Agenda item

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE

We considered the report of the application which was recommended for refusal. 

County Councillor P. Fox, addressing the committee as the local member, attended the meeting by invitation of the Chairman and outlined the following points:

·         Whilst he accepts that access to a site are not grounds for refusal, this application shows that the Councils policy is not helpful given the access to the development is a singular traffic lighted bridge lane that will add significant pressure on the existing highways.

·         He is pleased that the application is recommended for refusal. Whilst he accepts that the LDP designates 190 houses to be built on the proposed site but is still concerned at the size of the development which will double the size of the village.

·         A fundamental reason for rejecting the application is that the proposals do not include any affordable when the Councils policy states that 25% of the development must be affordable housing.

·         The increase in traffic and congestion also poses a risk to school routes and walking routes around the area.

Mr Watkins, objecting to the application and speaking on behalf of Portskewett Community Council, attended the meeting by invitation of the Chairman and outlined the following points:

·         He supported the points raised by County Councillor P. Fox

·         The main area of concern for the Community Council was the access to the site across the bridge. He queried the last time a structural engineers report was completed on the bridge to assess if it can cope with the additional traffic and heavy vehicles used for the development works.

·         Also concerned that as the bridge is the only access to the area residents would be cut off if the bridge failed.

·         Other concerns include insufficient parking as well as a roundabout being a preferred entrance to the site rather than a junction.

The committee also raised concerns at the lack of affordable housing which goes against the council policy and wishes of the committee and are disappointed with the developer for not including this in the proposals.

Members also raised concerns around the lack of proposed parking and the potential issues this may cause emergency services and refuse vehicles in navigating the site due to the need for side street parking.

Members queried whether Section 106 funding that has been requested includes funding for improvements to transport links and assessments to the bridge. Members were informed that the funding requested is to extend the local schools to cope with the additional children that will attend as a result of the development leisure provision, bus service improvements and a travel plan.

The committee were provided with an update from the Head of Planning as to the history of the application for the site and how they have arrived at the current position.

Having considered the report and the views expressed, it was proposed by County Councillor R. Higginson and seconded by County Councillor D. Evans that application DC/2014/01468 be refused.

Upon being put to the vote it was unanimously agreed to refuse the application and we resolved that application DC/2014/01468 be refused.

For refusal                   –          11

Against refusal            –          0

Abstentions                 -           0