there had been no accidents in the last 5 years but this did not over-ride the standards by which the Authority had to operate.

Councillor Kay remarked that it was unusual for the main reason for the refusal of an application to be on highway safety grounds and moved approval as the proposals were acceptable in all respects, including highway safety.

In seconding Councillor Kay, Councillor Richardson stated that the access was already used by 12-14 houses and he could not envisage a further 2 properties making a material difference in highway safety terms. High Street was not a road along which vehicles could travel at speed because of parked cars. One vehicle recorded travelling at 50mph was unusual.

Councillor Clare stated that the fact that there were already houses in the location which used the access was irrelevant. Those properties were built in different times and the application had to be judged by current rules which were explicit that the proposed access was not acceptable and therefore should not be given permission. This was not only the views of the Highways Officer but had been upheld by a Planning Inspector in the past.  Councillor Clare moved refusal of the application.

In sharing Councillor Clare’s observations, Councillor Nicholson stated that when new developments were built they were designed with safety in mind. In this case the access was not fit for purpose.

Councillor Jewell agreed with the views of Councillors Clare and Nicholson and stated that he could not ignore the safety issues with regard to the access. The current position was historical, having developed over a period of time, but the Highways Officer had advised that the proposed access was dangerous and he could not go against this expert advice or the findings of a Planning Inspector who had reached the same conclusion.

Councillor Patterson concurred with this and added that as much as she would like to see the site developed she could not ignore the clear advice given regarding highway safety. The Member seconded the motion to refuse the application.

Before voting Councillor Clare asked that consideration be given to a recorded vote if the application was approved.

Following discussion the Chairman requested a vote on Councillor Kay’s motion to approve the application, as seconded by Councillor Richardson.

Upon a vote being taken the motion to approve the application was defeated.

A further vote was taken on Councillor Clare’s motion to refuse the application, as seconded by Councillor Patterson.

Upon a vote being taken it was Resolved:

Resolved:

That the application be refused for the reason set out in the report.