Agenda item

Land adjoining 20 Worthington Lane, Breedon on the Hill

Having declared an interest in the item, Councillor R Morris removed himself from the meeting to join the public gallery prior to being invited to speak as Ward Member.

The Planning and Development Team Manager presented the report.

Mr D Pitt, objector, addressed the Committee. He informed Members of his highway experience, and it was his opinion that the proposed access to the development did not meet the required safety standards regarding visibility splays as set out by the Highway Authority.  Concerns were also raised regarding the speed limit at the point of access.  Members were urged to refuse the application.

Mrs C Large, applicant, addressed the Committee.  The objections received as detailed in the report were addressed, in particular highway safety, which the applicant had worked hard with officers to meet all necessary requirements.  It was noted that there were no objections from statutory consultees and approval of the application in this sustainable area would contribute to the district’s shortfall of self-build dwellings.  Members were urged to approve the application.    

Councillor R Morris, Ward Member, addressed the Committee.  He listed his concerns including highway safety, proposed access, loss of amenities and privacy, harm to the character and setting of the village and the break of access.  He felt that on this occasion the Highway Authority had made an error and not assessed the application thoroughly.  He urged Members to refuse the application on the grounds of highway safety, loss of amenity and design and layout.

After addressing the Committee, Councillor R Morris left the meeting during the consideration and voting on the application.  He did not return to the meeting.

In response to a question from the Chair, the Head of Planning and Infrastructure confirmed that a condition could be added to ensure a single storey property only, and as this had already been offered by the applicant, it was deemed as acceptable.

In determining the application, consideration was given to the location of the site being on the edge of the limits to development and some Members were uncomfortable with permitting development that would likely be refused if not for it being a self-build dwelling. 

Discussion was had on the layout and design of the dwelling and the negative impact of a two-storey building was acknowledged.  The overall opinion was that a single storey dwelling with a buffer of landscaping was preferable.  The Planning and Development Team Manager suggested that should the application be permitted; a condition could be added to require details of planting to be submitted to provide a suitable  landscaping buffer with the reserve matters application.

Further concerns were raised regarding highway safety and the visibility splays, as it was felt that due to the trees, visibility could not be met.  Discussion was had on the appropriateness of the application for the village.

The officer’s recommendation with the added conditions regarding the scale of the dwelling and the landscaping buffer was moved by Councillor R Canny and seconded by Councillor M Burke.

The Chair put the motion to the vote.  A recorded vote being required, the voting was as detailed below.

The motion was LOST.

Members were then asked for an alternative motion.

It was moved by Councillor D Bigby and seconded by Councillor J Legrys that the application be refused on the grounds of it being outside the limits to development, the visual impact, not fitting with the character of the surrounding area and visibility splay not adequate for the nature of the rural location.

The Head of Planning and Infrastructure advised Members on the reasons for refusal given and that an unmet need for self-build development could override Policy S3 of the Local in relation to being outside the limits to development.  Members were also reminded that the Highway Authority had not submitted any objections.  Therefore, the reasons for refusals given would be difficult to defend should the application be refused and an appeal submitted.

The Chair put the motion to the vote.  A recorded vote being required, the voting was as detailed below.

RESOLVED THAT:

The application be refused on the grounds that it was outside the limits to development, visual impact, not fitting with the character of the surrounding area and visibility splay not being adequate for the nature of the rural location.