Agenda item

Demolition of existing bungalow and erection of 5.no dwellings.

The Committee considered an application for the demolition of an existing bungalow and erection of 5 dwellings that had been deferred for a site visit at the meeting on 9 July 2020.

 

The Enforcement Manager updated the committee that a further representation had been received from Mr Dixon objecting on grounds of highways and access, details of which he had e-mailed to all members of the Area Planning Committee.

 

An additional plan submitted showed the proposed pedestrian and vehicular access proposals ‘as existing’ and ‘as proposed’ for clarification purposes as requested by the Chairman at the previous meeting.

 

A short video of the site had been circulated to members in lieu of a physical site visit due to the restrictions imposed by the COVID 19 Pandemic in relation to group gatherings.

 

Members were given a similar presentation that was received at the meeting on 9 July 2020.  Extra slides had been added at the request of the Chairman showing the existing and proposed wider site access with the footpath running alongside and bollards along the gable wall at No 80 East Street; and similarly for the existing and proposed pedestrian access with a kissing gate onto East Street.

 

The key planning points were highlighted, including :-

 

• Principle of development
• Design
• Conservation Area and AONB
• Neighbouring amenity
• Highways
• Biodiversity/nature conservation
• Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)

 

The Chairman reminded members that they would have needed to have seen the video, attended the site, or have good knowledge of East Street in order to participate in the debate on this application.

 

The Vice-Chairman stated that he was concerned with the narrowness of  East Street and referred to the NPPF which stated that development should only be refused on highway grounds if there was an unacceptable impact on highway safety which he felt to be the case in this instance.  Even with the increased width of the vehicular access, he considered that vehicles would need to pull out across the road in order to see and there was no pavement along East Street to offer protection to pedestrians. He referred to a previous objection to an application at Hollymoor Gardens due to the highways impact on East Street and that this, and the narrowness of the street should be taken into consideration in this proposal.

 

Other members expressed similar serious concerns in relation to highway safety.  They considered that the single vehicular access from this development onto East Street was potentially hazardous, given the nature of East Street and lack of visibility splay due to the buildings either side of this access.  It was noted that there was some inconsistency with the advice given by the highways authority in relation to viewing mirrors.

 

Referring to comments made about a previous application at Hollymoor Gardens for a single dwelling and vehicular access, the Enforcement Manager advised that this application had initially been refused, but then allowed on appeal.  At that time, the Planning Inspector addressed the main issue of impact on the highway network in that area and explained why the proposal would not result in an unacceptable impact on the highway and complied with Local Plan policy as not being so severe as to warrant refusal. 

 

The Highways Officer stated that taking into account the outcome of the appeal decision in the vicinity, the low speed  environment, the presence of multiple accesses onto East Street without onsite turning and the likely amount of vehicular trips generated as a result of this scheme, he did not consider that this formed a reason for refusal that would be sustainable on highway grounds on appeal.

 

The Chairman stated that the majority of houses in East Street were built in stone and, whilst the new dwellings would not be totally stone faced, they would be outside the DDB, at odds with the majority of houses in this street and were not affordable housing. Recent homes built in East Street had a much wider access and were entirely stone faced.  He therefore also had severe concerns in relation to materials as well as access that had been described by officers as "sandwiched".

 

The Enforcement Manager explained that the term "sandwiched" had been used to describe the position of the access between 2 gable walls that provided no visibility splay whatsoever.  This would mean that vehicles would need to come out of the access at very low speeds as indicated by the Planning Inspector for a development on Portland, also referred to in the report. In terms of the materials, a condition could be included that the properties shall all be stone in accordance with details to be submitted and approved. 

 

The Vice-Chairman remained concerned about the narrowness of the street and lack of pavements, despite comments made by the Highways Officer and that this development could add to the problem.

 

Cllr Susan Cocking raised further concern with the comparison made with the application on Portland as parking implications were a significant issue on Portland and that the access for this proposal was onto a narrow street with parked cars which was dangerous. 

 

The Chairman highlighted that the proposal was outside the DDB and the Local Plan and Neighbourhood Plan and would affect residential amenity, and that the Committee could refuse the application on highways grounds.

 

The Solicitor advised that the Committee should have regard to previous appeal decisions if minded to refuse this application.  However, if members considered that there were differences in circumstances that meant that members could differentiate on highways grounds from previous appeal decisions then this would be appropriate, provided that the reasons were drafted comprehensively and reasonably.  However, there remained a possibility that the Council could face costs on appeal. 

 

Cllr Sarah Williams agreed that the access was dangerous, onto a narrow street with no pavements, parked cars and an access point opposite leading to more homes.  She did not view this access as being suitable for this number of houses and potential number of cars given that the road was heavily used by pedestrians walking into the centre of Beaminster.

 

Cllr Susan Cocking proposed that the application be refused under paragraph 109 of the NPPF due to the unacceptable impact on highway safety. This was seconded by Cllr Sarah Williams.

 

The meeting adjourned from 11:18 -11:33am in order that officers could draft the reasons for refusal based on the highways concerns raised by members.

 

The meeting reconvened and the Chairman wished to consider some further reasons for refusal.  The Solicitor advised that any additional reasons for refusal should be agreed by the proposer and seconder of the motion to refuse the application.

 

Some additional reasons for refusal were debated, including materials, the lack of affordable housing and that the site was outside the DDB and not in the Local Plan.

 

The Area Manager - Western and Southern read out the reasons for refusal on highways grounds.

 

The meeting was adjourned for a further period from 11.42am to 11.50am in order that officers could draft the further reasons for refusal.

 

The following reasons for refusal were shared by way of a presentation slide for the benefit of members of the Committee and the public.

 

1.            The application site is outside of the defined development boundary for Beaminster and the proposal is not for affordable housing and as such it does not form an exception site. As such the proposed development is contrary to Policy SUS2 of the West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland Local Plan (2015) which seeks to strictly control development outside defined development boundaries. The benefits of the proposal (the addition of a net increase in 4 dwellings to the housing supply) would not outweigh the harm in permitting a development outside the defined development boundary in the planning balance.

 

2.            The proposed development will generate further traffic and pedestrian movements along East Street, a County highway with variable and limited carriageway and footway widths. Furthermore the vehicular access to the site is narrow and lacking any visibility splays. In the absence of the construction of, or programme for, a detailed improvement scheme designed to provide suitable and appropriate traffic management and safety enhancements for this street or to improve the width and visibility splays of the access, this development would be likely to cause danger and inconvenience to all highway users resulting in a severe impact on highway safety. Hence the scheme would be contrary to policy COM7 of the West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland Local Plan (2015) and Para 109 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2019).

 

3.            In the absence of a S106 agreement to secure a financial contribution to off-site ecological mitigation it is considered that the proposed development would result in the unacceptable loss of semi-improved grassland in which are present Dorset Notable species and as such the development would adversely impact on biodiversity contrary to Policy ENV2 of the West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland Local Plan (2015), Dorset Biodiversity Compensation Framework and paragraph 170 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2019) (NPPF) and as such the refusal of the planning application accords with paragraph 175 of the NPPF.

 

The proposer and seconder of the motion to refuse the application confirmed that they were content with the reasons as set out.

 

Proposed by Cllr Susan Cocking, seconded by Cllr Sarah Williams.

 

Decision: That the application be refused for the reasons outlined in the appendix to these minutes.