Agenda item

To determine the application.

Nick Harding presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Shanna Jackson, the agent. Mrs Jackson referred to committee considering the scheme in August, where members were relatively comfortable with the proposal except for issues surrounding the access and highways which they felt needed further clarification. She stated that amended drawings have been submitted and these demonstrate that appropriate visibility splays can be achieved, with there being a restrictive covenant on the land to the east which requires that the footpath remains free from obstruction.

Mrs Jackson stated that whilst the covenant does not form part of the planning remit, it is enforced by other means, and, therefore, in her view, members can take comfort in knowing that this visibility splay will remain free from obstruction. She advised that the applicant for this proposal is the person who imposed the covenant and, therefore, all things considered the likelihood of this ever being breached is very slim.

Mrs Jackson expressed the view that the land in question is only a small triangle which goes over the private footpath and the whole point of the footpath is to allow for people to walk along it and for it to remain free from obstruction, if not it cannot serve its purpose. She reiterated that it is unlikely that the visibility splay will be obstructed and the visibility splays are now in the red line of the application and she feels conditions could be imposed to ensure the splays remain free of obstruction, with any such conditions being duly accepted by the applicant.

Mrs Jackson made the point that Highways have raised no objection to the scheme and, in her view, there appears to be no grounds to resist the application for reasons of highway safety. She highlighted that the proposal complies with the Local Plan and the Parson Drove Neighbourhood Plan, with it also receiving support from the Parish Council and requested that planning permission be granted.

Members made comments, asked questions and received responses as follows:

·       Councillor Mrs French made the point that the concern of the committee in August was the visibility splays hence its deferral and Mrs Jackson has said that they can be achieved so surely if this is achievable this application should be approved.

·       Councillor Connor agreed with the comments of Councillor Mrs French, it was said there was hardly any chance of that splay to the east being obstructed, which was the only thing committee deferred it on so this is the only thing that needs to be looked at. He asked if a condition can be placed on any permission? Nick Harding responded that the agent referred to that bit of the visibility splay to the east which is in third party ownership and identified that the applicant was the person who instigated the covenant in the first place but his understanding is that there is land in the west visibility splay which is also in third party ownership and no reference has been made to that being subject to a covenant. He stated that if committee wished to grant planning consent he would be concerned over the use of a condition because if the development gets constructed and it turns out that there is inadequate visibility splay because it has been obstructed then the person that the Council would be taking enforcement against is an innocent third party who has not been party to this in a direct sense and the only solution he can think of is for a Section 106 Agreement to be entered into by the relevant third party owners of the visibility splay land linked to the grant of planning permission.

·       Councillor Marks asked how can this be guaranteed? Nick Harding responded that the legal agreement would have to be signed before the planning permission is issued so that if anybody is not willing to sign the agreement then planning permission would not be issued.

·       Councillor Mrs French expressed the view that this is reasonable and she would not have a problem with this.

·       Councillor Benney requested clarification that if the application is approved today it has planning permission but if there cannot be a legal agreement between the third party landowners in a formal Section 106 Agreement the development would not be built as the visibility splay cannot be achieved. Nick Harding responded that this is not quite right, the legal agreement has to be signed by all the relevant landowners before the planning permission is issued, it cannot be undertaken the other way round.

·       Councillor Benney stated that if this is approved today, if the landowners sign and agree then they get the planning permission and if they cannot agree they do not get planning permission, which he feels seems a fair approach. Nick Harding confirmed this to be correct.

·       Nick Harding reminded members that if there is a proposal to go against officer’s recommendation there has got to be a statement as to why the reason for refusal related to the form of the proposed development relating to the existing form of development in this part of the settlement is appropriate.

Proposed by Councillor Benney to support officer’s recommendation to refuse planning permission, but a seconder was not forthcoming.

Proposed by Councillor Mrs French, seconded by Councillor Marks and agreed that the application be GRANTED against officer’s recommendation, subject to the signing of a Section 106 Agreement to deliver the visibility splays and authority delegated to officers to apply conditions.

Members do not support officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning permission as they feel the development does accord with Policy LP16 as it would not be to the detriment of the character and the appearance of the area.