Agenda item

(Councillor Hallam addressed the Committee and then left the meeting in accordance with his declaration of interest set out at minute 4 above.)

The Head of Planning submitted a report in respect of application no. N/2012/0232, elaborated thereon and referred to the Addendum that set out two further representations. He referred to the Planning Inspector’s letter dated 9 November 2004 appended to the report in which the applicant’s appeal against refusal of a similar application had been dismissed and observed that the fundamental highways objections still remained.

Mr Douglas, a relative of the applicant, commented that the health of the applicant and his wife had started to deteriorate some 14 years previously. Their use of a vehicle was almost entirely restricted for attending medical or related appointments. The applicant recognised the highways concerns and Mr Douglas commented that in paragraph 5 of the Planning Inspector’s letter of 2004, the Inspector appeared to be considering a personal consent but had not followed through with it. In answer to questions, Mr Douglas commented that the applicant had few visits from family members; that it was difficult for the applicant’s wife to walk appreciable distances making the use of taxis impracticable; both the applicant and his wife were currently able to drive; and that the applicant and his wife did not currently use the NDDR service and had their grocery shopping delivered to them.

Councillor Hallam, as Ward Councillor, asked that the special circumstances of the applicant and his wife should be taken into account. The application had the support of the local MP. Councillor Hallam commented that there was a rear access to the property that was gated which had been paid for by residents but which the applicant’s wife had difficulty in being able to open and close. Councillor Hallam observed that there was a dropped kerb further along Kettering Road close to the traffic light controlled junction with Spinney Hill Road and Cynthia Spencer. He commented that previous planning permissions granted on the property had been enacted by the applicant to a high standard and he stated that the Committee should look to help people to remain in their homes. In answer to questions Councillor Hallam commented that the rear access gates could be moved but that this would compromise the security that they gave and was the reason for their installation in the first place; and that the highways concerns were recognised but in this instance the usage was very low.

The Head of Planning commented that the officers were sympathetic to the applicant’s situation but felt, on balance, that the Highway Authority comments and the Planning Inspector’s comments made in 2004 should take precedence. In answer to questions, the Head of Planning commented that there was only the one vehicle crossover in the vicinity, as commented on by Councillor Hallam, and that this was a historic situation; the principle highways concerns were in respect of cars reversing out of the property onto the carriageway and because of the proximity of the property to the junction with Stanton Avenue that drivers might mistake the left hand turn; that a personal consent would not override the highway issues; and explained that there may be alternative options available such as using the NDDR service.

The Committee discussed the application.

RESOLVED:  That the application be refused as the property already had adequate access by way of a shared access to the rear and the proposal would introduce further unnecessary access on to Kettering Road, which was a very busy ‘A’ road, to the detriment of the free flow and safety of other users contrary to the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework.

NB: Councillor Hallam rejoined the meeting.