Agenda item

To consider the report of the Assistant Director City Development.

The City Development Manager presented the application for the construction of a detached residential dwelling with associated access, landscaping and amenity space.

Members were circulated with an update sheet - attached to minutes.

Mr Lee spoke against the application. He raised the following points:-

·         unsafe access - share the Members’ serious concerns regarding suitability and safety of using the alleyway for vehicular access. These concerns are well summarised in the Council’s refusal in 2003 when it was noted that “vehicular traffic from this alleyway would be to the detriment of highway safety”.  There is restricted visibility from both the approach to the alleyway and within. Further, due to the narrow width of the lane, vehicles may not turn into the lane in one movement, necessitating multi-point manoeuvres within Sylvan Road on a bend with limited visibility. The alleyway is currently used by cars on average four times a month and the Highways’ assessment of six plus movements per day means the development will create a 50 fold increase in usage, significantly increasing the hazards;

·         poor sewerage arrangements and drainage - the report cites only the opinion of the agent on the important matters of drainage. As a matter of law, such disposal is a material planning consideration due to the potential effect on public health, the local environment and public amenity.Both foul and surface issues arise in respect of this proposal. The Council cannot properly make its decision today when insufficient information has been provided or sought.  Full details should be ascertained as to the possibility of a mains sewer connection and as to the feasibility of use (and potential consequences) of a septic tank and soakaway at this urban location;

·         adverse effect on local neighbourhood - the proposed dwelling is within 20 metres of the rear gardens of 44 and 46 Lower Kings Avenue and the viewpoint from the second storey window into No. 44 is only 34 degrees (a slight turn of the head).  There is also direct inter-visibility into No. 92 Union Road due to the inadequate screening of the deciduous trees. There has been significant local upset and concern at the loss of privacy and likely negative impact on local residents, whose enjoyment of their properties will be affected significantly;

·         the proposed development is contrary to the 2012 National Planning Policy Framework (paragraph 53), to resist the inappropriate development of residential gardens.  Not only would there be a loss of wildlife (which the Exeter Civic Society agree is unacceptable), this development of a single unit would be to the detriment of many in the local community and would set a precedent of sub-dividing garden land in this locality;

·         the proposal should be rejected on the basis of relevant material planning considerations, if given the correct weight.If despite the material objections, you are not minded to reject the proposal, we submit that you cannot be in a position lawfully to make a decision today due to the insufficient information presented; and

·         if this proposal is to be granted at all in the future, as neighbours we would need to be satisfied that all material planning considerations have properly been taken into account by your council (based on current legal advice, we would also appreciate sight of draft Planning Conditions, to demonstrate how all known and potential adverse effects of the proposal may hope to be ameliorated).

Responding to a Member, the City Development Manager advised that the main sewer ran down the full length of the back garden and that the previously refused application proposed pedestrian access only to the site with parking provision adjacent to No. 35 Sylvan Road. He also stated that drainage matters would be dealt with through any subsequent building legislation application.

Members felt that, notwithstanding its status as a public highway the proposed access was completely unacceptable because of its narrowness and poor visibility onto and from Sylvan Road. They noted that it could not be used by larger vehicles such as refuse lorries and fire engines and that any work to those properties on either side of the lane would prevent access even for smaller vehicles. Visiting site Members had identified a potential alternative access which would be more appropriate.

The recommendation was for approval subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

RESOLVED that planning permission for the construction of a detached residential dwelling with associated access, landscaping and amenity space be REFUSED as the access was neither safe nor suitable as evidenced by the visibility splay and the difficulty of accessing the alleyway.