Meeting documents

Application Proposal: The erection of 3 no. dwellings along with associated access and parking

The Area Lead (South) presented the report to members using the aid of a PowerPoint presentation. Using PowerPoint slides he provided images of the site and adjoining highway as well as proposed plans as submitted.

He explained that the application was for 3 x two-storey dwellings in the former garden of 50 and 52 Ash Walk. He advised that parking spaces and a turning area had been included within the scheme and that as part of the proposal, the existing pavement would be widened.

He clarified the proposed planning conditions in detail.

He advised members that concern over the access had been raised from several neighbouring residents, however pointed out that the SCC Highways Team had referred only to standing advice and that the SSDC Highways Consultant was now satisfied that an appropriate means of access could be achieved.

Photographs submitted by Mr I O’Donnell, an objector, showing the high level of traffic on the road were presented to members. 

Mr S Cullum, the Vice-Chairman of Henstridge Parish Council addressed the Committee. He explained that the application brings no local benefit and is over-development of the site. He also felt that the design and appearance, in an important focal-point of the village, was inappropriate.

Mr M Player, also representing the Parish Council, addressed members. He explained that the Parish Council had unanimously agreed to recommend that the planning application be refused and agreed that the application was not appropriate and was over-development on the site. He commented that the access would be dangerous to vehicles and pedestrians and explained that in some occurrences, Community Speedwatch had recorded speeds on this stretch of road as high as 50mph. He further commented that a planning inspector had previously refused a planning application on the site over the road, as the access to the site would be dangerous and was too close to the junction.

Mrs J Bates and Mr J Watson spoke in objection to the application. Their comments included;

·         Photographs included on the PowerPoint presentation were mis-leading.

·         The application is over-development of the site.

·         Too few parking spaces included within the application.

·         Concerns that the applicant will leave the site as an eyesore should permission be refused.

·         It is already difficult gaining access to the site next door due to cars queuing at the traffic lights. Should the application be approved, new residents would have the same problem.

·         There is no local benefit

·         Questioned the risk assessment which had been carried out by the SSDC Highways Consultant. No such assessment has been published.

·         Houses on the opposite side of the road will be overshadowed.

Councillor William Wallace, Ward Member, explained that he was disappointed that the SSDC Highway Consultant felt that the access would be suitable. He explained that with his local knowledge, that this was a very busy road with huge amounts of traffic. He commented that the photos of the road, in which the traffic was very light, was unusual. He further commented that the proposal was not in-keeping with the surrounding area and would be over-development of the site.

Councillor Hayward Burt, also Ward Member, did not support this application. He suggested that the access would be unsafe and that the application was unnecessary. He explained that the application did not meet the objectives of a number of SSDC Local Plan policies. He also commented that the high number of conditions proposed reflected the concerns which he had over the site.

He further stated there were too few parking spaces, none of the properties proposed were affordable homes and that he was disappointed that the hedgerow had already been removed.

Councillor William Wallace asked for clarification over whether there had been a risk assessment carried out and whether this document was available. The Area Lead advised that there was no compulsory requirement under planning legislation for this document to be provided, however all documents in relation to the application were available on the website. He also pointed out that the SSDC Highway Consultant had relevant local knowledge of the area.

During the discussion, members discussed the use of painted road markings to keep the access area clear as they felt that this could alleviate some of the problems. The Legal Services advised that road markings would be the responsibility of SCC.

Members also discussed a site opposite, on the same stretch of road, which they understood to have been refused planning consent over highway concerns. The Development Control Manager advised that the planning application on the opposite site of the road, formally known as Precision Clutch Centre, was a much larger site and that permission had been sought for 12 dwellings and 3 industrial units, which was a much higher number of dwellings proposed.

Following the discussion, it was proposed and seconded that the planning application should be deferred for a transport report to be produced by the SSDC Highway Consultant and to re-considered at the November meeting of the Committee. 

On being put to the vote, this was carried 8 votes in favour with 3 votes against.

RESOLVED:  that planning application 17/02712/FUL be deferred for a transport report to be produced by the SSDC Highways Consultant and for the application to be reconsidered at the November Committee.

(voting: 8 votes in favour, with 3 against)