Agenda item

To consider the report of the Chief Planning Officer for the division of existing detached house into two dwellings at The Close, Scarsdale Ridge, Bardsey, Leeds.

(Report attached)

The Chief Planning Officer submitted a report which sought permission to subdivide a single dwelling to form two dwellings. The key issue in this case was highway safety and the intensification of use of the junction of Scarsdale Ridge with the A58.

This application was reported to Plans Panel at the request of two Ward Councillors.

The Panel was informed that the applicant wished to split the current dwelling into two self-contained dwellings one for the applicant and one for his son. The site was located in the Green Belt and it was considered that the proposal complied with planning policies and guidance in all other respects.

Members noted that the junction of Scarsdale Ridge with the A58 had limited visibility that falls significantly below local and national standards.  Members were informed that Scarsdale Ridge was an un-adopted road, which was unlit, narrow with passing places and had a 90 degree bend at the top of the road. The road already served around 25 dwellings.

Oliver Beaumont the applicant’s son was present at the meeting and informed the Panel that his parents wished to convert their current dwelling into two dwelling one for themselves and the other for him and his young son.

Mr Beaumont informed Members that the only reason for refusal was the access to the A58. He said that it had not been an issue when previous development of new houses of Scarsdale Ridge had been proposed. He also said that neither neighbours nor the Parish Council had objected to his father’s proposals.

Members noted that at 6.2 of the submitted report the Parish Council had raised no significant issues with the division of the dwelling but had commented that the new dwelling within the green belt could be deemed as an inappropriate form of development.

 Mr Beaumont told the Panel that he currently visited his parents at least once daily and sometimes twice daily, and therefore he could see no difference in the volume of traffic using the junction. Mr Beaumont said that he had not experienced any difficulties accessing the drive.

The Panel heard from the Highways Officer who informed them that the application had been assessed as a typical house within the use class, rather than on the personal circumstances of this particular applicant. A typical dwelling would mean that generally there would be 6 to 8 movements per dwelling per day and therefore the A58 junction would see an increase in trips. He explained that the A58 was very fast with a speed limit of 50mph, that visibility from the access was very substandard and that accidents had been recorded along the A58 in the vicinity of the junction. There were 24 recorded injury accidents since 2000.

Cllr. Cleasby asked to recommend that no further development take place at this location.

The Panel noted that signage used further down to indicate a concealed access would not be effective unless driver behaviour changed.

Members were of the view that they were being distracted from the application by the highways issues and that additional trips had not been demonstrated. Members further commented that the Highway Authority should pursue improvements along the A58 if that is necessary for road safety.

At the conclusion of the discussions, Councillor Wadsworth moved a motion to reject the recommendations as detailed within the submitted report, so that the application be granted. The motion was seconded by Councillor Arif. On being put to the vote, Councillor Wadsworth’s motion was passed, and it was

RESOVLED – That :-

a)  The officer recommendation as detailed within the submitted report be rejected, and as such, the application be granted.

b)  Members approved planning permission be deferred and delegated to the Chief Planning Officer and;

c)  To look at improvements on this road and the reduction of the speed limit.