Vary condition number 8 on planning permission reference C09M/0060/00/LL relating to the completion of the estate road and lighting.
Local Member: Councillor Gethin Glyn Williams
Minutes:
Full application to vary condition number 8 on
planning permission reference C09M/0060/00/LL relating to the completion of the
estate road and lighting
(a)
The Development Control Manager elaborated on
the background of the application, noting that the condition had been imposed
originally on a planning permission in 2011 for erecting three detached
residential dwellings on plots that formed part of a housing estate of dwelling
houses, to protect the interests of the highway. The current application
requested the deletion of the need to provide street lighting by amending this
part of the condition. Officers had
visited the site and it was seen that the carriageway and the pavements had been
finally surfaced with tarmac.
Reference was made to the relevant policies along with
the public consultations as outlined in the report, along with the late
comments form which had been submitted to Members.
Given that the estate road had been completed it was
believed that the main planning consideration when dealing with the current
application was the effect of removing the provision of street lighting on road
safety and the amenities of the local neighbourhood. Whilst investigating the application,
confirmation had been received by the applicant's agent that the land which was
subject to the condition was not within the applicant's ownership and he was
unable to obtain the permission of the company who owned the land to provide
street lighting on the site. This had
been discussed by the planning officers and the officers of the Transportation
Unit and the developer and it was decided to submit an application to vary the
condition.
It was noted that the Transportation Unit did not
consider that street lighting had to be provided in order to accommodate
traffic from the development safely and efficiently, as including such a
provision would not affect road safety. It was confirmed that the
Transportation Unit did not object to the application.
Also, there was doubt whether the condition could be
enforced as the land did not form part of the estate and was not owned by the
applicant.
In terms of responding to concerns that had been
raised about the effect of not providing street lighting on road users’ safety
and an increase in cases of law-breaking as a result of not providing street
lighting, it was not considered that there was a real basis for concern as the
road was overlooked by a number of residential houses meaning that there was
natural surveillance and the estate was of a relatively open nature.
Whilst accepting that concerns had been voiced, it was
not considered that the objections outweighed the basic fact that the estate
road in its finished form was acceptable from the perspective of road safety,
and that a lack of street lighting provision would not affect the amenities of
the local neighbourhood. The planning officers’ recommendation was to approve
the application without conditions.
(b)
It was proposed and seconded to approve the
application.
(c)
The
following observations were noted against the recommendation:
·
Approving the application would set a precedent
for the future
·
Concerns given the number of houses on the
estate regarding child safety, especially during winter evenings
·
The Council had not made an effort to enforce
the condition
·
A question was asked about the number of houses
required on an estate before street lighting would become statutory.
(ch) In response to the abovementioned
observations, the Senior Planning Service Manager noted that there was a need
to be consistent and to deal with every application on its own merits. Looking
at the background of the original application, it was possible that the
Committee’s wish at the time would have been to improve the road. This was an
example where enforcement officers had worked with the developer in order to
reach an acceptable solution, as it would have been difficult to enforce the
condition as the developer / applicant was not the owner of this section of the
estate road that was subject to the planning condition. It was noted that the
developer had already complied with what was asked for in the application and
that this was an acceptable and reasonable solution under the circumstances.
(d)
In terms of transportation matters, the Senior
Development Control Officer explained that conditions were used for
applications on estates where there were six or more houses and where a
developer intended to transfer the road for the Council to adopt. In this case, he reiterated that it was not
possible to enforce installing street lighting and that it was not necessary in
terms of the safety of road users. It was confirmed that the Council had
adopted a section of the road and it would be willing to accept this section of
the road should the applicant submit an application in accordance with the
statutory process.
The members voted on the proposal to approve the
application.
Resolved: To approve the application unconditionally.
Supporting documents: