Agenda item

Erection of detached dwelling (resubmitted)

The Committee considered a report of the Senior Planning Officer with regards to the (resubmitted) application for the erection of a detached dwelling at the former garden of 23 High Green, Gainford (for copy see file of minutes).

The Senior Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation of the application which included a site location plan, aerial photograph, elevations, site layout and photographs of the site.  A site visit had taken place earlier in the day.

Parish Councillor S Platten, spoke on behalf of Gainford and Langton Parish Council and supported development on the site.  He referred to the comments from Highways regarding the insufficient visibility splays and confirmed that there were already 12 similar access routes to the east and west of the site which should be given due consideration when determining the suitability of the access.  A neighbourhood plan was in the late stages of development and although not yet formally adopted, it was particularly supportive of the development of brownfield sites.  He referred to the loss of commercial properties in recent years and considered the viability and growth of the village was of upmost importance and therefore the development should be supported.

Councillor Richardson confirmed that he agreed with the statement made by Councillor Platten and had nothing further to add.  He left the Council Chamber for the rest of the debate and determination of the application.

H Deakin, a resident from one of the neighbouring properties, spoke on behalf of a number of local residents and in objection to the proposed dwelling.  She confirmed that the site was not brownfield land and regardless of the planning history, this was a new application.  A property with five bedrooms would be oversized for this plot and overpowering.  It was too close to the boundary walls and would overlook and dominate the existing properties.  With regards to car parking she confirmed that there was not enough room to turn a vehicle and this would result in vehicles having to reverse onto the highway.  Neighbours were keen to support development in the area and would not object to a proposal if it was appropriate, however a property of this design and scale would have an adverse effect on the area.  The site was currently an eyesore, but this could be mitigated by the reinstallation of the gates.  With regards to road safety, the A67 had a 30mph speed limit but there were no speed reduction schemes in place and the road was used by traffic as an entrance to the A66.  The access was directly opposite a fish and chip shop and the safety of the school crossing patrol would be compromised by the proposed access route.  Existing residents preferred not to use their current vehicle access and tended to park at the front of the properties.  Ms Deakin referenced previous refusal for the development of the and previous objection from Highways Officers and suggested that if the application was approved, the potential for an accident would increase.  Finally, residents supported the officers recommendation and requested the Committee to refuse the application.

The Chairman asked Officers to respond to the issues raised with regards to the separation distance between the proposed dwelling and Hazel Grove, and the Highways objection as outlined in the report.

The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that there were a range of windows to the southern elevation of the proposed dwelling which at its closest point would be 4.5mtrs from the boundary with Hazel Grove. 

The proposal would harm the living conditions of adjacent residents at Hazel Grove due to loss of privacy and an oppressive impact.  The issues with regards to the design of the house had been raised with the applicant in 2017 following delegated refusal and despite the advice given by planning officers at the time, a resolution had not been reached.

The Principal Development Engineer confirmed that the highway adjacent to the site had a flow of approximately 6000 vehicles per day, with the average speed being slightly above 30 mph.  Despite the planning history and the existing vehicular access to nearby properties, the application had to be determined on its own merits and on standards relating to the current road network and not what may have been acceptable years before.  He referred to the comments made with regards to the existing access routes and confirmed that ultimately road safety could not be compromised.  Road safety was the basis of the objection and in this case, was a strong enough reason to warrant refusal.

Councillor Clare confirmed that he agreed with the points raised by Councillor Platten with regards to the sustainability and growth of rural villages, however he could not agree with the suggestion that the Committee should disregard the road safety implications due to the existing vehicle access routes.  Highways had stated that visibility splays were inadequate and having attended the site visit earlier in the day, Councillor Clare confirmed that the road was a dangerous place to park a vehicle and the footpath was not wide enough for a vehicle to exit the site safely.  All of the previous applications had made reference to highway safety concerns and this was a valid reason for refusal.  Councillor Clare therefore moved the Officers recommendation to refuse for the reasons outlined in the report.

In response to a question from Councillor Zair, the Senior Planning Officer confirmed that the site was greenfield.  Councillor Zair therefore seconded the recommendation to refuse.

Resolved:

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