Agenda item

The DMTL-CR introduced the report and noted that the site was subject to a prior planning application for a two-storey dwelling, reference PF/21/771, which was refused by the Development Committee on 11th January 2021. The current design was considered to be an improvement, however the proposed development remained unacceptable in respect of strategic policies SS1, SS2 and SS4. The Highways Authority had objected to the application describing the junction of the B1154 as being severely substandard, particularly with regards to visibility and with no possibility of sustained improvement. It was acknowledged that in receipt of the Highways objection, the applicant and agent had made efforts to improve junction visibility. However, Highways noted that these improvements could not be provided in perpetuity, as the applicant does not own the land subject of the improvements.

Public Speakers

Mo Anderson-Dungar – Clerk, Colby and Banningham Parish Council

Paul Harris (Supporting) 

i.          Cllr J Toye- local Member, expressed his support for the application. He established the primary issues in determining the application were the sustainability and quality of the structure. With reference to sustainability, Cllr J Toye advised that Sanders Coaches ran a regular bus service, which was only a short walk from the proposed dwelling, with Bannigham Village also only a short walk via Weavers Way. He added that the proposed building was sustainable with its reuse of products, recycling, and energy efficiency, and the design was of exceptional quality, reflecting high standards in architecture, significantly enhancing the immediate setting. In reference to the Highways objection, he commented that the dwelling would not make the road any more dangerous, and that there were other junctions to busier roads that were more dangerous.

ii.          Cllr R Kershaw expressed his support for the application. He noted familiarity with the site and affirmed that there had not been, to his knowledge, any road traffic accidents at the junction with Mill Road. He considered the application was one of infill rather than building within the countryside. He praised the applicant’s commitment to improving highways visibility by cutting the hedge at the junction.

iii.         Cllr T Adams spoke in support of the application, and acknowledged representations made by the Local Member and Parish Council, and recognised the application as being sustainable and of good design.

iv.        Cllr N Lloyd endorsed comments raised by Members relating to the environmental considerations, and suggested that developers should be encouraged to produce similar low carbon properties within the District. Additionally, there should be a greater distinction between the use of vehicles dependent on fossil fuels and electric vehicles which would have no impact on sustainability.

v.         Cllr J Rest agreed with representations and noted concerns about the report which advised Mill Road would not be suitable for heavy construction vehicles, given that this would be for a limited time whilst construction was being undertaken.

vi.        Cllr N Pearce noted the Officer’s objections in relation to policies, but stated his support for the arguments made and the application itself.

vii.        The ADP recommended Members consider policies SS1 and SS2 in a robust manner, and that a departure from locational strategies should be the exception. The matter of location sustainability forms part of wider considerations, and neither the current or emerging local plan would consider the location sustainable. With respect to vehicles, the ADP affirmed that car journeys using any type of motorised vehicle are considered to be unsustainable, therefore any location dependent on the use of private cars is unsustainable. He added that planning policies aim to deliver no further burden on greater car use and noted the concerns raised by Highways that hedge cutting could not be delivered in perpetuity. It was suggested that Members may consider it appropriate for the application to be permitted subject to a legal agreement with the adjacent landowners, or the use of alternative Grampian style condition.

viii.       Cllr A Brown acknowledged correspondence received from the agent, and the absence of references to policy SS4 from the prior application, which had been refused. It was clarified that due regard was given to environmental policies during that discussion.

ix.        In response to questions raised by the Chairman on the use of the former railway carriage located on the site, the DMTL-CR affirmed that it had been used as an ancillary overspill accommodation, and or, additional storage and not as a separate permanent dwelling.

Cllr V Holiday stated that weight should be given to the Highways assessment, and the risk of ignoring such guidance. The ADP reminded Members of comments supplied by the Highways Authority at a prior meeting, in which the Highways engineer had advised that accident statistics formed only one aspect of determining highway safety, and they still considered there to be a clear risk at the junction.

x.         The Chairman noted that there was no proposer or seconder for the Officer’s recommendation. The PL advised that within the Constitution, rule 17.5 stated that there was the possibility of Officer’s reports being taken as both proposed and seconded at the Chairman’s discretion, which was granted.

VOTE WAS LOST by 7 votes against, 4 votes in favour.

Cllr R Kershaw proposed acceptance of the application in fulfilling policy EN4. The MPM noted that the Officers report considered the application a departure from policy EN4. Cllr R Kershaw revised his proposal and proposed acceptance of the application in conforming to paragraph 79 and 80 of the NNDC Policy guide. Cllr A Varley seconded the proposal.

xi.        Cllr N Pearce stated the application should be considered a redevelopment due to the presence of existing buildings on the site. He added that the risk at the junction with Mill Road would not be significant, as the site had already been in use, and was only one proposed development.

In response to comments from the Chairman, the ADP noted that conditions made regarding the departure from planning policy be important. He added that it was important Members consider the reasons for the departure from Highways advise, and whether a unilateral agreement, or section 106 maybe a consideration, to aid with the betterment in the treatment of the junction. Cllr R Kershaw supported comments made by the ADP, and endorsed the use of a unilateral agreement to secure the improvements to in perpetuity to the junction.

RESOLVED by 7 votes for, 4 against.

That Application PF/21/2507 be approved subject to conditions relating to highways safety.

**At the discretion of the Chairman a 15 minute break was taken. The meeting reconvened 11.15am.**