Site for erection of nine houses and associated development.

The Committee deferred consideration of the application to a future meeting.

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, as appended to these Minutes.  She noted that if the Committee had concerns about visibility at the access, as indicated at the site visit, a condition could be imposed providing for this matter to be resolved in consultation with the local ward member.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr P Burridge, Vice-Chairman of Credenhill Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr C Lewis, a resident, spoke in objection.  Mr A Murphy, the Applicant’s agent spoke in support.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor RI Matthews, the local ward member, spoke on the application.

He commented on a number of issues including:

·         The access was unsuitable.  Permission had previously been granted for an agricultural access only, subject to conditions.  There were 7 entrances on that stretch of the A480 and the traffic was heavy with almost 6,000 vehicles recorded over a 24 hour period.  There was a busy pedestrian crossing.  The location of the bus stop was also very dangerous.  Drivers did not have a good view.  There was a sharp drop and a sharp bend.  Road safety in this location was a longstanding concern with representations having been made by the Parish Council over a number of years for a bus pull in place and signage.

·         He referred to an e-mail from a Council engineer which he said described the access as sensitive and indicated that development of the site would add to an existing problem.

·         No one was totally opposed to development although there would be a loss of privacy and an impact on the existing listed buildings.

·         The Heads of Terms appended to the report had not been discussed with him as local ward member or with the Parish Council

·         He had written confirmation that a landowner would be prepared to sell land for a bus layby.

·         He urged that the application be refused or deferred for further consideration of the highway safety issues.

The debate opened and the following principal points were made:

·         It was proposed that consideration of the application should be deferred to permit further consideration of a solution to the concerns about the safety of the access to the site.  The local ward member and the Parish Council should be involved in these discussions.

·         The Committee needed to be mindful of how a Planning Inspector would view the application if the Committee refused permission and an appeal was lodged.  With regard to the access the Transportation Manager had stated that standard visibility was to be provided in accordance with the Manual for Streets.  It also could not be argued that the development was an over intensification.  There were developments in the vicinity that were of a higher intensification.

·         The report stated that the five year Personal Injury Accident history recorded that there had been only one injury accident at the location.  It was asked why the local experience, as presented to the Committee, that there had been a number of accidents, was so at odds with the official record. In reply the Development Manager stated that the local accounts were not being dismissed but unfortunately for some reason the official record differed and this created a difficulty.  It was suggested that local incidents may not have been reported accounting for the discrepancy.

·         The boundary wall fronting the A480 was characteristic of the County and should be retained, or rebuilt further back from the road.

·         Clarification was sought on the assessment of the site in the context of the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment.  The Development Manager commented that in strategic terms the site was considered to have high constraints, given the access issues and the heritage impact.  However, this did not preclude consideration of development of the site.  Officers considered the development acceptable having weighed in the balance whether the development was significantly or demonstrably harmful against the presumption in the National Policy Planning Framework in favour of sustainable development.

·         The Development Manager confirmed that if the Committee were to defer consideration of the application the applicant would have grounds to appeal on the basis of non-determination.  He emphasised that it was fundamental that in considering the application the Committee could only consider relatively minor changes within the area outlined in the application.  It could not stray into discussion of the scope for negotiations with another landowner outsider the application site.  That would necessitate a different application.

·         Proposals both for accepting the recommendation and refusing the application were made but not seconded.

·         A number of members expressed concern about road safety and were of the view that there was scope for an improved solution. 

·         It was suggested that further information and reassurance was needed in response to the concerns expressed in the letters of objection about a lack of sewerage capacity. 

The Principal Planning Officer commented that one of the reasons the application had taken time to process was the detailed discussion that had already taken place on highway safety issues.  Paragraph 32 of the NPPF stated that, “Development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe.”  Officers did not consider that the impact of the scheme was severe or represented significant and demonstrable harm.

The Legal Officer reiterated the comments of the Officers in relation to policy considerations and the possibility of an appeal.  A lot of discussion had clearly already taken place on the application and there must be a question over how much would be gained by further discussion.  If the Committee were minded to refuse the application reasons would need to be advanced with evidence in support.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He reiterated that the highway safety issues were of great concern but he believed there was scope for further discussion.

RESOLVED:  That consideration of the application be deferred to a future meeting to allow for further information to be provided.