Agenda item

Erection of dormer bungalow and alterations to existing frontage area to improve turning space for vehicles

The Committee considered a report of the Principal Planning Officer regarding an application for the erection of a dormer bungalow and alterations to the existing frontage area to improve turning space for vehicles (for copy see file of Minutes).

A Caines, Principal Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation on the application which included photographs of the site. Members had visited the site that day and were familiar with the location and setting.

Councillor Hugill, local Member addressed the Committee in support of the application.   He advised that the proposed bungalow was needed to accommodate the applicant’s medical condition. The dwelling would be erected on a site where there used to be buildings and therefore would not be out of line with the defined settlement boundaries.

The proposed turning area would allow residents to exit the site forwards which would be safer than reversing onto the road, particularly as the shortest distance in a vehicle was from the driver’s seat to the front of the bonnet.  Contrary to the comments of the Highways Authority, he considered that vehicles travelling at 30mph would be able to stop safely within the sight visibility splay. In addition he was not aware of any accidents at that location.

There was a recently built dwelling located immediately adjacent to the site. The Highways Authority had not offered any objections to the planning application for that property.

To conclude he stated that the application accorded with National and Regional Planning Policy in terms of the provision of facilities for people with disabilities.

Dr M Bell, the applicant’s agent, in addressing the Committee, referred to Policy 50 of the NPPF which placed emphasis on the delivery of a mix of housing based on the needs of different groups, including people with disabilities. In his opinion the land was a brownfield site and showed an old photograph of Mr Schroeter’s property surrounded by houses. New building works were still taking place in the 1980’s.

He also considered that the site constituted previously developed land in accordance with Policy H4 of the Teesdale District Local Plan 2002 (Saved).

In terms of the objections submitted by Highways he referred to the test in the NPPF which stated that development should not be refused on transport grounds unless cumulative residual impacts were severe. There had not been any accidents at this location, visibility from the site along the road was around 250m and the proposed turning circle would mean that the access would be safer as vehicles would exit the site forwards.

D Stewart, Highways Officer responded to the issues raised. The Highways Authority had no objection to the recently built dwelling next to the site because the alignment of the road was more favourable at that point. The photographs displayed showed the minimum setback distance of 2.4m and the stopping distances referred to in the report reflected the minimum required in accordance with current guidelines.

Because of the serious visibility issues outlined in the report, whether a vehicle left the site forwards or in reverse would make no fundamental difference to the safety of the access.

Members discussed the application at length. Councillor Holland acknowledged that no accidents had occurred at the site, however he appreciated that the access onto the road was potentially dangerous and asked if there were any road safety measures that could be implemented to mitigate the risk. Possible measures were discussed by Members and included a mirror, SLOW signs or ‘No Right Turn’. 

Councillor Richardson added that he travelled the road frequently and it was not possible to speed along the route at any point or exceed the 30mph limit.

The Chair suggested that in determining the application the Committee needed to balance the medical requirements of the applicant with the visibility problems at the access.

The Highways Officer responded that such was the disparity between visibility distances and speed of traffic there were no meaningful measures that would slow the traffic to an acceptable speed. He acknowledged that there were many similar situations at other sites across the County but the additional dwelling at Bankwell Terrace would worsen existing conditions there. In addition road safety measures such as those referred to were governed by legislation which was outside the control of the Local Planning Authority.  He added that un-reported accidents at minor junctions was not unusual but this did not in any way diminish the potential risks at Bankwell Terrace. 

In response to a question from Councillor Campbell he advised that a residential dwelling created between 6 and 10 vehicular movements a day on average and at Bankwell Terrace there was only one access onto the highway.

Members proceeded to determine the application. Councillor Davidson agreed with Planning Officers concerning the weight that could be given to medical conditions as a material planning consideration. The opinion of the Highways Officer was clear and should not be disregarded. A further dwelling on the site would increase vehicular movements.

Members accepted that it would not be feasible to approve the application subject to mitigation measures being explored to alleviate the highway safety. However the access was already being used by the existing property and it was considered that on balance the personal circumstances of the applicant and need for the dwelling outweighed the highway issues.

Resolved:

That the application be approved and authority be delegated to Officers to formulate appropriate conditions. Such conditions to include the following:-

• The dwelling hereby approved shall not be occupied until the turning area described in drawing no. SS/2012/planning/05A has been fully constructed. Thereafter the turning area shall be retained and kept free of obstruction to allow the turning of vehicles.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy GD1 of the Teesdale District Local Plan 2002.

• Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or in any Statutory Instrument revoking or re-enacting that Order with or without modification) the proposed garaging facilities shall at all times be retained for the parking of motor vehicles and shall not be used for or converted into habitable residential living accommodation.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy GD1 of the Teesdale District Local Plan 2002.