Agenda item

Erection of one pair of semi detached two storey dwellings and associated infrastructure.

Public Participation

Caron Merritt spoke in objection to the application

Dane Richardson spoke in objection to the application

Mark Doodes (Agent) spoke in support to the application

David Burke (Chairman) spoke on behalf of Netheravon parish council

 

Late correspondence was circulated at the meeting and outlined by the Officer, which included reference to revised drawings included in the presentation slides, which showed a further 0.5m set back of the dwellings from the parking space, as requested by Highways. Also included were alterations to the internal floor plans and revised conditions.

 

The Planning Officer, Julie Mitchell, presented the application which was for the erection of one pair of semi-detached two storey dwellings and associated infrastructure.

 

The site location was shown as being outside of the settlement boundary, however the Officer noted that the land was on the corner of and adjoined the settlement boundary and had been previously removed from within the boundary.

 

The site was at the junction of the 50mph A345 and the 30mph Pigott Close. The curve in the A345 road was noted as causing limited visibility when exiting Piggott Close. As detailed in the late correspondence, Highways had recommended a 2.4m wide no development zone to maintain visibility.

 

The application was recommended for Approval with conditions as set out in the report attached to the agenda and further in the late correspondence.

 

Material considerations were listed as:

 

·         Principle of development

·         Character of the area

·         Residential amenity

·         Highway issues

·         Ecology

·         Other issues raised

 

Members then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Officer, where it was clarified that the plot had previously been in the settlement boundary, however during a review in the 2020 Housing Site Allocations Plan, the parish council had made representation for the site to be removed.

 

The Officer clarified that despite the site not being in the settlement boundary, she had made the judgement that it was clearly not open countryside and therefore deemed that development on the site was acceptable in principle.

 

Members of the public as detailed above, then had the opportunity to speak on the application.

 

Some of the main points included strong concerns associated with the safety of the road junction between Pigotts Close and the A345, with examples of traffic incidents ranging in severity, from minor to fatal.

 

Poor visibility on exiting Pigotts Close due to the curve in the road and the negative impact on visibility the proposed development would have.

 

Concerns relating to increased double parking caused by an additional 2 dwellings and associated road safety issues were noted, along with suggestions of overdevelopment for the size of the plot of land.

 

The Agent noted that there were no objections from the Statutory Consultees, and that the development would provide 2 sustainable dwellings to the area. He noted development on greenfield areas was not ideal however existing properties did not have a right to a view.

 

The Parish Council representative spoke in objection to the application.

Having personally lived in the village for over 55 years he was able to provide the background to previous applications and the site being removed from the settlement boundary, so to protect it from future development.

 

The extremely dangerous junction was well known locally and was currently an issue being considered through the councils Community Area Transport Group.

 

Reference to the Highway requirements of 160m view at 50mph, which it was noted were not met. The parish noted its main concerns as safety, overdevelopment and that the proposals were out of character to the street scene. Adding this 2-dwelling development would increase safety concerns, at the junction.

 

Local Member, Cllr Ian Blair-Pilling, spoke to the application noting that the rural village had come together to object because they had strong reason, on the grounds of safety. Generally there was a desire of the families in the village for more housing, but not on this plot.

 

In the last 40 years he had lived in the village, the number of houses had doubled, and the development line was fairly full, but not entirely, there were places in the village where it was possible to build.

 

As parish chairman at the time of the Housing Site Allocations Review, when the boundary line was tightened. If the application was approved, this would set a president in the village to develop outside of the development line when spaces were still available inside the settlement boundary.

 

He noted that the problem of the A345 was a top priority for the parish council, and the net effect of car parking for the two new proposed dwellings would exacerbate the issue. Drawing attention to the design which showed the parking spaces up against the front doors of the two houses, suggesting that the new residents would inevitably park one of their two vehicles each, in the street.

The outline of the 2 buildings were noted as being of a greater scale compared to the other houses along the road, suggesting that to have two smaller houses the same scale as those already along the road would have less of an effect.

 

Despite his understanding on the balanced judgement against the planning policy, he noted that he knew personally of the death of a lady at the junction and asked that the Committee refuse the application so that a more modest proposal could be submitted.

 

Cllr Oliver then moved the motion of Refusal against Officer recommendation, noting that he had seen photos of a recent accident at the junction, suggesting that the Highway Officer had wrongly judged the situation. Reasons given were that the site was outside of the settlement boundary, the proposals were overdevelopment of the plot, and the impact on the visibility of the adjacent highway.

 

This was seconded by Cllr Jeans.

 

The Committee was invited to discuss the application, the main points included

the severe issues surrounding highways at the junction. One member had researched the history of traffic incidents at the junction within the last 7 years and reported that there had been 5 incidents of varying severity within 5 miles in either direction of the junction and that the issue would be increased if the development were to go ahead. 

 

The suitability of a smaller dwelling on the site was explored.

 

The Committee highlighted that the settlement boundary had specifically been amended to remove the site on safety grounds and that in comparison to the other dwellings along the road, the proposals were significantly larger and amounted to overdevelopment.

 

One Member had visited the site to ascertain the impact of the development on the visibility at the junction and noted that in his view, a driver at the junction would have approximately 1 – 2.5 seconds to see an approaching car, travelling at 50 mph on the A345, before it was upon you, adding that it was far too dangerous.

 

Members agreed that making a judgement based on a diagram on a page did not compare to the local knowledge or being there to see it. It was also noted that the visibility required by Highways was not met.

 

The Case Officer drew attention to the late correspondence which set out the revised comments from Highways.

 

The Committee then voted on the motion of Refusal, for the reasons given above.

 

It was;

 

Resolved:

 

That application PL/2021/10078 be REFUSED for the following reasons:

 

The proposed development of a pair of semi-detached properties outside the adopted settlement boundary line, by reason of the scale, layout and close proximity of the two-storey built-form development to the A345 Salisbury Road, would constitute an overdevelopment of the site which would exacerbate existing highway safety and parking constraints and be unsympathetic to the visual amenity, character and pattern of development of the area, contrary to the provisions of the Wiltshire Core Strategy 2015 policies CP2 (Delivery Strategy) and CP57 (Ensuring High Quality Design and Place Shaping); the National Planning Policy Framework July 2021 (having regard to paragraphs 110 and 111); and the National Design Guide 2021