Agenda item

Erection of new dwelling.  Report by the Senior Planning Officer (attached).

The Committee considered a report by the Senior Planning Officer (RB) regarding planning application 77944 (circulated previously).

Kate Nolan (objector) and Graham Townsend (agent) addressed the Committee.

The Highways Officer (PY), Devon County Council Highways Authority addressed the Committee.  He advised the following:

·       The Highways Authority had raised significant objections to the application.

·       As a Highways Authority, it could not prioritise improvements to smaller junctions and access over other priorities.

·       The visibility of the access onto the classified highway A377 was restricted by third party boundary walls, with it being 7m and 11m each way.  This was below the standard for visibility.

·       The applicant’s proposal to marking the junction into the carriageway did not make the access safe.

·       The reduction in the width of the A377 to such an extent would force vehicles to go over the double white lines which was illegal.

·       It was not condoned for a vehicle to have to give way to another vehicle on the A377 when using the junction.

·       The access road was a private road and there was no likelihood that this road would become adopted in the future.  This would give rise to potential neighbourhood disputes in the future.  The responsibility of maintenance of this road would remain with the occupiers.  Further development of this site would exasperate the current issues.

·       The private access road was only suitable for 3 dwellings and any further development would not result in the access road being adopted.

·       There was no scope to make improvements to the access on to the A377.

In response to questions by the Committee, the Senior Planning Officer (RB) advised the following:

·       That in terms of whether there had been any changes made to this application following the withdrawal of the application last year, there were no proposed changes in relation to highways and traffic generation. Post application discussions had taken place following the withdrawal of the previous application. It was effectively the same scheme as before.

·       In relation to design, discussions had taken place with the applicant to ensure that there was continuous building flow.

The Legal Advisor advised Councillor R. Knight, that he would need to leave the room during deliberations and not able to take part in the vote following his declaration of a non registerable interest.

In response to questions from the Committee, the Highways Officer (PY) advised the following:

·       The double white lines straddled the A377.  It was illegal for vehicles to park opposite the junction and was an offence for vehicles to pass over the double white lines.

·       The Highways Authority was not suggesting that vehicles should park opposite the junction.  Vehicles should be parked further away from the junction.

·       The width of the A377 had been measured at between 1.5 - 2m at the location of the junction.  Any domestic or commercial vehicle would straddle the double white lines.

·       The A377 had become a more secondary route to Exeter since the opening of the North Devon Link road.

·       The Highways Authority needed to raise the objections to the over  intensification of the existing circumstances relating to the junction.  The erection of a further single dwelling would exasperate the situation in terms of the junction of being unsafe.

·       The absence of accidents in itself did not demonstrate the access/junction to be safe.

In response to questions from the Committee, the Service Manager (Development Management) advised the following:

·       The provision of an affordable housing dwelling would need to be considered in accordance with policy ST19.  However, the application was for an open market dwelling.

·       A proposed dwelling to the front garden, I would question if this would relate to existing built form and it was considered that the application would be contrary to this policy in terms of design.

·       The application was outside of the majority of the development boundary.

·       The development boundary had been drawn by the Planning Policy team as part of the Local Plan. There may be reasons why part of the site was partially inside and outside of the development boundary.  There would be an opportunity to consider this as part of the review of the Local Plan.

Councillor R. Knight left the room prior to deliberations and voting taking place.

RESOLVED (11 for, 1 against, 0 abstained) that the application be REFUSED as recommended by the Senior Planning Officer (RB).