Erection of two dwellings.

Erection of two dwellings.

The Principal Planning Officer confirmed that a fatal accident had occurred in 2002 in the vicinity of the junction of the access road with the A438 and that measures had been subsequently taken to improve highway safety; including a 40mph speed limit, slip resistant surface treatment and signs warning of queuing traffic.  He added that the Transportation Manager had raised no objections to the proposal.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr. P. Smith (the applicant’s agent) spoke in support of the application.

Councillor R.I. Matthews, the Local Ward Member, noted the comments of Stretton Sugwas Parish Council and expressed his concerns about the accident record at this junction and the impact of the dwelling on the character of the rural area.  It was noted that, in the Appeal Decision relating to a previous application and attached to the report, the Inspector had concluded that the development of only one unit was acceptable but Councillor Matthews felt that two dwellings would have dramatic effect on the rural setting.  Therefore, he proposed that the application be refused.

The Principal Planning Officer clarified that the Inspector considered the application site to be within the designated settlement and that the character of the plot related well to the remainder of the settlement.  He noted local concerns about highway safety but reiterated that improvements had been made.

A number of Members spoke in support of the Local Ward Member’s views and felt that the proposal would result in a feeling of urbanisation and would not provide a natural transition between the settlement and the countryside.

In response to questions, the Principal Planning Officer highlighted sites where other applications had been refused and advised that he could not confirm whether the Inspector was aware of the entire accident history but he could confirm that the Inspector had visited the site and would have been aware of the characteristics of the area.

The Development Control Manager drew attention to the fact that the Inspector (at paragraph 8 of the Appeal Decision) did not consider that the previous proposal would conflict with policy ‘in that it would not adversely affect the character of the location or encourage undesirable further development to take place having regard to the particular circumstances of the site’.  He noted Members’ concerns about the junction but stressed that the Transportation Manager was satisfied with the proposal.  The Central Team Leader added that it was important to maintain consistency and that the Inspector had effectively discounted a number of potential reasons for refusal.

Councillor Matthews maintained his view that the application should be refused and a number of Members supported this motion.

RESOLVED:

That    (i)    The Central Area Planning Sub-Committee is minded to refuse the application, subject to the reasons for refusal set out below and any further reasons for refusal felt to be necessary by the Head of Planning Services, provided that the Head of Planning Services does not refer the application to the Planning Committee:

1.  Visual intrusion on the edge of the settlement;

2.  Out of keeping with the character of the rural area; and

3.  Urbanisation.

(ii)     If the Head of Planning Services does not refer the application to the Planning Committee, Officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be instructed to refuse the application, subject to such reasons for refusal referred to above.

[Note: Following the vote on this application, the Development Control Manager advised that he would not refer the decision to the Head of Planning Services.]