Skip to main content

Agenda item

23/03756/FUL- Milverton Old Rectory Gardens Longborough Moreton-In-Marsh Gloucestershire GL56 0QF

Proposal

Erection of single detached garage and addition of 2no. gable windows at Milverton Old Rectory Gardens Longborough Moreton-In-Marsh Gloucestershire GL56 0QF

 

Ward Member

Councillor David Cunningham

 

Case Officer

Helen Cooper

 

Recommendation

Permit

Minutes:

The application was for the erection of single detached garage and addition of two gable windows at Milverton Old Rectory Gardens, Longborough, Moreton-In-Marsh, Gloucestershire, GL56 0QF.

 

The Case Officer introduced the item. The Case Officer stated that the application had been referred to the Committee due to highway safety reasons. The site was in the Longborough Conservation Area and within the Cotswold National Landscape (Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty). The Conservation Officer considered the design of the garage to be in keeping with the local vernacular and did not object to the application.

 

The Case Officer explained that they had discussed the application with the Highways Authority, who would have preferred a solution setting the garage back a full car length’s distance away from the road. However, as this was not possible due to site constraints, and the road was not busy, the Highways Authority considered the proposal acceptable on balance.

 

Public Speakers addressed the Committee.

 

Councillor Timothy Howse from Longborough Parish Council addressed the Committee. Councillor Howse stated that the Parish Council had objected to the application on the grounds of highway safety but did not object to the design of the garage, which they considered appropriate for the Longborough Conservation Area. Councillor Howse stated that the site was on a blind bend and felt that cars idling while the garage was being opened would be a danger to highway safety.

 

Caroline Garnham, a supporter who lived in a neighbouring property, addressed the Committee. They stated that the application was in keeping with the conservation area and supported Local Plan policies EN10, EN11, EN2 of the local plan. They also stated that the applicants would open the doors remotely in order to mitigate impact on traffic due to a car being stopped in the middle of the road.

 

The applicant’s wife, Lora Kozarska, addressed the Committee on behalf of the applicant. They stated that the garage would be well designed, in keeping with the local area. They also stated that they would use the Amazon Alexa voice assistant to open the garage doors, therefore minimising the need to wait in the middle of the road while they opened.

 

The Ward Member, Councillor David Cunningham addressed the Committee. Councillor Cunningham stated that he felt a consensus had been reached in regard to the garage design being acceptable. Councillor Cunningham referenced the highway concerns also mentioned by the Parish Council representative, and encouraged the Committee to focus on these.

 

Members who attended the Sites Inspection Briefing addressed the rest of the Committee. Members stated that the Sites Inspection Briefing was useful, in order to understand traffic issues and the placement of the garage. The road was quiet at the time of the site visit, although members who were familiar with the site added that it could get busy during certain times of the day.

 

Member Questions

Members asked questions of the Case Officer, Head of Planning Services and Highways Response Officer. The following answers were provided:

  • The Case Officer stated that the alternative solution identified by the Highways Response Officer was not possible due to the constraints of the site. The alternative option was to set the garage to the side of the property, which would have negatively impacted the residential amenity of the neighbouring property. Though the Conservation Officer may accept this on aesthetic grounds, it was not considered possible due to the negative impact on residential amenity.
  • The Case Officer explained that the highways impact would have to be unacceptable for the consultee to recommend refusal. The Highways Officer felt that the impact was not unacceptable, due to the 20mph speed limit and the lack of existing restrictions on the road. The Highways Officer stated that they did not think that car being stopped to wait to enter the garage was an unacceptable impact, so did not object to the application.
  • The Head of Planning Services stated that they were not aware of the remote accessing of the garage door when writing the report but advised members to not wholly rely on this mitigation due to the potential fallibility of technology. The Head of Planning advised members to focus on the acceptability of a car being stopped in the road, bearing in mind the comments made by the Highways Officer. Officers also added that it would not be reasonable to enforce the use of the remote opening mechanism.
  • The Highways Officer explained that developments were often required to have a car’s length in front of the garage in order to meet parking requirements associated with new housing. However, there was no need to meet a parking requirement in this case, so less than a car’s length was acceptable. Members expressed that they had believed the car’s length requirement to be due to highways safety, the Highways Officer confirmed that this was not the case.
  • The presumption when considering the application was that road users would abide by the law. Therefore speeding, reversing out of driveways, or other contraventions of the Highway Code were not material planning considerations.

 

Member Comments

  • Members stated that the application had prompted useful discussion around the balance of the highway safety issues.
  • The Head of Planning Services clarified that the application would create a new access to the highways, but members did not think that this would create an unacceptable highways impact, referencing the reasons mentioned in the officer report and raised during member questions.

 

Councillor Mark Harris proposed permitting the application, stating that cars were able to stop or park on the road regardless of the development, as there were no traffic restrictions and it was a relatively quiet road. Therefore he did not believe the application to have an unacceptable highways safety impact.

 

Councillor Gary Selwyn seconded the proposal to permit the application.

 

Councillor David Fowles proposed refusing the application, citing what he believed to be an unacceptable impact on highway safety. The proposal was not seconded and therefore not put to a vote.

 

Councillor David Cunningham, as the member who referred the application to the Committee, addressed the Committee to sum up. Councillor Cunningham welcomed the debate on the application.

 

Supporting documents:

 

Related Pages