Retrospective application to retain vehicular access
LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Stephen Churchman
Minutes:
A
retrospective planning application to retain a vehicular access
a)
The Senior Development Control Manager elaborated
on the background of the application, noting that it was a retrospective application
for the retention of a vehicular access. It was reported that the access was
off a class 1 road, namely the A497 in Pentrefelin.
It was not considered that the proposal of creating
the access would have a detrimental impact on the area’s visual amenities. It
was emphasised that many of the objectors had voiced concerns involving road
safety, however, the Transportation Unit had not raised any concerns that would
derive from the development. Everyone was reminded that this was an access for
the maintenance of agricultural land with low density use. It was noted that
the access was very similar to similar accesses nearby
It was emphasised that should any planning
applications be submitted for further developments in the future, those
planning applications would be considered on their own merits. It was
considered that the site was suitable for an agricultural access and that there
were no implications in terms of road safety. Also, it was not considered that
the proposal, given its scale and location, would detrimentally affect the
amenities of neighbouring residents.
b)
Taking advantage of the right to speak, the
applicant’s agent noted the following points:
·
The applicant needed to look after the land and to
do so, he required occasional access to the land
c)
Taking advantage of the right to speak, the Local
Member (a member of this Planning Committee) made the following points:
·
The application appeared to be clear and simple,
but that there was a need to consider the application further
·
The entrance was located on a section of the road
which had a bend
·
The access was very close to quite a busy junction
in the village and bus stop. These appeared to be complications on a small
section of the road
·
It was accepted that the gate was similar to others
in the area but, again, problems arose with security
·
The gate could not be opened out as it would open
to the road and across a public footpath
·
It could not be opened fully into the land due to
the proximity to the river - it was therefore impractical
·
The main concerns for the residents of the village
was road safety - the access would add to these concerns
ch) In
response to observations made about the road safety concerns, the Senior
Development Control Officer highlighted that the size of the parcel of land was
insufficient for large agricultural machinery and therefore the application had
been considered for smaller machinery such as a 4x4 vehicle. It was emphasised
that use of the access would be occasional and he did not object to the
application. There was no reason to set the gate back
d)
It was proposed and
seconded to approve the application.
dd) During the ensuing discussion the following
points were highlighted: by individual members:
·
What was the size of the
parcel of land? Was it agricultural land within the development boundary?
·
Had the plot been
registered as agricultural land?
·
Was this an application to place an access for the
future?
·
Access must be gained to
the land to treat it
e)
In response to the observation with regard to land
use, it was noted that land was not recognised as a garden or plot and the land
was currently being used for agricultural purposes. It was noted that it was
entirely reasonable that an access be available to service the land. In
response to a question regarding the size of the plot and its location within
the development boundary, it was emphasised that this was not a material
consideration for the application.
RESOLVED to approve
1.
In accordance with
plans
2.
Low kerbs in accordance
with the details submitted to be placed on the site within three months of the
approval date;
3.
A gate to open into the site only and a clear
structure must be set on the access to ensure this within three months of the
approval date.
Supporting documents: