Agenda and minutes

Cllr Posnett

To confirm the minutes of the previous meeting on 9^th November 2017

Minutes of the meeting held on 9^th November 2017.

 

Approval of the minutes was proposed by Cllr Holmes and seconded by Cllr Botterill. It was unanimously agreed that the Chair sign them as a true record.

Members to declare any interest as appropriate in respect of items to be considered at this meeting.

The Chair (Cllr Illingworth) declared a personal and non-pecuniary interest in application 17/00596/FUL but had been legally advised this did not prohibit his participation in the discussion.

 

The Chair advised that Cllr Orson would ordinarily speak on application 17/00596/FUL as the Ward Councillor but has a disclosable pecuniary interest.

 

Field OS 3300, Oakham Road, Somerby

Applicant:     Hazelton Homes And Mark Curtis Bennett - Mr Tom Hazelton

Location:      Field OS 3300, Oakham Road, Somerby

Proposal:     Residential development for up to 31no dwellings (re-submission of 16/00100/OUT).

 

(a)       The Head of Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services stated that:

We have received a request for deferral from the applicant on the grounds:

•           Absence of a response of the LLFA in terms of establishing any existing flood risk from ground water and surface water at the site. Given that the issues revolve around whether or not the Site is at any existing flood risk with regard to surface water and/or groundwater (and therefore whether the Sequential Test is potentially applicable), it is clearly important for the LLFA’s position on that point to be known as they are statutory body responsible for managing the risk of flooding from surface water and groundwater in the area.

•           To consider the wider implication for the Emerging Local Plan if allocated sites are vulnerable failure of any Sequential Test not just in the Somerby site but potentially other sites within the Borough.

 

An objector has responded expressing the view that we have had sufficient time to consider the application, sufficient information has been provided and we are able to make a fully informed decision.

The HoRS expressed the view that it is a close cut case. Whilst the LLFA would bring a further perspective we do not consider we are lacking in understanding, otherwise the report would not have been published.

 

He commented that if we proceed:

•           Applicants consultants advise that the site is not at risk of flooding from any source. This is a view shared by both the EA and the LLFA. On the basis that the site is not a risk of flooding, it clearly would pass any sequential test or approach applied to it.

•           Application of the Sequential Test: The starting point is the NPPF, being a statement of government policy which was subject to consultation prior to its publication and, before amendment, requires consultation. PPG (which of course can be changed at any time), cannot usurp the NPPF; it is a guide to the application of the NPPF.

•           We are dealing with “decision-taking” rather than plan-making.  On “Avoiding risk” PPG states that, in decision-taking, LPAs should apply the “sequential approach” which “involves applying the Sequential Test for specific development proposals and, if needed, the Exception Test for specific development proposals, to steer development to areas with the lowest probability of flooding”. Clearly, on any interpretation of that paragraph, if the development passes the Sequential Test it accords with the sequential approach. This should be conclusive.

•           “This general approach is designed to ensure that areas at little or no risk of flooding from any source are developed in preference to areas at higher risk”. Even if this is applicable to decision-taking the site is clearly, at worse and on the basis of the Third Parties evidence comprising photographs, at “little” risk of flooding from any  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL62.1

Land at Cottage Farm, 36 Main Road, Kirby Bellars

Applicant:      Mr R Ogleby

Location:        Land At Cottage Farm, 36 Main Road, Kirby Bellars

Proposal:       Demolition of agricultural buildings and the erection of 3 dwellings.

 

(a)       The Planning Officer (JL) stated that:

No additional representations/ late items received for the application.

The application seeks planning permission to erect three dwellings on the site. This will replace the existing agricultural building on the site, which is currently the subject of an abatement notice with MBC’s Environmental Health.

It is proposed that access to the site will be achieved from Station Road. LCC Highways have raised no objection to the proposed development (subject to condition). MBC Environmental Health have also raised no objection, subject to the inclusion of a contamination condition (as included in the recommendation).

Whilst the location of the proposed development is not one that would usually be appropriate, it is considered that the removal of the buildings (as a result of this development ) would be of an exceptional circumstance to warrant the approval of the application.

 

The Chair asked for Members to suspend standing orders to allow a supported to speak. It was unanimously decided that standing orders would be suspended.

 

(b)       Mr Paul Osmond, a supporter, was invited to speak and stated that:

•           Intolerable living with current smell and waste

•           Prefer dwellings that won’t affect quality of life

•           Residents support application

 

A Cllr asked if Mr Osmond knew the smell could be removed would he still support the houses.

 

Mr Osmond stated that the houses would not affect him at all.

 

A Cllr asked how far the agricultural buildings are from Mr Osmond’s house.

 

Mr Osmond stated they are 50m away, therefore very close and intense.

 

The Chair asked Members if they would suspend standing orders to allow a second supporter to speak. Cllr Holmes proposed to allow and was seconded by Cllr Botterill. It was unanimously decided that standing orders would be suspended.

 

(c)        Tina Mist, a supporter, was invited to speak, and stated that:

•           Home is 40m away from agricultural buildings

•           Neighbours were not consulted on application for livestock

•           No objections to building to store farm machinery

•           High hedge and low ground therefore houses not an impact

•           Currently impacts quality of life

•           No objection to three houses

 

A Cllr asked if the original application was not for livestock.

 

Ms Mist stated that neighbours were not consulted on an application for livestock as there is a highway between them.

 

The Head of Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services stated that an application was dealt with in 2014 for agricultural buildings but this has a broad scope.

 

The Environmental Health Officer (VC) stated that the first neighbour complaint was submitted in February 2016. 58 visits to the site were taken and 64% of the time there was an odour. A nuisance notice was served in September 2016 and there have been legal circumstances since trying to resolve the matter. Mechanical ventilation had been looked at to ensure the smell  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL62.2

10 Church Lane, Redmile

Applicant:      Dr and Mrs Ben Lobo

Location:        The Byre, 10 Church Lane, Redmile

Proposal:       First floor extension

 

(a)       The Applications and Advice Manager advised that:

The application seeks planning permission for a first floor extension to form master bedroom/en-suite and dressing room. The proposal as amended measures 0.8 metres in height and spans 10.2 metres across the existing dwelling, providing 2.3 metre high living accommodation at ground floor and 2.2 metre high living accommodation at first floor.  The proposed materials are red reclaimed brick to walls, and existing pantiles will be used for the roof.  The site is located within Redmile and forms part of the designated Conservation Area.

 

It is considered that the main issues relating to the application are:

 

•           The impact of the proposal on the residential amenities of neighbouring properties

•           The visual impact of the proposal on the character and appearance of the settlement

 

The impact on  neighbours has been reduced by an amendment which reduced the height of the proposal by 0.5m. It is considered that while there may be some impact upon neighbours to the east ,particularly No.8,this would not have a significantly adverse impact upon the amenities of these neighbours.

 

There would be some impact upon the character and appearance of the area.  The application is re-presented following deferment on 9 November 2017, the application was deferred in order to re-examine potential conservation issues, these are addressed within the report which concludes that there is no adverse impact upon the surrounding Conservation Area.

 

(b)       Cllr Ian Lowther, from the Parish Council, was invited to speak and stated that:

•           Overdeveloped

•           Impact on Conservation Area

•           Not currently 3 bed, at least 4 bed

•           More parking needed than 2 spaces

•           Street parking already under pressure on Narrow Lane

•           Impact on conservation area substantial

•           Proposal hasn’t changed however harm has changed from less than substantial to non substantial

•           Increase in street parking

•           Adverse affect on neighbours – number 8 most affected

•           Blocks out light

•           NPPF states harm should be weighed against benefits – no benefits

 

A Cllr asked if there was a problem for ambulances etc. to access.

 

Cllr Lowther stated that a resident had a heart attack and it took the ambulance approximately 20 minutes to get to them as it had to reverse down the street.

 

(c)        Clare Chantrey, an objector, was invited to speak, and stated that:

•           Anomaly to report – previously reported less than substantial harm and now reports no harm, but the application has not changed

•           Harm should be balanced against benefits – there are no benefits

•           Harm to historic building and heritage asset

•           Residential amenity affected

•           Height affects access to natural light

•           Overbearing

•           Not enough car parking spaces

•           Strain on already insufficient situation

•           Worsen character of conservation area

•           Impact on all neighbours

 

(d)       Mr Ben Lobo, the applicant, was invited to speak and stated that:

•  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL62.3

Friars Well Farm, North Drive, Wartnaby

Applicant:      Friars Well Farm Business Park - Mr Geoffrey Johnson

Location:        Friars Well Farm, North Drive, Wartnaby

Proposal:       Construction of 3 commercial buildings for B1 and B8 uses, associated access delivery tuning areas and landscaping.

 

 

(a)       The Applications and Advice Manager (LP) stated that: This application is for full planning permission for the construction of 3 independent commercial buildings for B1 and B8 uses, measuring 24.6 metres by 46 metres floor area.  Total floor space 3395 square metres.  The 3 buildings will be sited next to each other with gables facing south outwards the access road.  There will be 12.2 metres gaps between them to allow for rear accessed and staff parking.  The buildings each measure 4.57 metres to eaves and 6.9 metres to ridge.

 

The application site is adjacent an existing business estate on the edge of the village of Wartnaby and seeks consent for the principle of additional employment land with the Borough.  Consideration to material and design have been given in relation to its semi-rural nature and also the use of existing mature screening, along with details of design, layout and appearance, it is considered that the principles of the development is acceptable in this location.

 

Despite concerns regarding highways issues, no evidence has been put forward that any such increase would significantly harm road safety interests and the Highways Authority have confirmed that the roads serving the site do not have a capacity issue and neither is there a traffic accident issue.  Accordingly, it is not considered that these concerns can be substantiated and withstand challenge.

 

Details of Conservation have been considered and the separation afforded from the application site to the Conservation Area is considered acceptable in this instance.

 

For these reasons the proposals are considered in accordance with local and national planning policy (NPPF) and no other material considerations indicate it should depart from these.  The application is recommended to be conditionally approved.

 

(b)       Wilson Boardman, the Chairman of the Parish Council, was invited to speak and stated that:

•           Additional traffic

•           Commercial vans/lorries go through Ab Kettleby

•           Parking and speed problems

•           Inconvenience to pedestrians, horse riders and bikes

•           Emergency services would not get through

•           Inappropriate – there are more sites for this development

•           Concerns on loss of amenity

 

A Cllr asked if there was signage on the village road.

 

Mr Boardman stated that there had been efforts from the applicant to reroute traffic to not go through the village however this cannot be controlled.

 

Cllr Holmes left the meeting at 8.18pm.

 

(c)        William Musson, an objector, was invited to speak and stated that:

•           Larger development

•           Overcapacity of storage facilities

•           Traffic concerns

•           Damage to road

•           Close to conservation area and will harm rural setting

•           Less than substantial harm

•           Visual impact

•           Detract from attractiveness of landscape – trees removed

•           Loss of recreational activity

•           Loss of residential amenity – noise issue

•           Few benefits

•           No new jobs created

•  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL62.4

Owl End, 24 Mill Lane, Frisby on the Wreake

Applicant:      Mr & Mrs Halford

Location:        Owl End, 24 Mill Lane, Frisby

Proposal:       Single, self-build dwelling (resubmission of application 17/00477/FUL)

 

(a)       The Applications and Advice Manager (LP) stated that:

The application site comprises 0.16 hectares on the northern edge of Frisby on the Wreake.  The site is currently utilised as associated with Owl End positioned to the south of Mill Lane, the southern boundary of the site adjoins 22 Mill lane, to the east of the site is arable land.  This application proposes a dwelling in a sustainable location with a reasonable range of facilities and capacity to accommodate some growth.  It is considered that there are material considerations of weight in favour of the application.

 

The site is considered to perform reasonably well in terms of access to facilities and transport links.

 

It is considered that balanced against the positive elements are the specific concerns raised in representations, particularly the development of the site from its garden state, additional traffic and the impact on the character of the village and conflict with Policy H3 of the emerging Neighbourhood Plan.

 

In conclusion it is considered that, on the balance of the issues, there are benefits accruing from the proposal when assessed as required under the guidance in the NPPF in terms of housing supply.  The balancing issues are considered to be of limited harm given their scale, significance and in the case of the Neighbourhood Plan, the relative weight it can carry in its current circumstances.

 

Applying the ‘test’ required by the NPPF that permission should be granted unless the impacts would “significantly and demonstrably” outweigh the benefits; it is considered that permission can be granted.

 

(b)       Kathy Ford, from the Parish Council, was invited to speak and stated that:

•           New application does not address or mitigate previous concerns

•           Safety on Mill Lane and threat of flooding

•           Outside limits to developments and village envelope

•           Within conservation area

•           To not refuse would set a dangerous precedent for further development

•           Driveway would destroy verge and cobbles and change street view

•           Close to listed buildings and conservation area

 

(c)        Brian Howes, an objector, was invited to speak and stated that:

•           Flooding and road safety concerns

•           Drive entrance is in Flood Zone 2

•           No change to flooding issues in new application

•           Removed smaller house represented only approximately 15% of total plot

•           Amount of hardstanding remains almost unchanged

•           Water from hardstanding will overflow into the lane

•           Mill Lane regularly used by pedestrians, horse riders and bicycles

•           Large vehicles have to reverse up the lane

•           Close to a blind bend

 

(d)       Colin Wilkinson, the agent, was invited to speak and stated that:

•           Single dwelling

•           Efficient and low maintenance

•           Surrounding embankments reduce impact of development

•           Design sympathetic to village

•           Variations of heights typical of Frisby

•           Overcame concerns on refused application

•           Reduced from 2 dwellings to 1, reduced in length and granny annex removed

•  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL62.5

To consider any other items that the Chair considers urgent

 

None