Meeting documents

Proposal: Section 73A application to vary condition 8 of 11/00059/OUT allowed at appeal 07.10.11, to allow the hatched red on attached plan to be removed from the condition; parking and turning.

The Planning Officer updated members that since the report had been written, a further letter of correspondence from a neighbour had been received, who felt that the parish council comments in the report did not reflect what had been discussed at the parish council meeting.

The application was presented to members, and the Planning Officer explained  the application sought the removal of a turning head. He highlighted the applicant’s case, and advised members that in summary they needed to consider if the turning head was required and enforceable.

Mr S Lovett, objector, noted that his reasons for objecting had been clearly outlined in his consultation response to the application, and were based upon concerns about highway safety. He felt the council would be neglecting their duty of care if the application was approved.

Applicants, Mr and Mrs Fouracres, both addressed members and provided a brief background to the situation. Comments made by them included:

·         The nature of the area was not made clear when purchasing the land and was not shown as such on their deeds or the land registry document.

·         Their property was not part of the private access road

·         Since development has been occupied a variety of vehicles accessed and exited the site, and they were not aware of any problems experienced by delivery vehicles.

·         Parking requirements for the property is for 2 spaces, which is the garage.

·         Emergency services had been consulted and had not raised any issues regarding access

·         The access road was required to be kept clear, and had good visibility onto Stoney Lane which is in a 30mph area.

Agent, Ms C Stephens, noted the whole access into the development is private, and the application sought to remove the turning head from the applicants land. Any conflict with users of Stoney Lane was minimal, and the condition for a turning head was not necessary. The condition referred to a submitted plan at the outline stage, but there was only one plan and the layout indicated was different. She queried if the condition was enforceable, and if it was not practical to enforce, then it was not really valid.

Ward member, Councillor Tiffany Osborne, comments included that the situation seemed to be a civil and planning issue and that all four properties appeared to have been purchased with no indication of a turning head. She noted manoeuvring of vehicles could easily take place within the curtilage of each property. If the area in question was a turning head then the owner effectively would be unable to park on their own land. Refuse bins were left at the end of the road anyway as refuse vehicles would not go up the private drive. The properties had been purchased on the understanding there was no turning head on the development.

During discussion comments raised by members included:

·         Turning head should never have been put there, and should be removed.

·         The turning head was totally untenable

·         Duplicate letters of objection had been generically reproduced

·         Feel more a civil matter than planning, but question why the issue had not been noticed during conveyancing.

·         Feel there are some issues regarding highway safety.

·         If kept as a turning head, in theory someone else other than the land owner could park in the space and so block access to the property.

In response to comments made by members, the Locum Planning Solicitor advised members that ownership of the turning head was not a material consideration and should not be taken into account in reaching the decision, and any decision should be based upon highway issues and enforceability.

It was proposed to approve the application, contrary to the officer recommendation, as it was considered the proposal would not have a significant impact on road safety. On being put to the vote the proposal was carried 7 in favour, 3 against, with 1 abstention. (Councillor Adam Dance was unable to vote as he had arrived late to the meeting and missed the officer presentation).

(Voting: 7 in favour, 3 against, with 1 abstention)