Outline planning application for 9 proposed dwellings with all matters reserved except access and layout.

The application was refused contrary to the Case Officer’s recommendation.

(Outline planning application for 9 proposed dwellings with all matters reserved except access and layout.)

The Principal Planning Officer (PPO) gave a presentation on the application, and updates/additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided in the update sheet, as appended to these minutes.

An appeal decision dismissing an appeal against refusal of permission, as referred to at paragraph 3.1 of the report, had been previously circulated as a supplement to the agenda papers.

With reference to a road traffic accident resulting in a death adjoining the site referred to in the update the PPO clarified, in response to a question, that this had occurred in a nearby layby.  He commented that the Highways team had been mindful of this in its assessment alongside the other highway considerations.  One of the mitigation measures proposed was the closure of the layby.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr A Reeves of Linton Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  C Reeve, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor H Bramer, spoke on the application.

He made the following principal comments:

·        He referred to the comments of Gorsley and Kilcot Parish Council, a neighbouring Parish, reiterated in the schedule of updates, quoting its concerns about highway safety (page8/9 of the update paragraphs 6 (“We believe…) to 10 “In June 2014…”).

·        He also referred to the appeal decision dismissing an appeal in relation to a previous application on the site on highway safety grounds and significant harm and impact on the character and appearance of the area.  He quoted paragraphs 16 and 17 of the decision letter in relation to footway widths in the context of highway safety.

·        He could see no reason for supporting the application in view of the objections expressed.

In the Committee’s discussion of the application the following principal points were made:

·        Account should be taken of the dismissal of the appeal in relation to a previous application on highway safety grounds.  The Transportation Manager at paragraph 4.4 of the report did not robustly state that he had no objection.

·        There were significant concerns about pedestrian safety in seeking to access facilities, noting the narrowness of the footways and the road.

·        The proposal should be refused on the grounds that it was contrary to policies SS4 and MT1.

·        Traffic speed was a significant issue.  If approved, a reduction in the speed limit would not be sufficient.  Additional traffic management measures would be needed. 

·        Noting the Planning Inspector’s comments about impact on the character of the area a smaller development might be considered preferable, although this would not address the highway safety concerns.

·        Development of the site would be compliant with policy RA2.  The site was suitable for development if appropriate traffic management measures were taken.  The stretch of road by the site did not have a significant history of traffic accidents.

·        Reference was made to the representations from Linton Parish Council at paragraph 5.1 of the report. It was noted that the minimum Core Strategy target for housing growth in the area was 14%.   This had been exceeded.  Clarification was sought on the Parish Council’s question as to what constituted a limit to incremental growth. The application also raised the issue of housing mix and what mix an area needed to be provided as opposed to what developers argued was viable.

The Lead Development Manager commented that having reached the minimum target one of the considerations in assessing further growth would be the impact on social cohesion.  He did not consider that the proposed growth in this case would have sufficient impact to represent a ground for refusal that would be defendable at an appeal.  A significant number of additional dwellings would have to be involved to meet this test.  The argument in respect of social cohesion had been successfully advanced in relation to development proposals at Bartestree.  Condition 16 would require the proposed housing mix of the development to comply with the Housing Market Assessment. 

The Transportation Manager commented on the 20 year accident history.  Aside from the recent fatality in the layby near the access,  there were some reasonably recent collisions at the staggered crossroads adjacent to the site, and quite a significant cluster at the Roadmaker Inn, quite a few of which predated the installation of a pelican crossing.   He noted that data was not held on the road beyond the county boundary which was at the junction just to the east of the site.  The proposed design aspects of the access would meet all the relevant standards.  The proposed pedestrian crossing facility appeared satisfactory, subject to the detailed design.  The narrowness of the footway on the northern side was of some concern, was like others in the village, but perhaps not ideal for connecting to the school and that might be a consideration.

The Lead Development Manager commented that if the Committee was minded to refuse the application on highway safety grounds they had to have regard to the severity of that impact in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 109 of the NPPF.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He commented that pedestrians would have to use the narrow footpath to access the proposed crossing.  The application would pose a significant danger to road users as well as those entering and leaving the site.

Councillor Greenow proposed and Councillor Guthrie seconded a motion that the application be refused on the grounds that it was contrary to policies SS4 and MT1 and paragraph 109 of the NPPF.  The motion was carried with 9 votes in favour, 2 against and 1 abstention.

RESOLVED:  That planning permission be refused on the grounds that the application was contrary to policies SS4 and MT1 and officers named in the scheme of delegation to officers be authorised to detail the reasons for refusal.