Agenda item

EP said the proposed dwelling will have a single access between Keynsham Street and Hales Road.  Previous issues with the design have been resolved, there are no amenity or highways issues, and the recommendation is to approve.

Public Speaking:

Mr Iles, applicant, in support

Introduced himself to Members as the owner of the property in Keynsham Street – it was left to him by his father in 2010 and has been in the family since 1960.  All the family live and work locally.  Welcomes the positive recommendation for approval from officers, and notes a common thread from objectors, that it will set an unwelcome precedent and be the thin end of the wedge, that he owns other property in the street, and is likely to renovate and rent this out.  In fact, has no intention of putting in any further planning applications.  Originally considered two dwellings on the site, but realised this would be too much and withdrew the application.  Has revised the plans over six months, and has the approval of the Architects’ Panel and Civic Society.  Would not have done this if he was a greedy developer, out to maximise profits.  Has worked with an architect and planning consultant to create a sympathetic, modest dwelling.  This will not be the first house to be proposed on green land in Keynsham Street – the first was erected in 2006, has not been controversial, and in eight years has created no adverse impact on road safety.  His proposal will not mean any change to the level of vehicular access, and there are no highways objections.  The lane is tight but it’s possible for two cars to pass.  It’s true that refuse lorries don’t enter the lane and residents of the new dwelling would have to take their bins to the end of the lane, but this happens already, here and elsewhere in town.

Councillor Jordan, in objection

This application was originally for two houses, but has been reduced in number, improved in design, and he has no objection to it in principle.  However, is concerned about the unadopted road.  A similar application was approved at Victoria Terrace, but there the road was tarmac’d over and looked normal.  This is a narrow dirt track, near Hales Road traffic lights.  There is already one house there, and the question could be asked as to whether one more will make a lot of difference - the judgement must be based on what the tipping point might be.  The road is mainly used by residents of Hales Road to access the backs of the properties.  The biggest concern is refuse collection.  It may only be one more house but what is the tipping point?  Rubbish bins will have to be dragged to the corner and left on the public highway.  There are also three flats at the back of London Road which access on to the same lane, and also need to drag their rubbish to the corner.  Said again that one more house might not make a lot of difference, but could be the tipping point, and, having spoken to Rob Bell at Ubico, there are many examples of this around the town.

Member debate:

KS:  has a bit of a problem with this proposal – not with the dwelling itself, but the fact that all the impact will be on the neighbours, regarding parking etc.  Sees it as a bit like trying to get a camel through the eye of a needle.  The lane is in bad condition and quite rough, and it will be quite a long walk to the junction with Hales Road, to drag a wheelie bin and recycling boxes.  This is a town centre location, but there is no street lighting, and it should be more accessible.  The proposed dwelling is a bungalow, likely to be lived in by older people, which makes this even more difficult.  Regarding traffic, there are always a lot of vehicles travelling north to south along Hales Road, and the traffic lights are busy at all times – it isn’t easy to turn right and there is always traffic coming from the left, with no pedestrian crossing.  Is concerned this proposal might be a step too far, and doesn’t consider this the right location for this type of development – which is the golden rule for approval.

SW:  also has a few problems with this application.  The applicant said he has heard people’s comments about this being the ‘thin end of the wedge’ and said that they don’t need to worry.  Further applications might or might not come in, but not for consideration at this time.  Is concerned future residents may not be able to get their dustbins out – if so, should it be a decision for Planning Committee to allow an extra house to be built?  If the application was for two houses, the decision would be a lot more straightforward.  The road already exists but is poor quality, with access for motor vehicles.  People will have to take their bins out – should this affect members’ decision tonight?

PH:  residents are also concerned about access for emergency vehicles.  Knows that ambulances can access far worse roads in the countryside so does not think this would be a problem, but is not so sure about fire engines.  Has access been established for this?

CH:  in view of Councillor Jordan’s comments, if Members are minded to approve the application, can officers do anything to assess what level of occupation of the lane is acceptable, to allay neighbours’ fears?  To be honest, does not see one extra dwelling as a problem and is minded to approve.  Regarding emergency services, sometimes it’s not possible to get the tender close to a house, but there are other facilities which can be used in this situation – but thinks a fire engine could get down the lane if needed.

BF:  following on from PH’s comments, it would be useful to know the width of the lane.  If the proposal is permitted, there will also be construction traffic to contend with, and although this will only be for a short period of time, it could cause mayhem in the area.  A property being built in Hatherley Road has led to vehicles parked on the pavements and illegally on the road.  If contractors’ vehicles use the back lane at Keynsham Street, it could all be quite a muddle for a number of months.

EP, in response:

-          regarding emergency vehicles, officers always consult on this type of application, and they will have given consideration to this.  They have raised no objections in this instance;

-          to CH’s comments about officers’ view on the future capacity of the lane, this would not be required as part of the application, but officers can speak to Highways officers to see if they have a view for future reference;

-          regarding construction traffic, a construction method statement can be conditioned if Members want it.  The issue needs some thought but isn’t insurmountable;

-          in response to BF’s comment, the width of the lane is 4.5m.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

9 in support

3 in objection

1 abstention

PERMIT