Agenda item

Demolition of existing garages and erection of two houses with garages

Public Participation

Carolyn Flower spoke in objection to the application.

Margaret Farnon spoke in objection to the application.

Nicholas Tye spoke in objection to the application.

Paul Oakley, agent, spoke in support of the application.

Councillor Ian Myhill on behalf of Market Lavington Parish Council spoke in objection to the application.

The Planning Officer, Ruaridh O’Donoghue, introduced the report recommended that planning permission be granted for the demolition of existing garages and the erection of two houses with garages. Key issues were stated to include the principle of residential development on the site, impact upon neighbouring residents and the conservation area, and impact upon highway safety/parking arrangements. Details were provided of letters received in objection since the report had been published. It was also noted that incorrect information on the level of parking provision available at the properties of the tenants of the garages had previously been provided, but that this did not affect the officer’s reasons for recommending approval.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officers. It was confirmed that it was unclear who owned the land upon which the present bridleway was situated and that as a result, anyone using it with a vehicle to access the site would technically be breaching the law as permission of the landowner would be required. This also applied to existing properties and garages along the bridleway that people currently accessed with vehicles. It was also confirmed that a highway safety objections could only be readily substantiated if there would be severe harm from additional vehicle movements, and that officers considered the area was suitable for housing.

Members of the public then had the opportunity to present their views as detailed above.

The local unitary division member, Councillor Richard Gamble, then spoke in objection to the application.

A debate followed, where members discussed the principle of the number of dwellings on the site, the impact upon the local highways network resulting from displaced parking, and the suitability of access to the site via the bridleway. The ability for vehicles to turn around on the site was debated, along with the legal situation regarding access, the priority to be given to pedestrian and horse access and the impact for emergency services and delivery vehicles resulting from the layout and the physical characteristics of the bridleway, including its narrow width and the lack of turning areas.

A motion to refuse the application was moved by Councillor Richard Gamble, seconded by Councillor Ian Blair-Pilling, and at the conclusion of debate it was,

Resolved:

That planning permission be refused for the following reason:

The Clays is a bridleway (MLAV24) with a definitive width of just 3 metres across its entire length.  It is unsuitable, by reason of its narrow width and poor quality surfacing, to provide safe and suitable access to the development or to accommodate the additional vehicular movements associated with it.  This would cause conflict with users of the bridleway, including cyclists and pedestrians. 

Furthermore, the proposed layout is such that the development cannot be readily serviced by vehicles, in particular Plot 1.  The proposal would therefore be contrary to Core Policy 61 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy, which requires that proposals are capable of being served by safe access to the highway network, Core Policy 57 (vi) of the Wiltshire Core Strategy, which requires that development should take account of a site’s characteristics and relate effectively to the immediate setting and the wider character of the area , and paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework, which requires that safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people.

Following the Committee providing planning policy refusal reasons, precise wording of those reasons was delegated by the Committee to the case officer in consultation with the Chairman.