To consider the report of the Liveable Exeter Programme Director and Interim City Development Lead.
The Assistant Service Lead Planning presented the application for a new dwelling with parking, landscaping and new works.
With reference to photographs, plans and the relationship to the surrounding rural and urban areas, the Assistant Service Lead provided the following detail:-
· the site formed part of an established residential plot and side garden of a Grade II Listed end-of-terrace thatched roof cottage and was primarily composed of the private garden area of 102 Main Road but also contained the vehicular access point that currently serves two occupied dwellings, 100 and 102 Main Road;
· the western boundary was shared with the public highway and provided the access point to the site from the Classified B3181 Road, the existing access point being substandard in terms of visibility splay distances and vehicles exiting on to the public highway;
· the proposed scheme would include widening the access point to improve visibility in both directions when exiting onto Main Road. The works would make the highway opening wider and enhance visibility for 100 and 102 Main Road residents and general users of the public road as supported by the Local Highway Authority;
· a new two storey four bedroom detached dwelling house and private garden was proposed with allocated parking, turning head and site access widening work
· it would be of a contemporary design with the use of high quality material finish and integral garage, cycle parking and bin storage; and
· the receipt of 11 objections, as set out in the report.
The Assistant Service Lead advised of the following responses:-
· no objection from Devon County Council, subject to the implementation of conditions prior to occupation including improved access, the provision of a visibility splay and removal of a lamppost;
· no response from East Devon District Council;
· conditions on construction hours recommend by Environmental Health; and
· no objections raised from Exeter City Council Heritage.
Councillor Harvey, having given notice under Standing Order No. 44, spoke on the item. He raised the following points:-
· serious objections from neighbouring residents;
· the development is unsustainable;
· the B3181 is an exceptionally busy road exacerbated by recent developments in the area and the impact of traffic is severe. Safety of pedestrians, cyclists and motorists is a great concern;
· with a pavement on only one side of the road the existing unsafe nature of this stretch of road will be increased - an additional footpath is needed;
· the proposed visibility splay will not improve matters;
· pleased that the lamppost would be removed; and
· scale, size and massing of the proposed dwelling dwarfs neighbouring properties.
Councillor Wood, having given notice under Standing Order No. 44, spoke on the item. He raised the following points:-
· support comments of Councillor Harvey;
· the County Council comments that the proposed new access would “be better than what is there now” emphasises its inadequacy;
· with only one pavement and solid traffic for much of the day including agricultural vehicles, the safety of pedestrians and cyclists is severely compromised;
· question the accuracy of the measurements provided by the applicant;
· excessive massing of the proposal will result in neighbouring properties being overlooked including bedrooms and gardens; and
· protection of green fields should not be used as a reason to inappropriately develop in-fill sites.
Mr David Lawrence spoke against the application. He raised the following points:-
· the proposal will have a severe impact on family safety and a risk assessment is required;
· the road is unsafe particularly with the large number of buses and tractors that use it and the County Council have not responded to requests to assess the dangers;
· the measurements provided of the distance of the development from the highway should be reduced by 50%;
· access road is 10 feet above the main road;
· closeness of proposed new dwelling which is directly overlooking affecting daylight and privacy and is not to scale on the site plan;
· lights from parked vehicles will shine into the dining room;
· space to the rear of the site should be used instead of a development which adversely impacts two neighbouring properties; and
· loss of 80 year old apple and hazel trees and impact on wildlife.
Members asked a number of questions both of the applicant and of the two Members attending under Standing Orders, particularly around the relationship of the objector’s property to the site itself as well as the access, the accuracy of the measurements and how the properties were accessed.
The recommendation was for approval, subject to the conditions as set out in the report.
A motion to defer the application for a site visit to be undertaken and for the issues raised to be clarified was moved, seconded and agreed.
RESOLVED that the application for a new dwelling with parking, landscaping and new works be DEFERRED for a site inspection to be undertaken.