Common sense prevailed at the Planning Committee last night, when members of the committee listened to the views of objectors to a proposed scheme, rather than follow the recommendation of the Planning Department.
As VB readers will remember, yesterday we covered the curious case of the planning department U-turn on a decision relating to a planning application in Cowes. The result of the application being approved would’ve meant cars reversing across a pavement onto a busy road, thereby contravening the TR7 clause of the Unitary Development Plan (UDP).
Speaking against the proposed application was local resident Laurence Dillamore. He had three minutes to get his objections to the development across to members of the committee and clearly succeeded.
Despite the recommendation by Head of Planning, Bill Murphy (who claimed during the meeting that the recommendation was a collective planning department decision) for the revised application to be approved, committee member, Cllr Richard Hollis proposed rejection and the named vote counted nine in favour of rejection and one against (Cllr Bulwer).
For those interested, Mr Dillamore has kindly allowed VB to reproduce his speech, which give or take a few sentences, he presented to the committee yesterday afternoon.
Chairman,
There are so many aspects of this development that are profoundly unsatisfactory, but with only three minutes to speak, I have no alternative other than to focus on the one aspect of the revised proposal which I truly believe should render this application as doomed to failure.
It is a matter of public record that the basis on which the Inspectorate rejected the last appeal, was amongst other things, on the grounds of the volume of vehicular movement caused by cars entering and exiting. from the new development at the rear and visibility sighting splays whilst emerging.
Instead of addressing this by, for example, reducing the properties to be constructed, the solution, claimed by the developer to be supported by Highways, is to allow for the change of use of the amenity land in front of No 46 and to convert this into five parallel parking spaces.
The result of which, The suggested parking ‘solution’ to the front of No 46, compels all 5 vehicles to exit in reverse gear – a most dangerous manoeuvre across a busy pavement and into a classified road carrying huge traffic volumes + no less than 20 buses an hour. This is clearly in total breach of the Island’s Unitary Development Plan – provision TR7, with which I am sure you will be very familiar, as the Planning Department in conjunction with Highways, has rejected hundreds of far less contentious applications in the past.
In addition, before the development is even commenced, this highly questionable ‘solution’ has the immediate effect of ‘ejecting’ 6 vehicles into the overstretched local street parking facilities, (ultimately up to ten post development) and provides little or no improvement in the emerging visibility provision.
Mr Chairman, as I will demonstrate, this should have been rejected at an early stage but for two ‘unfortunate’ factors
1. Highways apparent ‘aberration’ in entering into an accommodation with the developer by endorsing a plan that is in complete conflict with published Council policy UDP – TR7 That is not subjective but fact.
Then purely by ‘coincidence’ I am sure
2. Despite 10 years, two planning appeals The appointment of a junior unqualified Planning Officer, apparently at college today (Note from Editor: this was later corrected by Mr Murphy saying it was university, not college the junior officer was attending), whose unquestioning reliance on the lack of objection from Highways, presumably led him to believe that the provisions of TR7 were not within his remit to question. In his mind, apparently, Highways being the sole arbiter as to the protection of public safety – that is not correct.
The proof of this is enshrined in an e mail from him to our Councillor dated 25/2 after initially indicating approval:
“”¦Andrew (his boss) presented the proposal at Projects Group (in the event that we had to go to committee) and it would appear that were now likely to be recommending refusal as senior management are (extremely) concerned regarding the parking along the frontage”
Presumably, the same senior managers that any reasonable person would have expected to have been appointed to deal with such a longstanding and contentious application from the outset.
In spite of this, totally ignoring the safety warning from superiors, he approves the application – his determination suggesting compliance with TR7 which it clearly doesn’t, sites examples such as the Appeal at No 86 which has no relevance as it is not on the main drag or bus route being above the junction with Victoria Road and seeks to argue that property access granted in Victorian times, is a precedent to be followed by planners today.
In conclusion, I urge you to reject this application, and in doing so send a clear message to the developer that any future application, if proportional and which doesn’t compromise public safety, is more likely to gain acceptance and support of those affected.
However, if you give approval, you will send a clear message to the voting public that the Planning Department and Committee place the scale of the commercial gain of a developer, ahead of their public duty which is to protect the living environment and most particularly, the safety of pedestrians and motorists alike.
If the provisions of TR7 or its successor doesn’t apply in Mill Hill Road, they can’t apply anywhere within your jurisdiction.
