Agenda item

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on an application for demolition of existing house and erection of 4 detached houses

(report attached)

  Plans, drawings and photographs were displayed at the meeting.  A Members site visit had taken place earlier in the day

  Officers presented the report in respect of an application for the demolition of an existing dwelling and the erection of four detached dwellings at Paddock Cottage 7 The Moorlands, Boston Spa, which was located within a Conservation Area

  A correction to the report before Panel was made in respect of paragraph 1.2 of the submitted report, which should have read ‘that the design of the house would not be harmful to the conservation area and that none of the category A trees would be harmed’.

  Details of the east and west access arrangements; which dwellings currently utilised which access and how the proposed new dwellings would access and egress the site were provided

  Design revisions to the houses were outlined, with Members being informed that the houses would be substantial dwellings, constructed out of natural coursed stone, with flat roof dormers and better detailing than the previous proposals.  The garages had also been reduced in scale and were of a more acceptable scale in relation to the dwellings

  Although many aspects of the scheme were acceptable to Officers, the application was being recommended for refusal based upon highway concerns through sub-standard access visibility on to High Street.  It was brought to Members’ attention that an existing wall would be removed to marginally improve visibility, however Officers concerns remained

  The Panel heard representations on behalf of the applicant who provided information which included:

·  the increase in the use of the eastern access arising from the proposals, which would be one net user and not an increase from two to five dwellings as set out in the report

·  the guidance used by the Council to assess the highway aspects of the application

·  details of improvements to the eastern access

·  the lack of accidents at the junction within the last five years

The Panel heard representations from two members of the local

community, one who represented the Parish Council and who provided information which included:

·  the number of properties which would use the east and west access and highways concerns

·  the level of public opposition to the proposals

·  speed checks carried out by the police

·  that the site could be accessed from the adjacent Churchfields site

·  access not in accordance with the Street Design Guide

·  the impact of the proposals on emergency vehicular access and refuse servicing

Members commented on the application, with the main issues being

raised relating to:

·  the number of users and traffic that would use the east and west access points

·  inconsistency of approach to applications, with an application for five dwellings at 134-140 High Street Boston Spa being cited, which was granted.  The differences between the two applications were outlined to Panel by the Highways Officer, with it being explained that at 134-140 High Street the five dwellings replaced several commercial units which could generate more traffic than the five dwellings, which was subsequently accepted by the Inspector

·  the relevant design standards that should be used.  The Highways Officer clarified that whatever design standard was used, including the Street Design Guide, the access visibility was considered to be severely substandard

·  the impact on visibility of the removal of the wall.  The Panel’s Highways Officer accepted that this would improve visibility but only marginally and the visibility would remain severely substandard and the partial widening of the drive and passing places would be required regardless of the visibility issue

·  impact of the proposals on trees

A detailed discussion on the highways issues took place with concerns

being raised that the applicant had not demonstrated that road safety issues had been addressed and the counter view being put that a highways solution could be found to make the development acceptable

  The possibility of the application being granted on appeal was raised by a Member, with the Panel’s Highways Officer stating that the recommendation to refuse the application would not have been brought to Panel if it could not be defended, and highlighted a relevant Inspector’s decision in close proximity which was successfully defended despite having better visibility than the eastern access

  The Panel considered how to proceed

  RESOLVED -  That the Officer’s recommendation to refuse the application be not accepted and that a further report be submitted to the next meeting setting out possible conditions, including a traffic management scheme to be attached to an approval, for Panel’s determination