Meeting documents

Proposal: Demolition of cottage and the erection of 2 No. dwellings.

The Planning Officer presented the application and noted the existing dwelling was in a poor state of preservation. He explained that the issue was regarding highway safety, and both the Highway Authority and the SSDC Highways Consultant had recommended refusal due to highway safety concerns.

Mr D Vigar, on behalf of High Ham Parish Council, commented that three versions of the application had been considered by the Parish Council, and he explained briefly why they had supported or rejected each option. The Council had concluded that the current application before members was the best of the three options, and they supported the current proposal.

Mr W Barbour spoke in objection to the application. He noted whilst he had no objection to the principle of two houses being built, he did have huge concerns about the parking arrangements, visibility and width of the road. Traffic exiting the main street, into the lane, barely slowed down and hence he was concerned about safety.

Ms H Lazenby, agent, noted that during the course of the application two similar applications had been put forward. The original application was now before members as the preferred option of the applicants, however the community had highway concerns. The alternative scheme would mitigate these concerns but was not supported locally due to amenity impact on a neighbouring property. The lane had very light traffic, and the proposed development would provide a pavement along the front of the dwellings. She asked that if members felt that highway safety was an issue that application be deferred so that revised proposals could come forward.

Ward member, Councillor Gerard Tucker, commented that the parish supported two applications coming forward, and the varying options had been subject to much deliberation by the Parish Council. The alternative option raised concerns about the proximity to a neighbouring property for maintenance and drainage. He asked members to carefully consider the comments of the Parish Council.

(Having earlier declared a prejudicial interest, Councillor Gerard Tucker left the meeting for the consideration and voting of this application).

During a short discussion, several members commented that highway safety was a concern, there would be very poor visibility when exiting the properties, and felt there could be a better solution regarding parking for the proposed dwellings.

In response to a question about the possibility of deferring the application, the Area Lead advised that a decision should be made on the application as currently before members. The applicant would be able to submit a fresh application for a revised scheme.

At the end of debate, it was proposed to refuse the application, as per the officer recommendation. On being put to the vote the proposal was carried 6 in favour of refusal, 1 against and 2 abstentions.

(Voting: 6 in favour of refusal, 1 against, 2 abstentions)