Address:       Land adj. to Haynes Turn, south of High Road, Haynes (nearest postcode MK45 3PA)

Outline Application: With all matters reserved for the erection of five detached dwellings.

Applicant:     LSF Properties

The Committee considered a report regarding Planning Application No. CB/17/02023/OUT an outline application for the erection of five detached dwellings with all matters reserved on land adjacent to Haynes Turn, south of High Road, Haynes Turn, Haynes.

In advance of consideration of the application the Committee’s attention was drawn to additional comments as set out in the Late Sheet.  The planning officer reported verbally that, in addition, he had received an email from the ward Member setting out her objections to the application.

In advance of consideration of the application the Committee received representations from Haynes Parish Council and an objector to the application under the public participation scheme.

At this point a statement from the ward Member opposing the application was read out by the Chairman. The ward Member had been unable to attend the meeting in person.  Her statement had concluded with a request that the Committee reject the application on the grounds of overdevelopment and the negative impact it would have on local residents.

The Committee considered the application and in summary discussed the following:

·         The decision by the Inspector at appeal to overturn the Council’s original decision, taken on 6 May 2016, to refuse the original application for three dwellings and the Inspector’s statement that the site could accommodate seven dwellings.  Whilst the highways officer did not agree with the Inspector’s highways assessment regarding the site he felt the Committee was bound by the Inspector’s decision.

·         The Inspector’s professional ability to reach a decision regarding highways issues.

·         The highways officer’s statement that he did not feel that the likely volume of vehicle movements arising from the proposed development was of concern.  His main concern remained visibility but, given the outcome of the appeal and that concerns regarding visibility had been rejected by the Inspector, he felt that this would not be sufficient to maintain an objection to the current application.  He made reference to the local speed limit of 60 mph and that even though a speed survey had revealed that vehicles were travelling at a slower speed than the maximum permitted it was apparent that drivers exiting the junction lacked the required level of visibility in either direction.

·         Concerns regarding the availability of sufficient space for larger vehicles to turn within the site.  The highways officer reminded Members that the application was an outline application and the issue would be addressed under reserved matters.

·         No record over the last five years of any accidents having taken place at the junction had been found.

·         The Inspector’s decision was a material consideration with regard to the planning application before the Committee.  Members were required to consider the application before them with the Inspector’s decision and the relevant planning policies in mind.  The Inspector did not have to be a highways specialist in order to have determined the application.

·         The Inspector’s statement that the site was a clearly defined area suitable for development.  The current application could not, therefore, be regarded as encroachment into the open countryside as the original application for the same site had been regarded as acceptable by the Inspector.

·         A planning officer’s comments that given the Inspector’s comments Members had to be sure that they felt the additional dwellings made the scheme unacceptable.  Further it would be difficult to substantiate the reasons for refusal in the light of the Inspector’s conclusions.  Loss of amenity had not featured as an issue in the previous scheme and nor hade the Inspector raised this. 

·         A Member’s comments that should the Committee refuse the application then the Inspector at any subsequent appeal would consider the way in which any decision to refuse the application was reached and the accompanying decision to ignore the previous Inspector’s clear guidance.  He warned the Council would be found to be obdurate, lose the appeal and would be required to pay costs.

·         An understanding that the Inspector’s statement that the site could accommodate seven dwellings was a reference to three new three dwellings (as per the original application) joining the existing four dwellings already on the site and not an indication by him that seven new dwellings could be built alongside the original four.  Given that the application before Members was for five new dwellings, two more than the original application and the possible size of the dwellings could generate a substantial increase in traffic movements it was felt by some Members that a challenge to the Inspector’s decision would be justified.

It was moved and seconded that the application be refused on the grounds of loss of amenity, overdevelopment and highways issues as adequate visibility could not be achieved and represent the intensification of a substandard access.

On being put to the vote 7 Members voted for refusal, 4 voted against and 1 abstained.

RESOLVED

that Planning Application No. CB/17/02023/OUT relating to land adjacent to Haynes Turn, south of High Road, Haynes Turn, Haynes be refused as set out in the Schedule attached to these minutes.