Agenda item

To consider a report by the Head of Planning.

Cllr Hall declared an interest in this application – predetermination

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the application to erect 10no. dwellings with associated amenity, landscaping and infrastructure including widening of the access road.

 

Key Planning issues were highlighted:-

• Principle of Development
• Affordable Housing
• Highways Safety; and
• Residential Amenity

 

There had been no objections from highways as any issues that had been raised had been addressed with a condition

 

Members’ attention was drawn to the update sheet which included a slight amendment to condition 11 to allow more flexibility in the scheme for a pedestrian dropped kerb.

 

Local Member for Sherborne

Cllr Matt Hall

As an elected councillor for this area and a local resident he was very aware of the site.  He supported building on this site and the types and numbers of dwellings.  However, he did not support the application as by the side of Littlefield there was a long trail of vehicles that parked there regularly. He felt the road was effectively a blindspot and failed to see how the access was safe. He was struggling to see how large lorries would be able to access the site. He felt that the widening of the access road was a misnomer as it was not that part of the road that was the issue. With reference to the pedestrian access he felt this could have been widened.  In his view the lack of a traffic management plan was unbelievable and should be added as a condition. He felt the 10 houses would feel imprisoned rather than part of the community and urged members to refuse.

 

In response to the highways issues raised by Cllr Hall, the Highways Engineer advised that Littlefield was not an unusual road in Dorset and visibility was acceptable and it was in a low speed environment. There were footways either side of the roadways and room for 2 vehicles to pass. He did not feel there were reasons to refuse on highways terms.

 

Members comments and questions

Cllr Taylor felt the houses would be very overlooked.

 

Cllr Andrews made reference to the access road into Littlefield and felt the issues occurred outside of working hours.  Nos 9 and 10 in the development were a 2 storey building which overlooked the gardens of 2 bungalows and he felt this would overshadow them. The Senior Planning Officer highlighted that there were only 2 small windows that would overlook the bungalows and they would have obscured glazing, one would also be fitted with a restrictor. She did not feel this would be a significant impact on those properties.

 

Cllr Fry asked if access via Noake Road had been considered.  The Chairman reminded the councillor that the application being considered was the one before them.  Cllr Fry was concerned with the proposed access in respect of emergency vehicles and refuse lorries being able to access the site.  The Highways Engineer advised there was sufficient width and would be dealt with via building regulations.

 

In response to a question about space standards, the Senior Planning Officer confirmed that all dwellings met the minimum required space standards. It was also confirmed that the energy efficiency rating of the proposed properties sat outside the planning process.

 

Cllr Heatley considered whether a condition could be included around traffic management plan as he was concerned about lorries during the construction period.  The Senior Planning Officer felt this was not necessary in this instance to make the scheme acceptable.

 

Cllr Andrews made reference to the fact that in the past the site was a garage site and emergency vehicles could not get through.  He was concerned about this going ahead with this access and proposed refusal.

 

Cllr Fry suggested deferring the decision to ask planning officers to visit the site outside of working hours and to speak with the applicant to try and find a solution with regards to the access.  The parking Manager was concerned members were trying to solve wider parking issues on a scheme for 10 dwellings.  The Application was acceptable in highways terms and therefore felt it would be difficult to try and look at something that could impact on other highways.  The issues around access would be dealt with through building regulations and would be covered by separate legislation.

 

The Area Lead Planning Officer felt the focus was more of amenity concerns in respect of inappropriate and inconsiderate parking.

.

In terms of the NPFF, and with particular consideration to paragraph 109, highway safety and the residual cumulative impacts on the surrounding road network are material considerations. The Transport Liaison Development Manager highlighted that the issue with existing indiscriminate parking causing obstruction was a Police issue to enforce and control and that emergency vehicles should be able to get access the site.  There is sufficient parking for this site which conforms with the Authority’s guidance .  He advised that, in his opinion, there are no sustainable highway reasons for refusal and that there are no highways cumulative impact issues

 

Following a discussion Cllr Andrews withdrew his proposal to refuse permission.

 

Cllr Jones felt there were no reasons to refuse permission due to inconsiderate parking and proposed the recommendation to grant. Cllr Penfold seconded this proposal.  On being put to the vote this was not carried.

 

Cllr Fry proposed deferring the application for a site visit if possible, and further discussions with the applicant. He added that it would be helpful for officers, the applicant and the developer to meet out of hours to see the issues raised by members. Cllr Taylor seconded this proposal. On being put to the vote this was carried.

 

The Chairman thanked the officers for all the work done so far on this application.

 

Proposed Cllr Les Fry

Seconded Cllr David Taylor

 

Decision

That the application be deferred for a site visit, if possible, and further discussions with the applicant.