Agenda item

The report of the Chief Planning Officer sets out an application for realignment of the existing stone wall to facilitate vehicle and pedestrian improvements to Bramham Road. Erection of two outbuildings. Replacement of an existing timber fence with a new stone boundary wall and gate pillars. Replacement of an existing single storey extension to Corner Cottage. Change of use of land to parking, with associated hardstanding/landscaping at Corner Cottage, 2 High Street, Clifford, Wetherby, LS23 6JF

The report of the Chief Planning Officer returned this application to North and East Plans Panel following a deferral for further consultation with residents, local Ward Councillors and Clifford Parish Council.

The application had been previously heard at the North and East Plans Panel on 9^th February 2023. The officer recommendation to grant planning permission subject to conditions as detailed (with amendments to conditions as deemed appropriate) was not accepted by Members and the application was to be revisited and return to the Plans Panel for formal determination.

The previous officer report was attached as Appendix 1 and this report therefore, focused on what has happened since the February meeting and included an assessment of the consultation work carried out and the revised scheme received.

Members were informed of the following points by way of an update on matters since the item was heard at February Panel:

• In relation to further consultation between the applicant and local community groups, a cover letter was submitted on 23rd May 2023 by the agent for the application which detailed the engagement with Clifford Parish Council and the Local History Group as set out at Paragraph 9 of the submitted report.
• The term ‘cobbles’ to ‘stone setts’.  This change in wording was reflected in the conditions proposed, with condition 11 now relating to stone setts sample and specification, rather than cobbles. The ‘Proposed Site Access Plan’ had been amended to indicate the stone setts to the former position of the boundary wall, the threshold of the driveway, and to the pedestrian area between the dwellings at 1-6 The Greyhound. This removed reference to the term ‘cobbles’.
• It was noted that the application had been assessed by the LCC Access Officer, who had made comments in relation to the stone setts proposed as part of the scheme, finding no objection subject to these meeting the relevant building standard.
• The revised plans had also been assessed by LCC Conservation Officer, who provide no objection to the stone setts, subject to specifications of the material being secured via condition, to ensure appropriateness in terms of colour match and material. It was noted that the applicant was amenable to such a condition.
• There had been no changes to the proposed plans in relation to the other elements of the proposed works as detailed within the application description - i.e., to the existing boundary wall, erection of two outbuildings, replacement of existing timber fence with new stone boundary wall and gate pillars, and replacement of an existing single storey extension to Corner Cottage, change of use of land to parking, with associated hardstanding/landscaping.
• Highways had confirmed that there were no recorded accidents in the area. It was the view that the visibility splays would be better.
• 2 further letters of representation had been received since the publishing of the report – from Cllr Lamb the Wetherby Ward Councillor and from Clifford Parish Council. Both were read out to the Panel. It was also noted that the letter from Clifford Parish Council had been sent direct to Panel Members. Clifford History Group endorsed the comments made.
• It was noted that no consensus had been agreed between parties. The LCC Conservation Officer considered that appropriate mitigation in relation to the wall had been taken. Moving the location of the wall would not be detrimental to character.

Site photographs were shown throughout the presentation.

The Panel were advised that there was no public speaking for this item as the application had already been heard previously and the public and the agent had presented their cases. However, the Agent Mr Johnson was available to answer questions from the Panel.

In response to questions from Members, the Panel were provided with the following information:

• It was the view that the wall had to be re-sited as visibility at the access to the application site was already substandard, it would make the development site slightly smaller but would allow it to incorporate the proposed garage and enhance visibility splay.
• The re-siting of the wall had not been undertaken at the request of Highways Officers, but the applicant acting on his own initiative.  The application had therefore been submitted and presented with the proposal to re-site the wall as part of it.
• The pattern and aging characteristics of the wall would not be affected as the cleaning of the stones was not part of the methodology for rebuilding the wall. If it was felt that the pattern and aging characteristics would be adversely affected by cleaning, this would not be done.
• The corner garage would form part of the containment of the scheme.
• It was noted that in the phone call to Cllr Lamb highlighted at Paragraph 11 of the report, that each party had concerns about the wall and no agreement had been reached. It was noted that if the wall was to remain as it is the visibility splay would be made worse, and the agent was of the view that the development could not move on, and a different scheme would be required.
• The Highways Officer confirmed that the application as presented had raised no objections from Highways. However, if the wall was not removed and rebuilt further back there would be concerns as the visibility splay would be worse and the closing of the other access would intensify access at this point. It was the view of the officer that moving the wall back would improve visibility by approximately 50%.

At this point in the proceedings Members of Panel requested that Cllr Lamb and the representative of Clifford Parish Council be asked to the table, so questions could be put to them. Utilising his discretion, the Chair agreed that questions could be put to Cllr Lamb and the Parish Council representative.

In response to questions from the Members the Panel were provided with the following information:

• Cllr Lamb said it was a matter of planning balance. It was his view that overall, the scheme was a good one. However, the wall should not be moved as this could be harmful to the character of the area.
• The representative of the Clifford Parish Council was also of a similar view saying that the wall had been shown on historic maps for 200 years and currently mirrors the wall on the opposite side of the road. He had concerns that with the proposal to block the use of the access to the High Street would increase traffic using the access onto Bramham Road. He set out that the use of the Bramham Road access had caused problems for local road users.
• It was noted that discussions had taken place with the Local Ward Members and the Parish Council.
• The Highways Officer clarified that if the wall was not moved back then Highways would be minded to raise an objection. Although, there were no recorded accidents, it did not mean that there had not been any near misses.

The Planning Officer, Area Team Leader, reminded Members that decision-making in planning is about balance and a judgment has to be made. If Members felt that there would be harm to the character of the area and conservation concerns regarding the re-siting of the wall, this had to be balanced by the benefits of the proposal, overall acceptability of the scheme, and Highways considerations noted.

RESOLVED – To grant planning permission subject to the conditions set out in the officer report (with amendments or additions to the same as deemed appropriate).