Agenda item

VH reminded Members that a similar application for two dwellings at Blenheim Villa was rejected at July Planning Committee, on the grounds that it failed to provide safe and suitable access.  The current application is unchanged with regard to built form, design, layout and scale, but the access has increased from 4.1m to 5.2m, with a 1.2m wide footpath added to allow pedestrian access to each dwelling.  An S106 agreement to cover the long-term maintenance of the hedge has been agreed in draft, making provision for the developer to secure an S142 licence prior to occupation.  The application is at Committee at the request of Councillor Britter and The Reddings Residents Association. The recommendation is to permit, subject to the S106 agreement.

Public Speaking:

Mr Zwart, The Reddings Residents Association, in objection

There have been 47 objections from residents, and also from ward councillors, Up Hatherley Parish Council, and The Reddings Residents Association.  This new application does not address the safety concerns.  Paragraph 110 of the new NPPF states that priority should be given to pedestrian and cycle movements, creating places that are safe and secure, and respond to the  local character.  The  amount of hedge to be removed has been increased for the property owners, and the report glosses over traffic, safety, the dense hedge, the removal of protection policies and noise.  An S142 licence is intended for those wanting to cultivate a hedge, not destroy it.It also carries financial and legal responsibilities and a cost in maintaining £5m public liability insurance – none of these issues are addressed by the applicant, and the proposal is therefore in breach of the NPPF – control of the hedge is lost, worsening safety for pedestrians and cyclists.  

Is concerned as to how vehicles will turn into the development:  delivery vans will have the reverse into or out of the driveway – there is no room for them to turn. Drivers will approach at 40mph – sometimes in the dark – looking for the gap in the hedge, and other motorists will be not be expecting cars to turn in or out.  This is a busy pavement and cycleway, used by children and people in disability scooters.  The application itself states that the turning provision on site is only suitable for cars, not delivery vans or refuse vehicles.  If reversing off, the visibility splays are inadequate.  The RRA has a photographic record of a traffic accident on the roundabout. This proposal is unsafe, contrary to public and community interest, and must be refused. 

Mr Jones, Evans Jones Partnership, in support

This application seeks full planning permission for two dwellings, and is a re-submission of the scheme refused in July, with further amendments to address Members’ residual objections relating solely to highway safety.  The officer’s unequivocal recommendation is to approve, supported by  updated comments from the highways officer included in the report, warranting reconsideration of the scheme, and a favourable outcome.  Firstly, amendments to the site access, including widening the access and adding pedestrian footways, willimprove safety for pedestrians and also also, crucially, improve cycleway and public footway visibility. Secondly,  officers and CBC’s solicitor have agreed on the wording of an S106 agreement to secure long-term maintenance of the hedgerow to maintain cycle and pedestrian visibility splays.  The draft S106 agreement is supplemented by proposed planning conditions to further ensure  long-term maintenance on the visibility splays in line with current Highways Authority standards.  The reference to insurance cover is erroneous, as insurance is required by the contractors undertaking works on highway land, not by the property owners.   Would inform Members that an appeal and application for costs against the previous refusal has been submitted, but will be immediately withdrawn if permission is granted tonight. 

To reiterate, the application is fully policy compliant, with no objection from any statutory consultees.  Officers have stated that the proposals are acceptable in principle, and there are no amenity, ecology, appearance or local character issues objections to the scheme. The revised scheme goes further to ensure has safe access and an S106 agreement to ensure this remains the case in perpetuity.  There are no justifiable reasons to withhold consent, and therefore urges Members to support the officer recommendation.

Member debate:

MC:  has he misunderstood or have Members just been threatened?  The application was refused last time on highways issues, and it is unfortunate that there is no highways officer present tonight to discuss the amendments.  The Chairman was not present at the July meeting, so may not be aware that this proposal is 99% the same as the previous one.  That was rejected on highways safety issues, which are not addressed here.  Is not against two houses on this site, but is against the proposed access and hazards this will cause to Grovefield Way cyclists and pedestrians – the change in access is the only proposed change.  Is sympathetic with officers who have to try to find solutions with the S106 agreement and S142 licence, but this misses the point.  There is a real highway safety issue here; the problem is not who owns the hedge or lives in the houses or has responsibility for maintaining the hedge.  The problem is the hedge itself.  The proposed solutions are not enforceable.  Highways officers were present at the last meeting, talked about the proposed arrangement being ‘alright’ and said the access ‘may be OK’; it was even suggested that drivers on Grovefield Way could flash their headlights to allow cars to exit the site, which is a ludicrous idea. 

Regarding the S142 licence –the owners will ignore it, and who will police it?  County Highways?  CBC enforcement officers?  County Highways don’t manage the hedge properly now, and by the time an overgrown hedge is reported, it is already a hazard; the proposed condition will therefore be ineffective and unenforceable.  As the issue of highways safety has not been addressed, would like to propose refusal on JCS Policy INF1, and Paragraphs 108, 109 and 110 of the NPPF.  The highways report for the previous application was full of errors, not least talking of ‘a few’ openings onto Grovefield Way where there are none.  If this is permitted, a precedent could be set. The objections are very valid and sensible; Councillor Britter’s observations must also be taken into account.  Proposes refusal for the policy reasons stated. 

DB:  still feels this is an accident waiting to happen, on this fast road, difficult to cross.  With the cycleway and pedestrians, close to a roundabout, and with a 40mph limit – cannot imagine refuse lorries reversing into or out of the properties off Grovefield Way, but there is no room for them to turn round on the driveways.  It looks extremely dangerous.  The buildings are good, but a different access point is needed.

KH:  would be interested to know officers’ views on the potential appeal situation – Planning Committee has refused the application once, with an officer recommendation to permit, and now, with the amendments and another officer recommendation to permit, could be looking to refuse again.  If that is the case, how will this look at a subsequent appeal?  Councillor Parsons has raised the issue of financial loss to the Council as a result of appeals costs.  What do officers say?

SW:  between the issues raised by the first speaker, echoed in Councillor Britter’s letter and MC’s subsequent comments, feels that all the nuts and bolts of this application have been covered.  If we look at Grovefield Way, follow it all along to Shurdington Road, there isn’t a single property opening onto the road; the only way to join Grovefield Way is by other roads with proper junctions.  That is reasonable, and what the road was built for – not as an estate road.  It is a very busy road, and the safest time to get in and out of the junctions is when the traffic is built up and slow-moving; at other times, it travels at 40mph.  Emerging from a private driveway, which motorists are not expecting to see here, will be dangerous, despite the splays in the hedge – to suggest these takeaway the danger defeats reason.  Is concerned about cyclists and reminded of a recent incident in Redgrove Way where a cyclist was knocked off his bike because he couldn’t’ see an emerging car– it will be a similar here. The only access to Grovefield Way should be via the roads which join it at junctions and roundabouts. Cannot support any application with a driveway opening onto Grovefield Way.  Alternatives have been discussed which would work perfectly, but the applicant doesn’t seem to be giving them any consideration.  Something significant must be done before he can consider supporting this application.

JP:  is not particularly impressed with an applicant who threatens Planning Committee in order to get his way. Planning Committee looks at facts, and the fact is that this entrance is dangerous.  Highways Officers say it isn’t, but local knowledge says it is.  Local councillors also confirm that it will be dangerous, and Planning Committee councillors must go with that.  Cannot support this or any development on this side of Grovefield Way.

GB:  it is a question of interpretation, but does not feel that the comments from the agent regarding an appeal represented a threat; it was more advising Members of the action that may be taken as a result of their decision tonight.  Applicants are entitled to put such comments forward, and quite often do.

LS:  we all have responsibility to be moderate in our use of language, but did not take the agent’s words as a threat.  However, cannot support this application.  Safe access to the site would depend entirely on the maintenance of the visibility splays.  These won’t be maintained over time.  Has issues of overgrowing hedges in his own ward.  As a result, the point of entry and exit is likely to become dangerous; therefore cannot support the application. 

DS:  realises Members are not meant to re-design proposals on the hoof but the obvious answer is to have the exit down the side of Blenheim Villa, opening onto The Reddings and not onto Grovefield Way.

NJ, in response:

-       To KH’s question about costs, if the case goes to appeal, an inspector would look at whether the Council acted reasonably.  The technical information provided by experts at County Highways states that the proposal is acceptable – no objection is raised – and therefore the possibility of costs against the Council could not be ruled out.

VH, in response:

-       Regarding long-term maintenance of the hedge and visibility splays, this will be controlled by an S106 agreement and conditions.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

0 in support

12 in objection

1 abstention

NOT CARRIED

MC: proposes refusal on the grounds previously stated – JCS Policy INF1, and NPPF Paragraphs 108, 109 and 110.

SW:  Councillor Britter has suggested some other reasons.  Do officers feel they are relevant?

EP, in response:

-       Refusal reasons need to echo the previous refusal reasons.  NPPF Paragraph 110 was not previously included, but will be now.

Vote on MC’s move to refuse on INF1 and NPPF 108, 109, 110

12 in support

0 in objection

1 abstention

REFUSE