Agenda item

Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission DM/14/02309/FPA to remove a footpath link onto the A177.

The Senior Planning Officer, Chris Baxter, 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 application was for variation of Condition 2 of planning permission DM/14/02309/FPA to remove a footpath link onto the A177, and was recommended for approval, subject to conditions.

The Senior Planning Officer noted there were no updates further to the agenda papers.

The Chairman asked Local Member, Councillor J Blakey to speak in objection to the application.

Councillor J Blakey thanked the Committee for the opportunity to speak and noted that in reference to the original application that the footpath was the selling point as it removed the dangers for children walking to school.  She added that historically the public right of way was not registered, however was used as such for workers to the quarry and National Coal Board workshops that existed at the time.  Councillor J Blakey noted the application had come back to Committee with the nice bits taken out and while she could appreciate that some things can change in terms of an application she would ask the Committee to refuse this application.

The Chairman asked Local Member, Councillor M McKeon to speak in objection to the application.

Councillor M McKeon noted the large number of affordable homes and added that if those residents did not own a car then they would find it hard to get to the appropriate bus stop.  She added that there was commerce to the west and new development in Bowburn.  She concluded by noting that local people were annoyed and there would be a loss to the public if the application was approved.

The Chairman asked Mr G Metcalf on behalf of the Applicant, to speak in support of the application.

Mr G Metcalf noted the footpath as shown on the slides was in the incorrect location and was in fact between two houses accessing farmland. Clarification was sought as regards its exact location and the Committee were updated accordingly.  He added that it was possible that the fence could be kept up and access would have been denied. 

Mr G Metcalf noted that the Applicant had initially explored the footpath link, in third party ownership, and upon further investigation it was covered in vegetation and trees and un-accessible, indeed a risk to residents because of the condition.  He noted there would be a need to lay additional flags and improve access across the verge.  There was a need to maintain safety for visitors to the site and to not encourage any potential anti-social behaviour.  Mr G Metcalf added that the development was Secure by Design and had been built in accordance with this, developers being liable for any ongoing cost.

The Senior Planning Officer noted the footpath up to the boundary on the original plan and noted the hardstanding area which was in third party ownership.  He noted no objections either from the Highways Agency.  He added the only requirement on the Developer was to provide hardstanding to the boundary and providing an opening in the fence.

Councillor P Jopling asked if the footpath had been used for generations was there a right of way issue if it was taken away, despite not being officially on a map. 

The Solicitor - Planning and Development noted that whether the route had become a public right of way was not an issue for this Committee to determine. The issue before Members was whether condition 2 should be removed or retained.

Councillor M McGaun queried whether homes had been sold on the proviso that a footpath be provided. It was noted that this had been the case and some residents were of an understanding that a short-cut would be provided.

Councillor J Robinson noted there was nothing in the Applicant’s statement that suggested that they did not know what they were signing up to, else what was the point of conditions.  He asked if a decision could be made today and the Solicitor advised that it could be; either the condition was necessary in which case the application could be refused or it was unnecessary in which case it could be approved.

Councillor J Robinson said that he has not heard anything to persuade him that it was necessary to remove the condition and therefore moved that the application be refused and the Applicant adhere to the original conditions.

He was seconded by Councillor A Laing.

RESOLVED

That the application be REFUSED.