Agenda item

PROPOSAL: Removal of existing barn and stables, change of use from ancillary equestrian to residential use and erection of 7 new dwellings.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Refuse.

64.22         This was an application for the removal of existing barn and stables, change of use from ancillary equestrian to residential use and erection of seven new dwellings.

64.23         The Planning Officer indicated that before starting her presentation it was necessary to amend the description of the application to take out the wording “the removal of existing barn and stables” as this was no longer included as part of the application which was now for change of use from ancillary equestrian to residential use and erection of seven new dwellings.

64.24         The Planning Officer explained that the application related to a parcel of land to the west of Greenacres which was located along the southern side of the A48 in Minsterworth. The site comprised a paddock and a manege which was used in association with a private equestrian use for the occupiers of Greenacres.  A stable, barn and yard lay immediately to the south-east corner of the site although that did not form part of the application site. The land immediately to the south was in the same ownership of the applicant. Beyond that lay a row of terraced properties and greenhouses. Residential properties bordered the east of the site and the former Apple Tree Inn could be found to the west on the opposite side of Watery Lane. To the north of the site was the A48.This application was submitted in full and sought permission for the construction of seven dwellings. The proposed layout would comprise a linear form of properties fronting the A48. The new dwellings were designed as one and a half storey cottage style properties utilising a traditional palette of materials.A new access was proposed onto Watery Lane and a shared internal road would run along the width of the site with a turning head provided at the end point. This application had first appeared at Planning Committee on 20 November 2018 and, at that meeting, the Committee was advised that Gloucestershire County Council, as Local Highways Authority, considered the applicant had failed to demonstrate that the impacts of the development could be effectively mitigated and the development would therefore have an unacceptable impact on highway safety. The concerns were based on the visibility issues at the Watery Lane/A48 junction. Given that situation, the Planning Committee had resolved “that authority be delegated to the (then) Technical Planning Manager to permit the application, subject to completion of a legal agreement to secure on-site affordable housing and suitable information being received from the applicant to overcome the concerns raised by County Highways.” Since that Committee, additional information had been submitted and reviewed by the Local Highways Authority and it had maintained the concerns expressed at the previous Committee.In light of the continued objection from the Local Highway Authority, as set out in the update report, Officers considered the harm to highway safety would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits in the overall planning balance and therefore it was recommended that the application should be refused. The Planning Officer clarified that there were no concerns with the access to the application site from Watery Lane the concerns related to the visibility at Watery Lane with the A48 junction.

64.25         The Chair invited a consultant, speaking in support of the application, to address the Committee. He explained that the application was for the erection of seven dwellings. Direct vehicular access to the site from Watery Lane had been approved by Gloucestershire County Council and that matter was not in dispute. The matter that was in dispute was the junction between Watery Lane and the A48, which vehicles would most likely utilise for onward travel in to Gloucester. Gloucestershire County Council had stated that the junction visibility onto the A48 from Watery Lane was substandard and therefore recommended the application was refused. However, the Watery Lane / A48 junction was an existing highway junction, where no collisions had been recorded in the last five years associated with vehicles turning in or out of the junction, this had been confirmed through Police data records and demonstrated that there was no existing highway issue at the junction. The Apple Tree Inn was also accessed off the A48 / Watery Lane junction and, although this pub had ceased trading it had planning permission for conversion to a residential development. When the pub was in operation, the A48 / Watery Lane junction would have been subject to significant use, much greater than that associated with seven houses. In terms of junction visibility, a speed survey had been commissioned and junction visibility onto the A48 to the right was suitable based on recorded speeds, and forward visibility was suitable to the junction in both directions from the A48. Junction visibility to the left onto the A48 was 113 metres but the County Council had requested visibility of 150 metres. However, national guidance advised that there was no causal link between substandard junction visibility at a junction and collisions. The fact that forward visibility was available to the junction would ensure that drivers travelling along the A48 were able to see a driver exiting Watery Lane and would be able to slow appropriately if required, and therefore no conflict would occur. The visibility to the left was measured to the centre line of the A48 rather than the kerbline as there were overtaking restrictions on the A48, meaning that vehicles travelling towards Gloucester were unlikely to be on the nearside of the road. In summary, given that this was an existing highway junction, which had been subject to significant use in the past, was still subject to a reasonable level of daily use, had no recorded collisions and three out of the four visibility requirements were satisfied, it was considered that the development would not have an unacceptable impact on highway safety and therefore should be permitted. The National Planning Policy Framework advised that developments should only be refused on highway grounds where there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety or a severe impact on the operation of the local highway network: it was not felt that these high bars had been attained and therefore the development should be permitted. 

64.26         The Chair asked the Local Highways Authority representative if he wished to respond to any of the points raised by the speaker. He indicated that he would focus his response on highway safety and particularly the visibility splay to the left of the access which was the matter of dispute between the parties. He referred to National Guidance on this particular matter and the drawings that had been presented by Cotswold Transport Planning to support the application. As had been said, the visibility splay to the left as projected on the drawings was approximately 113 metres where the requirement, in the opinion of the Highways Authority, was 150 metres. There were variations within the national standards which needed to be considered carefully as to the projection of visibility splays however, in this instance, the view of the Local Highways Authority was that the visibility splay should not be projected to the centre line of the carriageway. He indicated that this was a matter of professional disagreement between the parties and was something that various Inspectors had considered and had concluded on either side of the argument. Historically, the shortfall of visibility could be considered in certain circumstances however, in this instance, the A48 was clearly a route of strategic economic importance which carried a high degree of flow. The Local Highway Authority considered that the intensification of the site access onto the junction meant that there were no sound reasons to warrant a reduction in visibility splay albeit in the absence of immediate accident data. Therefore the conclusion of the Local Highway Authority was that the visibility splay looking left was actually less than had been suggested and ultimately fell below what was considered to be the required minimum arrangements.

64.27         A proposal to refuse the application was seconded and the seconder indicated that she knew the road well and reminded those Members who had attended a site visit to land situated to the north at the top of the brow of the hill that there was a bend on the road which this site sat at the bottom of between two brows so the visibility was very poor and in her view it would be a mistake to allow any more access onto the A48 from Watery Lane. Upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That the application be REFUSED in accordance with the Officer recommendation.