Skip to main content

Agenda item

Land Parcel Opposite Wheat Close, Kennel Lane, Broadwell

Summary

Outline application for the erection of 3 dwellings including details of access

(some matters reserved) at Land Parcel Opposite Wheat Close, Kennel Lane,

Broadwell.

 

Case Officer

Martin Perks

 

Ward Member

Councillor David Cunningham

 

Recommendation

PERMIT

Minutes:

The Case Officer introduced the report.

 

The application was for Outline application for the erection of 3 dwellings including details of access (some matters reserved) at Land Parcel Opposite Wheat Close, Kennel Lane, Broadwell.

 

Cllr Cunningham read representations from the objector and from the Town and Parish Council.

 

Member questions

 

Members discussed the established use of the site, which was a parking area and which previously contained garages which were demolished in 2019. As the site had previously been developed, the Interim Development manager stated that the site was classed as ancillary use. The land was  in private ownership. Members discussed the loss of car parking facilities as a result of the application. Officers advised that the the owner could remove access to the site without seeking planning permission which could result in on-street parking regardless of the outcome of this planning application. The Case Officer stated that the parking provision associated with the new dwellings was sufficient to fulfil the policies in the local plan.

 

Members asked about the relationship between the nearby dwellings, the residents of which who had been paying for the maintenance and use of the parking spaces. Officers stated that the land that there was never a direct association between the two (in planning terms) and the applicant had confirmed that any aforementioned contractual arrangements would be terminated as part of the permission of the application.

 

In terms of providing new car parking, the Interim Development Manager stated that Council had no such responsibility or powers. The Interim Development Manager stated that this would be down to Gloucestershire County Council, the District Council’s role would be to engage with them but could not require them to build more spaces.

 

Members asked questions regarding the highway safety elements of the proposal. The Case Officer stated that GCC Highways had been consulted but had not provided a response to the additional visibility splay information submitted by the applicant.  Officers were satisfied with the visibility splays provided by the applicant given the established use of the site.

 

Member Comments

 

Members discussed that the parking was an issue but acknowledged that the provision of parking spaces to the neighbouring properties was not a material planning consideration for the application in question.

 

Some Members stated that they would not support the application due to the fact that there would be a removal of parking to existing houses.

 

It was also noted by some members, that given that Bromford Housing was an affordable housing provider, the application was not for affordable housing. Although it was acknowledged by others that the application would likely fund future affordable housing (although not necessarily in Cotswold District).

 

Impact on AONB was discussed, with some members stating that there was a negative impact, but the Interim Development Manager stated that the land was previously developed, so the weight given to this should be reduced, in their opinion.

 

Councillor Andrew Maclean proposed refusing the application on the grounds of

 

  1. The proposed development would reduce result in the loss of an existing communal car parking area, thereby leading to the displacement of vehicles onto the adjacent public highway, which is narrower in width and offers limited opportunity for vehicles to safely possible in that way, the proposal is considered to have an adverse impact on highway safety, contrary to Local Plan Policy INF 4
  2. The proposed development by virtue would have a visual impact within the AONB, an impact on the village of Broadwell, would impact on the tranquillity of the area and would impact on the area's character having a cumulative impact on parking contrary to Local Plan Policies DS3 1A, EN4 and EN5, I believe,

 

Councillor David Fowles seconded the proposal to refuse the application.

 

The proposal was voted on and fell. 

 

Voting record – For 4 , against 5, abstain 2

 

For

Against

Abstain

Councillor Andrew Maclean

Councillor Gary Selwyn

Councillor Dilys Neill

Councillor Daryl Corps

Councillor Ian Watson

Councillor Michael Vann

Councillor David Fowles

Councillor Joe Harris

 

Councillor Julia Judd

Councillor Mark Harris

 

 

Councillor Patrick Coleman

 

 

Subsequently, Councillor Coleman proposed permitting the application, and Councillor Mark Harris seconded this proposal.

 

Voting record- For 6 , against 4 , abstain 1

 

To PERMIT the application

 

For

Against

Abstain

Councillor Michael Vann

Councillor Andrew Maclean

Councillor Dilys Neill

Councillor Gary Selwyn

Councillor Daryl Corps

 

Councillor Ian Watson

Councillor David Fowles

 

Councillor Joe Harris

Councillor Julia Judd

 

Councillor Mark Harris

 

 

Councillor Patrick Coleman

 

 

 

Supporting documents:

 

Related Pages