Erection of a detached three bedroom bungalow.

Erection of a detached three bedroom bungalow.

The Principal Planning Officer reported that recommended condition 10 and informative note 2, regarding foul water drainage, should be combined.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr. I. Quayle spoke in objection to the application.

Councillor Mrs. J.E. Pemberton, the Local Ward Member, questioned whether advice given in correspondence in February, 2005 that tandem development could result in ‘unacceptable loss of amenity’ was still relevant.  In response, the Principal Planning Officer advised that the issue was still relevant but the scheme withdrawn in 2005 was different in that it was an outline planning application with limited details; whereas this proposal was a full application with detailed plans.  The Development Control Manager highlighted the potential drawbacks of tandem development and how these could be mitigated.

In response to a question, the Principal Planning Officer briefly explained the planning history of the site.

Councillor Mrs. Pemberton outlined the difficulties associated with the unmade access track.  The Principal Planning Officer noted that the Traffic Manager had not raised any objections and it was felt that there was sufficient parking and turning space.

A number of Members noted the objectors’ concerns about the foul drainage system and the potential impact on amenity.  In response, the Principal Planning Officer advised that the drainage method to be used had yet to be determined and commented that the applicant intended to use a cesspool system only if all other options had been exhausted.

Concerns were expressed that commercial waste removal tankers, and other vehicles, would have difficulty reaching the site given the condition of the access lane and the limited parking and turning areas available.  Furthermore, it was felt that the ‘fall-back’ position of a cesspool system was undesirable and it was noted that such a system would be contrary to Unitary Development Plan policy CF2.  Some Members commented that the development also represented an unacceptable form of backland development.

The Principal Planning Officer advised that the number of parking spaces could be protected through a condition.  He emphasised that the cesspool system was the least favoured option.  He commented that the consultant’s report, commissioned by the applicant, suggested that a larger storage tank could be installed in order to reduce the number of visits made by waste removal tankers.

The Development Control Manager noted that the three options to the Sub-Committee were to accept the application, defer the application to ascertain which method of drainage was feasible, or refuse the application on the grounds of the concerns raised.  He noted that there was no objection from the Traffic Manager but the Sub-Committee might consider that there was a judgement to be made on the functional need for a particular form of access.

Given the comments of other Members, Councillor Mrs. Pemberton felt that the application could not be supported on the information provided and, therefore, proposed that the application be refused on the grounds that the drainage and functional access arrangements were unacceptable.

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.  Unacceptable proposal for foul water drainage.

2.  Insufficient vehicular access for commercial waste removal tankers.

(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 the above resolution, the Development Control Manager advised that the application would not be referred to the Head of Planning Services.]