Agenda item

Report No: DEV/FH/16/001

1½ storey detached dwelling

1 ½ storey detached dwelling.

This application was referred to the Delegation Panel at the request of Ward Member Councillor Simon Cole, following which the Delegation Panel resolved to bring it before the Development Control Committee for determination.

Exning Parish Council raised no objection to the application but four letters of objection had been received from neighbours.

A Member site visit was held prior to the meeting and Officers were recommending that the application be refused as set out in Paragraphs 23 – 25 of Report No DEV/FH/16/001.

Since the publication of the agenda comments had been received from the Council’s Tree, Landscape and Ecology Officer and the Principal Planning Officer verbally reported these to the Committee.  In summary, the Tree, Landscape and Ecology Officer raised concern at the loss of four prominent, mature trees as a result of the new dwelling and the affect this would have on the local amenity.

The Principal Planning Officer also drew attention to the objection received from the Highways Authority on grounds of unsafe access onto the highway. 

In summary, Officers considered the application to be an inappropriate, cramped form of development and were recommending that it be refused.

Councillor Simon Cole then spoke on the application, as Ward Member for Exning, and supported the application.  He drew attention to the other access points close to the development which he considered, in comparison, to be less safe than that which was before the Committee for determination. 

Councillor Cole proposed that the Committee be minded to approve the application, contrary to the Officer recommendation, and this was duly seconded by Councillor Andrew Appleby.

The Service Manager (Planning - Development) confirmed that if Members were minded to approve the application, contrary to the Officer recommendation, then it would be deferred to the next meeting of the Committee in order to allow Officers to produce a risk assessment, due to there having been a technical objection to the application from the Highways Authority.

Upon the motion for approval being put to the vote, and with 3 voting for and 10 against, the Chairman declared the motion lost.

Councillor Carol Lynch then proposed that the application be refused, as per the Officer recommendation, and this was duly seconded by Councillor Brian Harvey and with 10 voting for the motion and with 3 abstentions, it was resolved that:

Planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1.       The residential dwelling proposed represents an inappropriate cramped and contrived form of development, which fails to respect the character and appearance of the locality where adjacent dwellings are sited within relatively spacious plots. The resulting dwelling would be out of keeping with the established pattern of development. As such, the erection of a new dwelling in this position conflicts with the provisions of policy CS5 of the Core Strategy, DM22 of the Forest Heath and St Edmundsbury Local Plan Joint Development Management Policies Document February (2015) and the National Planning Policy Framework which seek to create a high quality environment.

2.       Paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requires decisions to take account of safe and suitable access to the site being achieved for all. The access onto The Highlands near to the junction with Windmill Hill is considered unsafe due to the close proximity of this access to the junction. The visibility of approximately 19 metres of the proposed new access to the junction with Windmill Hill is well below the visibility splay of 43 metres required as per the  Manual for Streets recommendation.  In addition vehicles exiting the current access for  No 2 the Highlands would potentially have their view obscured by vehicle(s) exiting the new access, thereby reducing inter-visibility with other road users. The failure of the proposal to provide a safe and secure access for this proposed dwelling will lead consequentially to increased adverse issues of highway safety, contrary to the requirements of Para. 32 of the NPPF.