Agenda item

We considered the report of the application which was recommended for approval subject to the five conditions, as outlined in the report.

Mr. E. Walker, objecting to the application, attended the meeting by invitation of the Chair and outlined the following points:

·         The main concern of objectors relates to road safety.

·         It was considered that the highways report does not truly reflect the gravity and concerns of the Highways department.

·         In both reports, the Highways Department objects to linear parking provision. The Highways report recommends that, on highways safety grounds, the application should be refused.

·         The B4347 is a strategic route.

·         The A465 is the main road between Abergavenny and Hereford and links North and South Wales.  It has a low bridge detector at Llangua.

·         Alternative routes pass the site which is located on an ‘S’ bend at one of the narrowest points in the road.

·         The planning report states that issues regarding parking have been addressed but this is not the case. The revised layout plan is worse than the previous plan. The objector had prepared drawings to scale.  The scheme is unworkable.

·         The previous application did not work either and revised plans had been prepared.

·         Passengers would be required to get out of the car before it is parked.

·         Vehicles attempting to park would require considerable manoeuvring of the vehicle potentially endangering other road users which was highlighted by the Highways Department.

·         The application provides three parking spaces.  The Objector considers that this application does not comply with Supplementary Guidelines.

·         This application only refers to a drain and soakaway with no indication of where the water is to be discharged.

·         Drainage is a major problem as the ground is mainly rock. The gradient of the site will result in water flowing directly onto the highway with potentially dangerous consequences in inclement weather.

·         The objectors do not object to the house but object to the dangerous unworkable parking arrangements.

Mr. B. Spencer, the applicant’s agent, attended the meeting by invitation of the Chair and outlined the following points:

·         The original pre-application advice was that a scheme could be undertaken with parking off road.  Following a meeting with the Head of Planning, Conservation Officer and the Planning Officer, it was agreed that the scheme would be revised to minimise the impact of the parking arrangement. Although only two spaces could be provided, it was considered adequate.

·         Visibility splays -105 metres towards Grosmont centre and 56 metres in the opposite direction from the parking bay.

·         The method of parking in a linear system is a reverse parking manoeuvre.

·         The parking bays are 2.90 metres from the road edge with the stone wall providing ample space both sides of the vehicle.

·         There are no parking restrictions in Grosmont.

Having received the report of the application and the views expressed, the following points were noted:

·         Concern was expressed regarding the linear parking at this location and the Highways safety issues surrounding passengers alighting from the vehicle onto the highway in order to allow the vehicle to be parked.

·         The Highways Department had objected to the application on highways safety grounds.

·         Removal of a small section of the banking with a retaining wall to accommodate safe parking provision at this site could be considered.

It was proposed by County Councillor M. Feakins and seconded by County Councillor P. Murphy that we be minded to defer consideration of the application to allow officers to negotiate with the applicant with a view to establishing a better solution to accommodate safer parking provision at the site with appropriate conditions in respect of the materials to be used, and report back to Committee.

Upon being put to the vote, the following votes were recorded:

For deferral               -           12

Against deferral        -           0

Abstentions               -           1

The proposition was carried.

We resolved that we be minded to defer consideration of the application to allow officers to negotiate with the applicant with a view to establishing a better solution to accommodate safer parking provision at the site with appropriate conditions in respect of the materials to be used, and report back to Committee.