PAPER D

REPORT TO DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE –

TUESDAY 14 MARCH 2006

P/02481/03 – TCP/05746/N

Outline for residential development (additional information regarding suitability of junction of Woodland View/Ashey Road to serve proposed development) part OS parcels 1238, 0135 and 0952, land between Weeks Road and, Ashey Road, Ryde, PO33

Officer: Mr P Salmon, Head of Development Team Tel: (01983) 82359-52

Summary

Members resolved to refuse the above planning application at the meeting on 29 November 2005. The ‘cooling off period’ was invoked to enable a further report to be placed before Members prior to this decision being ratified. The cooling off period is a procedure within standing orders and is designed to give Members an opportunity to examine a decision that has been made against officer recommendations and which would present extreme difficulty in defending at any resultant appeal.

The interpretation of Members’ reasons for wishing the application be refused are summarised as follows:

· The proposal fails to indicate how sustainable development can be delivered.

· The access off Woodland View onto Ashey Road is unsatisfactory to serve the proposed density of development by reason of unacceptable visibility.

· The application fails to acknowledge the site is subject of land instability and therefore its development could result in subsidence problems.

· The proposal fails to allay the concerns of the Planning Authority the site will not contribute to flooding problems downstream in relation to Monkton Mead Brook.

On 21 December 2005, Members resolved that the application be deferred for further negotiation in respect of access arrangements to the site. Access was considered by Members to be the only outstanding issue. Following a meeting between officers, the applicants and Councillor Churchman, set up to discuss potential alternative access arrangements (Councillor Churchman had been invited but was unable to attend), agents for Wadham College have confirmed that they wish this application to be considered as currently presented. At this stage they do not wish to propose or consider an alternative access. This report therefore advises Members that the applicants have not revised their scheme since it was last considered and that a decision must now be made regarding this planning application.

Background

This report needs to be read in conjunction for those to the Committee Meetings of 29 November 2005 and 21 December 2005 (attached and updated). Also attached is a letter from Carter Jonas acting as agents for Wadham College confirming their wish for the application to be considered in its current form and their reasoning behind this.

Members will recall that the application was originally deferred at the July 2005 Meeting to allow further consideration of detailed information regarding access. The key to this was the scale and nature of traffic on Ashey Road. Information was subsequently submitted by applicants confirming the acceptability of the junction in accordance with a methodology that complied with standard practice. This was a view supported by highways officers.

Officers maintain the recommendation for Planning Permission to be granted. In the event that Members wish to continue with the approach set out at the 21 December 2005 meeting, it will need to be demonstrated and justified why exception to the various technical guidance, (particularly Design Bulletin 32 – Residential Roads and Footpaths) shall be waived in this case. Similarly, Members will need to identify the circumstances in which any potential appeal is defended.

Members are advised to give little, if any weight to the suggestion that on street parking in Woodland View should be a valid reason to refuse the application. In most cases the houses have two off street parking spaces. Similarly, the existing road is of a satisfactory width to accommodate emergency vehicles.

Financial Matters

Officers views have not changed since the report to Members on 21 December 2005. The applicants are likely to have a strong case at a planning appeal and any applications for costs could be justified.

Recommendation

It is recommended that Committee:

a) Reconsider its decision to refuse the application

b) Approve the application subject to conditions set out in the Head of Planning Services Report of 29 November 2005 Development Control Committee.