Agenda item

Development of a coach, mini-bus and taxi drop-off / pick up area and associated infrastructure.

Public Participation:

·       Peter Storey – spoke in objection to the application

·       Philip Richardson – spoke in objection to the application

·       Sarah Hockin - agent spoke in support of the application

·       Julia Ford, West Lavington Parish Council – spoke in objection to the application

Ruaridh O’Donoghue, Senior Conservation/Planning Officer presented the report which recommended that planning permission be approved, for reasons detailed in the report, for the development of a coach, mini-bus and taxi drop-off / pick up area and associated infrastructure.

The officer advised that the application concerned a parcel of land at Dauntseys School that is located to the west of the main driveway. The site is currently made up of a staff car park and a netball/tennis court with associated hedging around the perimeter. The School is located within the limits of  development of West Lavington which is recognised as a Large Village within the WCS. The site is located within the West Lavington and Littleton Panel Conservation Area. The main school building is listed at grade II and opposite the site lie No.’s 7 and 9 Cheverell Road that are also grade II listed. A public right of way runs through the middle of the site.

The officer stated that there were no ‘in principle’ policies that indicate this form of development should be considered unacceptable. It was felt that the scheme would not have an adverse impact upon the character and appearance of the area and was considered to be in broad accordance with Core Policies 51 and 57 of the WCS. The proposal will have a broadly neutral impact upon heritage assets and in the absence of identified harm, is considered to comply with Core Policy 58 of the WCS. It is noted that the greatest impact is from the presence of coaches on the site but, this is a temporary impact during the periods of school drop off and collection and therefore not a substantive ground in which to attach harm to.

The Committee noted that the parking of coaches in this location did not require any form of planning consent. However, because the school had chosen to lay hardstanding, create pavements and erect fencing and lighting, planning permission is required.

The officer explained that whilst subject to appropriate conditions, there are no technical objections raised with the application against ecology, trees or drainage, and is considered to accord with the development plan policy and is acceptable.

The report detailed the responses to the consultation and representations received. It was noted that considerable objection had been raised in respect of the highways impacts of the development from local residents. The Local Highway Authority were satisfied that the scheme would not have a severe impact on users of the adjoining highway (A360). In light of NPPF para 111 they had not raised objection to the scheme.

In response to technical questions asked by the Committee, the officer confirmed that coaches were currently parking to the rear of the school site and use either the B3098 or A360 to exit the site, existing conditions restricted coaches from entering the school from the B3098, therefore all coaches enter the site via the A360, external lighting levels and timings for lighting would be conditioned, whilst a travel plan would include agreements between the coach operator and the school about when coach lights and engines are turned off during pick-up and drop-off.

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

The unitary division member, Cllr Dominic Muns spoke on the application. Cllr Muns indicated that he supported the schools drive to improve the safety of all users of the site, although he had concerns about the increase in coaches using the A360, other highway and environmental impacts associated with the development.

In response to issues raised during public participation and the Unitary Member statement, the planning officer explained that an additional bullet point could be added to condition 4 in relation to external lighting, limiting the Lux levels so as to avoid light pollution; there would be no increase in the number of coaches accessing the school site; condition 8 referred to the travel plan and agreement in relation to switching off engines and headlights; there was no adverse impact on heritage assets; the opinion of the Highways Authority is that coaches exiting the school site onto the A360 would not cause a significant impact, however, coaches would not be encouraged to exit the site via the B3098 due to the width of the road and potential for delays due to queuing traffic.

So that the Committee had something to debate the Chairman proposed a motion to approve the application, with reasons detailed at pages 63-66 of the agenda, as per the officer recommendations.

A debate followed where Members expressed concern about the highways issues and in particular the increase in vehicles exiting the site onto the A360, lack of accurate traffic flow assessment and impact on neighbour amenities.

Cllr Kelvin Nash originally moved that the application be refused, and this was seconded by Cllr Caroline Thomas. Following the debate, Cllr Nash amended his proposal and moved that the application be deferred for clarity on a number of highways issues raised during the meeting, this was seconded by Cllr Caroline Thomas.

At the conclusion of the debate, it was

Resolved:

That planning permission is deferred for additional highway information.