Agenda item

Dwellinghouse.

The Committee considered a report of the Senior Planning Officer regarding an application for a dwelling house on land to the rear of 2 Seaside Lane South, Easington (for copy see file of Minutes).

The Senior Planning Officer provided the Committee with a detailed presentation which included photographs of the site. Members of the Committee had visited the site and were familiar with the location and setting.

Councillor D Boyes, local Member addressed the Committee in objection to the application on access grounds. The lane was congested both mornings and evenings which was of concern to residents, and the strength of feeling was demonstrated by the number of names on the petition. He hoped that Members had observed the problems experienced on the site visit.

He noted the number of en-suite bedrooms proposed and expressed concern that the dwelling may be occupied by a number of families or used as student accommodation, generating potentially three or four cars at the property. Parking facilities were inadequate for this number of vehicles. The dwelling would be located near a blind bend where there had been many accidents in the past.

The Highways Officer understood the concerns expressed as the rear lane to the rear of the proposed dwelling was very narrow in comparison to others across the County. However in 2002 planning permission had been granted for six developments in the locality with integral garages and driveways. Whilst the three car parking spaces proposed could only practically accommodate two vehicles, this complied with minimum standards implemented in 2013. Unlike the other dwellings, the proposed development had a dual access aspect with pedestrian access to the front of the site onto Welfare Close. Visitors could park in a public lay-by on Welfare Close and therefore two car parking spaces was enough to accommodate the development. There had been no reported accidents in the last five years and taking all factors into account the proposals were deemed to be acceptable in highway terms.

R Hepplewhite addressed the Committee on behalf of the applicant. He stated that this was not the first allotment to be subject to an application for housing and therefore a precedent had been set. With regard to the concerns expressed regarding access, he had visited the site the previous week at 7.45am and considered that the lane acted as an informal traffic calming measure. There were cars parked along the street but he had experienced no difficulties in passing through, with the lane being accessible from both directions. Three parking spaces would be provided and although he accepted the comments of the Highways Officer that the provision would practically accommodate two vehicles, this would still meet minimum standards. The allotment had stood vacant for some time and whilst residents had the right to make representation, their concerns did not warrant refusal of the application.

In drawing up the plans the applicant had taken due account of the Officers’ comments and had produced a modern high specification development with off-street parking. With regard to the comments made concerning the number of en-suite bedrooms he had advised that his client had given no indication that the dwelling would be used as anything other than a family home.

At this point the occupier of the neighbouring dwelling asked to speak on the application, but his request was declined in accordance with the Procedure for Speaking at Planning Committees which required a person to register to speak by 12noon the day before the meeting.

Members discussed the application and Councillor Lethbridge stated that his first impression on visiting the site was that that the proposals would be an improvement but he had concerns about the highway safety implications raised by the local Member.

Councillor Kay acknowledged that Councillor Boyes had made an impassioned and reasoned argument against the application but a key consideration was that there had been no accidents in the last 5 years. He could not give any reasons to support refusal of the application.

Councillor Kay moved and Councillor Laing seconded that the application be approved.

Resolved:

That the application be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the report.