New vehicle turning area at Land At Otters Brook, Ivor Park, Brynsadler, Pontyclun

What is proposed

The application seeks revised plans for a new turning area for large vehicles serving two approved detached dwellings.

“The approved development granted planning permission for two detached dwellings to be constructed within land at Otter’s Brook, Ivor Park. The dwellings would be located at the end of Ivor Park and would, in effect, be a continuation of the line of existing dwellings.”

Officer report

The site

The site is part of a large residential plot, accessed from an unadopted lane beside open countryside and the M4.

“The application site comprises part of the curtilage of the property known as Otters Brook, which is located within the settlement boundary to the most south-eastern part of Brynsadler.”

“Land to the north and south of the plot is open countryside and part of a SINC; however, that to the south on the opposite side of the lane provides a short buffer to the M4 motorway, which is within 35 to 40m of the application site boundary.”

Officer report

Earlier planning decisions

Outline permission and reserved matters approval for two dwellings were granted after an earlier outline application was refused.

“23/1110/RES: Approval of reserved matters (access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale) of outline planning permission 20/0646/13. Decision: 06/02/2024, Granted.”

“20/0646/OUT: Two split level 4 bed dwellings with garages and shared drive. Provision of foot path. (Outline) (Affecting Public Right of Way ANT/340/1) (Description amended. Amended plans and information received 5th October 6th November and 9th November 2020). Decision: 05/03/2021, Granted.”

Officer report

The recommendation

Approval was recommended because the changes would provide an acceptable design and layout without harming the street scene, neighbours or highway safety.

“RECOMMENDATION: GRANT SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS BELOW:”

“REASONS: The proposed alterations fall within the scope of the previously approved development. They would result in a scheme of an acceptable design and layout that would neither detract from the street scene, cause detriment to the amenity of surrounding residential occupiers, nor be harmful to highway safety.”

Officer report

Why the layout changed

The existing turning area could not be upgraded because the applicant did not control the required land, so a compliant alternative was proposed.

“The Council’s Highways and Transportation section has advised that since the original application was approved and although the existing turning area falls within the red line boundary, the Applicant was not control of the land required to upgrade the existing turning area and adjacent footway serving the proposed plots.”

“The scheme does result in the loss of a continuous pedestrian route to the proposed dwellings, meaning pedestrians and service personnel would need to cross the turning area. However, given the low pedestrian flows at this location and the slow vehicle speeds observed, this impact alone does not justify a highway objection.”

Officer report

Objections and consultation

Six households objected, while consultees raised no objection or accepted that conditions could address highways, construction and drainage matters.

“APPLICATION NUMBER – 25/0692/RVOC REPORT Letters of objection or representation have been received from six households raising the following issues:”

“No objection, subject to conditions regarding highway improvements and a construction method statement.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The agent and two objectors addressed the committee, the agent replied, and the Head of Planning reported a late objection letter.

The committee decision

The committee approved the application in line with the recommendation; a site visit motion failed and one councillor voted against.

“The Head of Planning presented the application to Committee and following consideration it was RESOLVED to approve the application in accordance with the recommendation of the Director, Housing and Regeneration.”

“(Note: A motion was seconded to undertake a site visit but failed)”

Minutes