Minutes:
54.1 Item 8B
Application DC/20/03900
Proposal Householder Planning Application – Construction of driveway/parking area (following removal of retaining wall and re-polishing of bollards)
Site Location HAUGHLEY – 17 Fishponds Way, Haughley, Stowmarket. Suffolk
Applicant Mr Ricky Smith
54.2 The Area Planning Manager presented the application to the Committee outlining the proposal before Members, the layout of the site and the officer recommendation of approval.
54.3 The Area Planning Manager responded to Members’ questions on issues including: highway safety, any further properties located on the driveway, the access to the property, the consultation process required should the access to the property be moved, and who has responsibility for the footpath.
54.4 Members considered the representation from Councillor Rachel Eburne who spoke as a Ward Member.
54.5 The Ward Member and the Area Planning Manager responded to questions from Members on issues including: the vehicular access to adjacent properties.
54.6 Members considered the representation from Councillor Keith Welham who spoke as a Ward Member.
54.7 The Area Planning Manager responded to questions from Members on issues including: the maintenance of the driveway, the reason for the application being presented to Committee, and any pre-application advice given.
54.8 Members debated the application on issues including: the distance from the current parking area to the property, the safety aspects of the proposal, and the adjacent development and the pedestrian crossing.
54.9 Councillor Barry Humphreys MBE proposed that the application be refused on the grounds of safety.
54.10 Councillor Peter Gould seconded the motion.
54.11 A short break was taken between 10:52- 10:58 for the Area Planning Manager to confirm the wording for the proposal.
54.12 The Area Planning Manager read out the wording for the proposal as follows which was subsequently agreed by the proposer and seconder:
- That application DC/20/03900 be refused for the following reasons:
The development, if approved would result in in the increased chance of conflict with pedestrians from Eve Balfour Way resulting in reduced pedestrian safety. Furthermore, given recent local developments approved in the area, the pedestrian use of the footpath network shall increase significantly and further vehicular access would lead to increased risk to pedestrian conflict at this location. Moreover the changes to the front footpath would erode the character and amenity of the area. On this basis the proposal would be contrary to Local Plan T10, H16, GP1, Neighbourhood Plan POLICY HAU10 and HAU15 and the NPPF, especially para 102 and 127.
By a unanimous vote.
RESOLVED
- That application DC/20/03900 be refused for the following reasons:
The development, if approved would result in in the increased chance of conflict with pedestrians from Eve Balfour Way resulting in reduced pedestrian safety. Furthermore, given recent local developments approved in the area, the pedestrian use of the footpath network shall increase significantly and further vehicular access would lead to increased risk to pedestrian conflict at this location. Moreover the changes to the front footpath would erode the character and amenity of the area. On this basis the proposal would be contrary to Local Plan T10, H16, GP1, Neighbourhood Plan POLICY HAU10 and HAU15 and the NPPF, especially para 102 and 127.
Supporting documents: