Agenda item

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions to be determined by the Head of Planning.

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning in respect of this application which had been the subject of a site visit on 4^th November 2013.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report. 

                        The officer detailed the background to the report, explaining that the application was for a change of use to provide a garage for the existing dwelling and for minor alterations to the dwelling.  The application was reported for refusal on highways grounds due to the lack of adequate visibility from, and of, emerging vehicles, obstruction of the footway and adjoining highway due to the use of the proposed garage, and an unacceptable detrimental impact on highway safety.  

            Councillor Mike Peers proposed approval of the application, against officer recommendation, which was duly seconded.  He felt that the visibility was unrestricted and that when the property was a post office, the area was always busy as vehicles could park on the highway without restrictions.  He said that the implication that one vehicle stopping on the highway to use the garage would have a detrimental impact on highway safety when it was acceptable for several vehicles to park there when it was a post office.  Councillor Peers felt that the alternative of the vehicle parking on the highway would create worse conditions than stopping the traffic to access into or exit from the garage.  He said that public consultation had been held in the village and it had originally been proposed that a speed cushion would be placed in the highway outside the property.  Following the consultation, the plans had been amended to move the speed hump further up the highway.  He spoke of a nearby property which had an adjacent high hedge in third party ownership adjacent to the property but visibility was not an issue there or at the access/egress to the chapel which required cars to access or exit between parked cars.  He felt that the visibility was better in this application than at either of these sites.  Councillor Peers said that off street parking was at a premium in the area and that a common sense approach should be taken, and the application be approved. 

            Councillor Neville Phillips supported the recommendation of Councillor Peers stating that the reason for refusal was not planning but highway safety.  He referred to neighbouring properties with garages and concurred that those attending the chapel would have to block the highway to access or exit the chapel car park, just as the applicant would have to do on this application. 

            Councillor Ian Dunbar said that the applicant had indicated that he would take down his wall to improve visibility and added that he felt that stopping to open the garage would have no consequence to the highway.  He agreed with the proposal to approve the application. 

            The Principal Solicitor reminded Members that highway and road safety considerations were material considerations in the same way as other planning matters and that it was inappropriate to state that the application was being recommended for refusal on “highways” rather than “planning” grounds. 

            In response to the comments made, the Senior Engineer - Highways Development Control referred to the application which had been withdrawn in August 2013.  She advised that the applicant had been informed that if he removed the proposal for an integral garage, then the application would not require visibility constraints to be considered, and could be supported in highway terms.  As the garage was in the front elevation of the property, egress would be from a restricted, enclosed, area which raised concerns about pedestrian safety. 

            Following a comment from the Chairman, on the advice of the Principal Solicitor, Councillor Peers withdrew his remark about the detrimental impact on highway safety being a nonsense and apologised for using the remark.  He said that off road parking was always preferable to on road parking and even though the provision of the garage would have an impact, he felt that a common sense approach should be taken and the application be permitted. 

            On being put to the vote, the proposal to approve the application, against officer recommendation, was CARRIED.  The Principal Solicitor reminded Members that it was usual practice, where an application was approved when it had been reported for refusal, to delegate powers to the Head of Planning to determine the appropriate conditions for the application.    

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions to be determined by the Head of Planning.