3 dwellings at Land Adjacent Highfield Parsonage Road, Newton Ferrers

What was proposed

Three dwellings and a parking bay were proposed within the scope of a previous permission in principle, with sufficient amenity space and agreed drainage.

“Principle • Site within built up area of Newton Ferrers. • Previous PIP approval. • 3-bedroom, flexible space meets need.”

“Level of development • 3 dwellings within scope of PIP. • Provides for sufficient amenity space and NDS space requirements.”

Minutes

Questions on site details

Officers confirmed the hedgerow was within the applicant's ownership, accessibility was a building control matter, and drainage would work by gravity.

“In response to questions raised on the site visit, the hedgerow was within the red line and the applicant’s ownership. An extra condition to be added which requires details of the stopping up of the existing access to be agreed.”

“In response to questions raised, it was reported that: • Accessibility was a building control matter. • It wasn’t always practically possible to provide 100% accessible dwelling given the topography. • The hedge was a planted hedge on raised ground and therefore not a Devon Hedge. • Hedges and boundary treatments would be dealt with at the technical detail stage. • More detail has been provided on drainage, although complex, can see this would work under gravity.”

Minutes

Objection to the scheme

An objector said the village's sewage system was not upgraded, the development left little garden space, and it would cause traffic problems.

“Public Speakers A statement from Andrea Nelson, objector. This was a small village which has never had an upgrade on the sewage system and new housing being built just up the road. The applicant has never lived or got involved with the village life and have not taken on board the impact to the neighbours and wildlife. This would cause traffic issues and was an accident waiting to happen.”

Minutes

Support for the application

A speaker in support said the submission correctly followed an earlier approval and that highways had found no record of a crash on the road.

Parish Council's objection

The Parish Council said the scheme was overdevelopment with too little parking and amenity space, and would add to existing highway hazards.

“The current CEMP was completely inadequate and does not consider the parking opposite. Deliveries would likely block the only road in and out of the village. The lack of amenity space and bin storage and the houses accessed by steps which calls into question how these bins would be emptied. The new development at Collaton was taking shape and provides 125 houses, the current proposal represents serious over development, increase the risk of accidents.”

Minutes

Highway officer's view

The highway officer called it a balanced decision, noting the parking spaces were private and the scheme would slightly widen the carriageway.

“The DCC Highways Officer reported that this was a balance decision. The Highway Code states drivers must park with brake lights facing oncoming traffic; however this was on a public highway, the parking spaces were private spaces. The nearest space to safely turn in the road was 100 m away but there were doubts this would happen. There were advantages such as the blind access for the existing dwelling being removed and a slight widening of the carriageway.”

Minutes

Members' debate

Members debated overdevelopment and accessibility; a proposal to refuse on accessibility grounds was not seconded.

“During the debate: • This was overdevelopment with no comfort of space for living. • This could have been designed with a pathway or ramps along the front of the houses to allow for proper access. Not against the principle of development on this site but propose refusal on the grounds that it does not comply with accessibility provisions within the local plan. This was not seconded. • This was a small village with limited parking and feels like overdevelopment.”

“The Head of Development Management addressed the overdevelopment and accessibility concerns. The Act around disabled access was enshrined within building regulations and therefore a building regulation matter rather than a planning matter. Policy DEV1 does address accessibility but states ‘as appropriate’. The lack of parking would be challenging to defend a reason for refusal when the Highways Officer has said this was acceptable.”

Minutes

What was decided

The committee delegated approval subject to a section 106 agreement, revised landscaping for hedgehog corridors, and further conditions on access and drainage.

“Recommendation: Grant planning permission subject to a Unilateral Undertaking (s106 agreement) to secure mitigation measures in relation to impact on the Tamar EMS and the following conditions:”

“Committee Decision: Delegated approval to the Head of Development Management in consultation with the Chair, Cllr Taylor (Proposer) and Cllr Hawkins (Seconder) subject to the revision to condition for landscaping to include hedgehog highways, hedgehog corridors. A condition regarding the visible route display. A condition regarding stopping up of access and the completion of the S106 agreement for the Tamar EMS. A condition to include the revised plans are submitted.”

Minutes