Removal of Conditions 13 and 16 of Planning Permission DMS/102971/F to remove conditions linking the ancillary use of the restaurant to the hotel

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 two further letters of objection had been received since the update had been produced, these covered issues already previously raised including concerns in respect of the junction onto the B4260, as well as car parking and landscaping concerns. He advised Members that the application had previously been refused by the Planning Committee and the decision upheld at a planning appeal. He gave further details in respect of the appeal outcome, noting that the inspector had been satisfied with the car parking provision and further satisfied that there would be no impact on the neighbours’ amenity as a result of the application. The inspector did however have concern in respect of the junction onto the B4260 and had noted that the traffic generation figures provided dated back to 2005.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Deegan, speaking on behalf of the neighbouring residents, spoke in objection to the application and Mr Eacock, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

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

·         The application had previously been before the Southern Area Planning Sub-Committee and the Planning Committee and had been refused on both occasions.

·         The inspector had upheld the previous decision of the Planning Committee.

·         The current application was identical except for the addition of five parking spaces.

·         The junction onto the B4260 was in close proximity to a busy roundabout and busy 24 hour garage.

·         Even with major improvements to the lane the junction would note be safe for access and egress.

·         The narrow lane was also used to access Wilton Castle.

·         The Parish Council also objected to the application.

·         If the condition was removed it could result in a different type of restaurant than the service currently offered by the Castle Lodge.

The debate was opened with a Member noted that the report did not contain the full figures in respect of the traffic survey. He added that the Traffic Manager’s comments at paragraph 4.2 of the report were noted but requested that the application be deferred for further information. It was further noted that the Traffic Manager’s comments solely related to the car parking provision. However the primary concern was of the access onto the B4260. In summing up it was noted that the concerns raised had not changed since the application was previously refused in January 2011.

Members felt that there was a need to listen to the local residents in respect of Highway concerns. It was felt that the people who lived in the vicinity would know the issues with the access. It was noted that the B4260 had a 40 mph limit, and that vehicles came off the Wilton roundabout at high speeds.

Further reference was made to the issue of visibility from the junction and it was felt that there was a genuine safety concern if the application was granted. One Member of the Committee who had declared a personal interest as he lived near the site echoed these concerns and suggested that the speed limit in the area should be reduced to 30 mph. He added that if double yellow lines were requested on the narrow lane there would have to be a consultation period which could take a significant period of time.

Another Member of the Committee spoke in objection to the application and was of the opinion that it should be refused. It was further noted that the application would result in a negative impact on the amenity of the neighbouring residents and that as previously referred to the access was not safe. Concern was expressed that the traffic manager’s comments in relation to the application had concentrated solely on the car parking aspect.

In response to a question, the Principal Planning Officer advised Members that there had been no breach of conditions on the site as the planning permission had not presently been implemented.

Members discussed the possibility of deferring consideration of the application to await further comments from the traffic manager as well as gathering further technical evidence in respect of the access. The Democratic Services Officer advised Members that they could adjourn the debate for a period of time in accordance with paragraph 4.1.16.24 of the Council’s Constitution.

The Head of Neighbourhood Planning advised the Committee that there had been objections from the Parish Council and the local residents when the application was initially approved in 2006 and that the visibility issues had not changed since that approval. He added that the inspector had been satisfied with the impact on the amenity of the neighbouring residents as well as the parking provision however the inspector had raised concerns in respect of the visibility and noted that the traffic survey had been conducted in 2005. The current application was however accompanied by a more recent traffic survey and had not resulted in an objection from the Highway’s Agency or the Traffic Manager.

Councillor JA Hyde was given the opportunity to close the debate. She reiterated her opening remarks and made additional comments, including:

·         The visibility issues had been raised by local residents and the Parish Council as far back as the initial application in 2006.

·         Nothing had changed since the previous application had been refused.

A motion to defer the determination of the application was lost.

The substantive motion, to refuse the application, was then discussed. In response to a question regarding the reasons for the refusal, the Committee agreed that the concerns raised in January 2011 still remained. It was also requested that an additional reason for refusal be listed as Members were of the opinion that the application was contrary to UDP Policy T8. This motion was moved and seconded and then put to the vote.

RESOLVED

THAT subject to no further objections raising additional planning considerations being raised by the end of the consultation period, the planning permission be refused for the following reason:

1.         The local planning authority considers that conditions 13 and 16 of planning permission SE/102971/F (10 January 2011) continue to serve a useful planning purpose. The removal of these conditions would allow the operation of two separate businesses, with a concomitant increase in traffic upon the adjoining lane and an increased risk of indiscriminate parking upon it. Given the proximity of the site to the strategic road network and the inadequacy of the junction onto the B4260, the local planning authority considers the conditions essential in maintaining both highway safety and the residential amenity of local residents. The application is thus contrary to Policies DR2, DR3 and T8 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007.