Replacement access drive at The Stables, Greetland, Elland

What was proposed

The application sought a replacement access drive by partly redeveloping the existing access drive, garden and amenity land.

“Proposal: Partial Redevelopment of Access Drive, Garden and Amenity Land to form Replacement Access Drive.”

Officer report

The site and access

The Stables is a detached dwelling west of Barnsdale House, currently using a shared gated access and long driveway.

“The application site is a detached dwelling (converted into a dwelling by the former owners of Barnsdale House which is now sold). It is located to the west of Barnsdale House and at a distance of over 117 metres away. Access to the site is currently via the same access arrangement for Barnsdale House through a gated access next to the existing garage that serves that dwelling and down a long driveway to the new dwelling (known as The Stables).”

Officer report

Earlier access applications

Three earlier applications for a new access track were refused, including refusals for Green Belt and highway reasons.

“There have been three previous planning applications on this application site for a new access track. All three applications have been refused due to the proposals being inappropriate development in the Green Belt. None of these application decisions have been appealed.”

“An application for new vehicular access was refused under delegated powers on 3 rd June 2021 (application number 20/00825/FUL). The application was refused on harm to the Green Belt and on highway issues.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the access would harm Green Belt openness, highway safety, visual amenity and biodiversity requirements.

“The applicants reasoning behind the application is that the applicant has moved from Barnsdale House into the converted property The Stables, as the existing access was sold off with the Barnsdale House, the applicant wants to create his own new separate access for his dwelling rather than the existing shared access.”

“Officers consider that in this case the harm by reason of inappropriateness to the Green Belt and any other harm resulting from the proposal has not been clearly outweighed by other considerations identified within the body of the report. In particular, harm relating to unacceptable impact on highway safety, particularly due to the acute angle and substandard visibility, and absence of any drainage to prevent water running off onto the highway.”

Officer report

Technical consultation

Highways objected over visibility, the acute approach, gradient and drainage, while biodiversity officers found insufficient information to assess the proposal.

“The Assistant Director (Strategic Infrastructure) Highways has been consulted on the proposals and made the following comments:”

“The approach to the highway should be level or a gradient of not less than 1:25. It should also be square rather than at an acute angle which reduces driver visibility.”

Officer report

What people said

Twenty-five letters were received: twenty objected over safety, drainage, landscape, wildlife and unnecessary development, while five supported the access.

“Twenty five letters of representation have been received, with 20 letters of objections and 5 letters of support received.”

“It also states that the current access road is not safe, which raises questions if this is a true fact. The application represents unnecessary development in the Green Belt. The applicant already has good vehicular access to their property for over 25 years. The proposed road creates a danger to other users of Gatehead Lane. The area has suffered landslides in the last 20 years. The new access will make visibility worse onto the road near the blind bend.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicant’s agent and the ward councillor addressed the committee.

The committee’s decision

The committee refused the application in accordance with the recommendation of the Director of Regeneration and Strategy.

“The Planning Officer presented a written report of the Director, Regeneration and Strategy which had been submitted in accordance with the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 and reported orally that it was recommended to be refused by the Director, Regeneration and Strategy, for the reasons set out in the report.”

“RESOLVED that the application be refused in accordance with the recommendation of the Director, Regeneration and Strategy.”

Minutes