Issue - meetings

To consider the report of the Team Manager Development Mangement.

Consideration was given to the report of the Team Manager Development Management.

The Team Manager Development Management advised that at the July Planning Committee considered the report for the retention of the development. The officer’s recommendation was that planning permission be refused based on highway safety grounds relating to unacceptable visibility splays and driveway gradients. The Planning Committee considered the application and upon a vote it was resolved that the application be deferred for the agent to explore measures to overcome the highway safety concerns and to submit plans to the Council for further consideration.

The Team Manager Development Management further outlined the key points as detailed in the report and gave an overview of the options for consideration.

The Ward Member reported that she had declared an interest in this application and would not take part in the vote.

The Ward Member welcomed the that application was deferred to look at options and asked the Committee to support Option 2. The Ward Member noted the 2 months for the works to be undertaken and although this was accepted it was pointed out that winter would soon be upon us and inclement weather could have an impact on works.

A Member seconded the Ward Member and proposed Option 2.

In response to a question raised in relation conditions being added to application in terms of inclement weather. The Team Manager Development Management noted the wording of conditions and advised that it was important that works are done as a matter of urgency due to highway safety concerns and that 2 months was a reasonable timescale. The Team Manager stated that although 2 months had been stated as a timeframe it was acknowledged that inclement weather could impact on these timescales but that the enforcement team to monitor progress and consider whether any enforcement action was required. The Team Manager Development Management stated that if Members are minded to recommend option 2 it was important the timeline remained in place to ensure that works were undertaken as a matter of urgency.

In response, to a question raised in relation to liability, the Service Manager Development and Estates advised that liability was a legal question which would be up to the  courts to answer. In terms of highways, advice had been sought from the highways team and it was deemed dangerous and planning should be refused.

A Member referred to Option 2 and raised concerns that it noted that the owners would be responsible for compliance and felt that the it gave the developer an opportunity to walk away from the project which would put further pressure on the homeowners. The Member felt that Option 3 would be a better way forward as owners would make their own arrangements to protect their vehicles from rolling onto the public highways

The Member felt that this was a very contentious situation the only people victims are the home owners who bought their homes in good faith and the Member was not happy with option  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5