Agenda item

PROPOSAL: Engineering operations to upgrade an historic access track

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Refuse

28.20        This application was for engineering operations to upgrade an historic access track.

28.21        The Planning Officer advised that the site was a paddock to the north of Lowther House which had an access off the Shurdington Road with boundary hedges to the north and west and trees and hedgerow to the east and south. The site was in the Green Belt. The proposal was for the retention of engineering operations to form a new access track from Shurdington Lane to serve the Coach House which had been converted and extended to form a dwelling. The track crossed across the paddock from the existing gated field access in the north east corner to the south west corner. The materials were type 1 aggregate. The Planning Officer explained that the Coach House had been permitted for conversion to a dwelling with the access via a drive running along the northern side of Lowther House. To facilitate construction, a temporary access to serve the Coach House was created under permitted development for temporary uses. The proposal would create a permanent residential access, by upgrading the temporary access, to serve The Coach House extending the residential curtilage into agricultural land. It was the Planning Officer’s view that the proposal would be contrary to saved Local Plan Policy HOU10 which considered that the change of use of agricultural land to residential curtilage would not be permitted if there was a visual impact on the  form or character of the settlement and if there is significant encroachment into the surrounding countryside. Within the Green Belt such proposals would not normally be permitted due to the objectives of its designation. In terms of Policy SD6, landscape character, it was considered that the track as a residential driveway would differ from an agricultural track. Improvements to the existing access were proposed setting the gates back by 5 metres with a bell mouth. There was a requirement from County Highways for the surface to be a bound material and the proposal would result in the removal of some existing trees and hedgerow. The formalised and engineered access would have an urban appearance at odds with the existing rural character and appearance of the immediate area. Engineering operations were not considered inappropriate development provided they preserved the openness of the Green Belt and did not conflict with the purposes of land within it. The assessment of openness was a planning judgement based on the circumstances of the case. The Planning Officer’s report set out the assessment of openness in which it was considered that the regular vehicular movements along the track, the visual impact of the track itself and the formalised engineered access would impact on the openness of the Green Belt in this location. The Highway Authority had no objection to the proposed alterations to the existing access, subject to conditions regarding the gates opening inwards and 5 metres of bound material from the public highway. There had been an update received from the Tree Officer with regard to the proposed alteration to the existing access in that there was no objection to the removal of the Ash Tree and some of the existing sparse hedgerow in that area, subject to mitigation for its loss, therefore conditions for a landscape and planting of native species would be recommended if the Committee was minded to permit the application. However, the proposal was considered detrimental in terms of openness to the Green Belt and landscape character and therefore the Planning Officer’s recommendation was that the application be refused. A virtual site visit had been requested by a Member and the Committee was shown several videos highlighting the existing access arrangements and the proposed access arrangements from a number of different angles, views and directions.

28.22        The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this item and that the Officer recommendation was to refuse the application. A Member proposed that the application should be permitted and this was seconded. The proposer of the motion indicated that he would like to draw Members attention to the background in relation to this site. As had been stated, The Coach House had received permission to be turned into a residential dwelling and the applicant was now seeking to provide a safer access onto the A46 Shurdington Road than the preferred option of the Planning Officer of using the existing access for Lowther House which ran along the northern side of that property. He indicated that this access, as could be seen from the photographs and videos shown to the Committee, provided no visibility to the left or right as opposed to the proposed access which would provide a much safer route out onto the A46. He referred to the Planning Officer’s report and, specifically, the final line of the last Paragraph on Page No. 92 which mentioned access onto the A38 and he indicated that this was the incorrect road and should read the A46. He also referred to Paragraph 7.2 on that page and, specifically, reference to the fact that, in accordance with policies RES11 and HOU10, planning permission would only be granted for the change of use of agricultural land to domestic garden provided there was no adverse environmental or visual impact on the form, character or setting of the settlement. He maintained that there would be no adverse effect on the settlement as the only thing that was there currently was a roadway, an ancient historic track, a gate which abutted the A46 and a dropped curb. He was of the view that there was general consensus that there was an access there already as why else would there be a dropped curb. As far as he could see there would be no bricks laid just the engineering work at ground level and the gate being moved back 5 metres therefore he did not think that point 1 of Policy HOU10 bore any weight at all to this proposal. He went onto refer to point 2 of Policy HOU10 which stated that there should be no significant encroachment into the surrounding countryside and, whilst he acknowledged that it was a Green Belt location, he could not see any merit in suggesting there would be a significant encroachment as less than two miles down the road planning consent had been granted for 1,500 houses to be built. Finally, turning to point 3 of Policy HOU10, which stated that the form should not be incongruous with the surrounding characteristic pattern, as very little would change, as he had detailed previously, he could not see how this would be applicable. There was no objection from the Highways Authority which may have given some weight to a refusal but in actual fact that Authority agreed that the gate should be set back 5 metres as it would give better visual access when manoeuvring onto the A46. He was of the view that the application should be supported as it not only upgraded an ancient track but it also improved safety. Other Members spoke in support of the application referring to the safety concerns associated with the Lowther House access and the improvements that the proposed access would achieve. Members felt that it would be perverse not to improve the access arrangements as set out in the application. A Member stated that, whilst he understood the Officer recommendation as the site was in the Green Belt, the main concern related to openness and this was, as had been pointed out, a matter of judgement. Looking at the video he could not see that the proposals would harm the openness of the area and therefore the overriding factor should be safe access and improvement. The Planning Team Leader (South Area) indicated that if Members were minded to permit this application, they would need to clarify the reasons for doing so. By way of examples, he suggested that Members might be of the opinion that the proposal would have a very modest impact on the openness of the Green Belt and a very limited encroachment into the countryside. Furthermore, that the improved access and visibility splay would have an acceptable landscape impact and would result highway safety improvements. These examples could be seen as justifying the development. The Borough Solicitor added that Members also needed to clarfy whether they considered such examples constituted very special circumstances to outweigh a conflict with Green Belt policy, or whether they considered openness of the Green Belt was preserved and the proposed development was not inappropriate development. The Committee agreed with this assessment as to the reasons for this application to be permitted, and the proposer emphasised that it was his judgement that the impact on openness was insignificant in this instance and the proposal was not inappropriate development. The Planning Team Leader (South Area) advised the Committee that, should Members be minded to permit the application, then conditions should be applied and the Planning Officer advised on conditions in relation to time period, the development being carried out in accordance with the approved plans and documents, approval of a landscaping scheme and vehicular access requirements. The proposer and seconder indicated that they were happy with the conditions and, upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That the application be PERMITTED, subject to the conditions outlined above,as in the judgement of the Committee, the proposal would have an insignificant impact on the openness of the Green Belt, was not inappropriate development and would have a very limited encroachment into the surrounding countryside. Furthermore, the access and visibility splay would have an acceptable landscape impact and a highway safety improvement would be achieved.

28.23        The meeting was adjourned at 12 noon for a short break.

28.24        The meeting reconvened at 12.05pm with the same Membership present.