Agenda item

Residential development (Outline) with details of access and layout.

The Planning Team Leader (Central and East), Sarah Eldridge gave a detailed presentation on the report relating to the abovementioned planning application, a copy of which had been circulated (for copy see file of minutes).  Members noted that the written report was supplemented by a visual presentation which included photographs of the site.  The Officer advised that Members of the Committee had visited the site that day and were familiar with the location and setting.    The application was for residential development (outline) with details of access and layout, and was recommended for approval subject to conditions.

Members noted that the application site was just outside of Thornley with the site being historically used for stabling and trotting, although the site was currently vacant.  It was added that areas to the south and east were open countryside, and the larger site bounded black on the plan was not part of the application, just the area bounded red.  It was reiterated that the application was an outline application, for 13 dwellings on a self-build basis, with access and layout being considered within this application, access being taken from the north.

It was explained there were no objections from statutory or internal consultees and a number of representation had been received from the public, with 20 letter of support and 10 letters of objection to the application.  It was noted that the main concerns raised were in relation to increased traffic and highway safety.

The Planning Team Leader (Central and East) added that the area was within the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) and was considered to be sustainable and in accordance with the NPPF.  It was noted that the Highways Department considered the access and parking provision to be acceptable, and it was added that access was to be constructed prior to construction beginning in terms of properties.  Members learned that the layout suggested good quality, with sufficient space and all minimum separation distances were met.  The Planning Team Leader (Central and East) concluded by noting the application was recommended for approval subject to conditions and a Section 106 legal agreement to secure the provision of recreational facilities within the Electoral Division.

The Chairman thanked the Planning Team Leader (Central and East) and noted there were no registered speakers and therefore asked Members of the Committee for their questions and comments on the application.

Councillor A Bell noted that it was a good site; however the main issue appeared to be access although he noted that the demolition of the end property to allow for access works was a civil matter between the developer and the owner of the adjoining property.  He added that he wondered whether access had not been an issue in the past and also he was not happy as regards the situation in terms of this end house.  Councillor A Bell asked whether it would be possible to make the access as wide as possible without demolition of a property and if there had been not incidents in the past would this not be acceptable in highways terms.

The Chairman noted he too had empathy as regards the situation, however it was a civil matter as mentioned and asked the Highway Development Manager, John McGargill to respond as regards highways issues.

The Highway Development Manager explained that the width of the access was not the only issue, also the removal of the property would improve sight lines and that additional traffic would mean an increased risk, though he was not aware of there being significant access issues in the past.  Councillor A Bell asked if Highways would have objected if the property was not to be removed; again understanding the demolition was a civil matter.  The Highways Development Manager explained that Highways would have objected in terms of sight lines.

Councillor D Freeman noted that paragraph 44 of the report referred to future development plans for the wider area, with an approximate density of 80 units and asked would this have any bearing on the access issues.  The Chairman reiterated that each application was considered on its own basis.  The Highways Development Manager noted that the sight lines and issues of visibility would be relevant for 13 or 100 units.

Councillor M Davinson noted similar concerns as regards a previous application in terms of the wording of condition 5, to remove “likely” and also noted paragraph 31 in terms of the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) having no objections to this application, though would object to the development of the larger site in the future.  Councillor M Davinson noted the concerns of the resident of the property that adjoins the dwelling which was proposed for demolition and also asked whether the contribution of £500 per dwelling was low in terms of a Section 106 Agreement.

The Planning Team Leader (Central and East) noted that the £500 per property was the rate for the area which equated to the former Easington District Council area.

Councillor M Davinson moved that the application be approved subject to the deletion of part of condition 5; he was seconded by Councillor G Bleasdale.

RESOLVED

That the application be APPROVED subject to the Section 106 Agreement, the conditions detailed in the Officer’s report to the Committee, and the amendment as regards the wording to condition 5 as discussed.