Variation of condition 20 of planning permission DCSE2008/0095/F regarding roundabout junction delivery.

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

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application and updates / additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided in the update sheet. He advised Members that 2 of the conditions had been reworded and that full details of the amendments were contained within the update sheet.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor PGH Cutter, the Chairman speaking in his capacity of local ward member, commented on a number of issues, including:

·         The application relating to the housing development had previously been considered by the Southern Area Planning Committee.

·         The Members of the Committee were very clear at that time that they were happy to grant permission as long as the roundabout was in place first.

·         Access to the site was the main issue due to the high speed of traffic along the highway.

·         The residents of Chatsworth Close were concerned about the proposed access for construction traffic.

·         Persimmon Homes had recently recorded profits of £148,000,000 so cost should not be the primary issue.

·         The roundabout was a small cost but would protect the amenity of the nearby residents.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor AM Atkinson, the other local ward member, commented on a number of issues, including:

·         The other local ward member’s comments were echoed.

·         Initially the application had seemed reasonable.

·         Traffic travelled at high speeds and therefore safety was a concern.

·         HGV vehicles would have great difficulty entering the site through the proposed access.

·         The proposed access was too close to the neighbouring dwellings and would affect their amenity.

The Committee discussed the application and voiced their concerns in respect of it. They felt that the impact on the residents of Chatsworth Close was unacceptable. They also had concerns in respect of issues of highway safety due to vehicles entering the site onto from a fast flowing road.

Regarding the highways issues, Members were of the opinion that it was unreasonable to expect HGV vehicles to pass the entrance of the site before being forced to use the roundabout at the bottom of the road before entering the site from a southern location. It was further noted that HGV vehicles would find it difficult to manoeuvre the roundabout. Members felt that this condition would be extremely difficult to enforce or police.

The Development Manager (Hereford and Southern Localities) advised Members that the possible loss of amenity to the neighbouring residents appeared to be a reasonable and sound reason for refusing the application however he had concerns in respect of refusing the application on highway grounds due to neither the Traffic Manager or Highways Agency objection to the application.

Following the advice the Member who had moved the original motion amended it to remove the reason for refusal relating to highway concerns.

Members continued to discuss the impact the application would have on the neighbouring residents, it was noted that the proposed hoardings looked inadequate and would offer little reduction in noise from the site. The issue of the show home was also raised with Members questioning how visitors to the show home would enter the site if the proposed access was solely for construction vehicles.

In response to a question, The Locum Lawyer (Planning and Regulatory) advised the Committee that if two reasons for refusal were included the Council would have to defend both reasons at any appeal. If the inspector felt that there was insufficient technical evidence in respect of the second reason for refusal, the applicant could be awarded their costs of appealing on that one ground.

The Democratic Services Officer offered guidance to the Committee in terms of the constitutional issues regarding motions. He made particular reference to paragraph 4.1.16.12 of the Council’s Constitution regarding relevant amendments to motions.

Following the guidance an amendment to the motion was made which added a second reason for refusal based on highway grounds, as well as the original reason which related to the loss of amenity to the neighbouring residents.

Councillors PGH Cutter and AM Atkinson, the Local Ward Members, were given the opportunity to close the debate. They reiterated their opening remarks and respectfully requested that the application be refused.

A vote on the motion to refuse the application on highway grounds as well as the loss of amenity to the neighbouring residents was lost. The Committee therefore voted on the substantive motion based solely on the loss of amenity to the neighbouring residents which was carried.

RESOLVED

THAT planning permission be refused for the following reason:

1.         The granting of the application would result in a loss of amenity to neighbouring residents.