Agenda item

The Head of Regulatory Services to submit a report to consider the issues raised in the representations received to Chapter 5 Policies C1(A) and C1(B) and Policies SS4 and SS5 of Chapter 4, and to recommend responses to the representations.  The report also includes the update to the site assessment work and proposes amendments as a result.

The Chairman of the Melton Local Plan Working Group, Councillor Chandler presented the report prepared by the Head of Regulatory Services the purpose of which was to highlight the issues raised in the representations received to Chapter 5 Policies C1(A) and C1B and Policies SS5 and SS6 of Chapter 4, and to recommend responses to the representations.  The report also included the update to the site assessment work and the proposed amendments as a result.

 

In presenting the report, Councillor Chandler advised:

 

•           site allocations were perhaps the highest profile part of the Plan in terms of public interest and had attracted a large quantity of representation.  The report before Members addressed sites of all sizes, from sustainable neighbourhoods in Melton, the smaller sites in and around Melton, and all of the housing sites in villages;

•           the report contained a ‘root and branch’ review of all of the sites in the previous Plan, taking into account the representations received and also newer sites that had been submitted since last November’s consultation. The update took into account the latest information relating site constraints such as flooding, recently granted planning permissions and calculations relating to their capacity;

•           the Council was being asked to present a revised set of site selections following this process.  The significance could not be under estimated – fairly few sites remained unchanged, several had modest changes to their exact boundaries or a revised estimated capacity but there were examples of sites being removed altogether and others taking their place.  This was all set out in the appendices, appendix 4 in particular set out the changes in map form;

•           that there would be ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ and all changes would need to be presented for consultation as a ‘focused change’;

•           as a consequence of this exercise, sites had come forward in locations where previously none were proposed, and in some locations sites were calculated to be able to accommodate a different number.  This in turn enabled stepping away from the redistribution exercise that was a feature of the previous version of the Plan that had been widely criticised.  Instead, between them, all of the sites in both Service centres and Rural Hubs met the necessary quantity without having to transfer the burden elsewhere, and it was proposed therefore to delete the complex tables explaining the reallocation process;

•           the report also addressed the Sustainable Neighbourhoods north and south of Melton.  To the north, various amendments were proposed to the Policy to offer greater protection to Melton Country Park to place the references to the Greenway in a different section of the Plan and to reduce affordable housing to 15%;

•           in respect of the South Sustainable Neighbourhood, there was a particular issue regarding the alignment of the South boundary.  It was depicted as a jagged line following various hedgerows in the Plan to date, but if it was realistically to become a significant road forming the edge of the town, it needed smoothing out.  The process for doing so moves closer to the St Lazarus scheduled monument near Burton Lazars and this had attracted objection from Heritage England who were concerned about harm to its setting.  However, there was a contrary view and a study had been carried out that reached an opposite conclusion and on this basis it was considered that a new line, a little further south, could be accepted.  This would coincide with the current planning application, which had a strong prospect of determination in advance of the Local Plan being adopted and would resolve the issue;

•           all of these changes and the evidence they were based upon were significant amendments to the Plan and needed to be treated as ‘focussed changes’ going forward which would be publicised through the consultation period.

 

Councillor Chandler proposed the recommendations numbered (i) to (v) in the report.  The motion was seconded by Councillor Illingworth.

 

Councillor Baguley moved an amendment to part (ii) of the motion to delete the site reference LONG4, Sand Pit Lane, Long Clawson.  In support of the amendment, she stated that the view of Heritage England was that building on that site would be harmful to the 3 designated heritage assets; Manor Farm House which was one of the few Grade 2 listed buildings in the Borough, the church which was also Grade 2 listed, and the scheduled ancient monument which was near to the site.  The amendment was seconded by Councillor Cumbers.

 

The Mayor invited the Head of Regulatory Services to respond.  The officer began by explaining that he would first comment on the background rather than the amendment itself: the representations from Heritage England were actually in relation to a comment on a current planning application submitted for that site for a very specific design and layout to which Heritage England had lodged an objection on an number of aspects.  When Heritage England had been consulted on the Local Plan as a whole in relation to the principle of building on these sites, they had not raised comments on LONG4.  The officer said he would therefore deduce that Heritage England was not against LONG4 being built on per se but that they objected to the current application in the form submitted.  Evidentially the case was not made based on contributions from Heritage England.

 

The Head of Regulatory Services referred Members to the item previously considered, particularly paragraphs 3.11.4 and 3.11.5 of the accompanying report.  The report included some tables about how the housing numbers added up across various categories of settlements.  This, he explained, was not just a comment on the amendment, but also on any other amendments which may be put forward at the meeting:  he highlighted the figures on the bottom line of the tables which demonstrated the flexibility to allow some modest changes to the housing sites.  Obviously, if there were to be an accumulation of housing sites taken out for one reason or another, at some point a line would be crossed whereby the Council would have not only departed from its own spacial strategy which had just been agreed but also in relation to the focussed changes meaning the Local Plan itself would be different.  Members were strongly advised to bear this in mind should any further changes be proposed.

 

As seconder of the original motion, Councillor Illingworth concurred with the advice of the officer stating that the comments of Heritage England on LONG4 needed to be put into context.  A vote was then taken on the amendment and subsequently defeated.

 

Councillor Hutchison indicated he wished to move a further amendment to the motion.  Councillor Hutchison stated that following the release of the agenda documents the residents of Frisby had highlighted concerns regarding the content of item 3E.  Their issue, which he supported, was that the revised capacity allocation of FRIS3 had grown to 68.  This had been discussed at the Members’ Briefing and the Frisby Parish Council Neighbourhood Planning Group and it appeared that the development area was larger than it was because of the inclusion of non housing content i.e. land for a future school extension, a proposed school drop off area and additional parking, an open play area and community orchard.  The amendment proposed was therefore to add to part (ii) of the motion the following words: “with an amendment to the identification of the site and capacity of site ref. FRIS3 to reflect the current planning application, i.e. to be annotated to depict the ‘developable area’ proposed by the planning application and resultant reduction in capacity to 48.”.  The amendment was seconded by Councillor Higgins who confirmed it had been addressed in the Working Group.

 

The Head of Regulatory Services was invited to respond.  The officer agreed with Councillor Hutchison’s summation and added that FRIS3 was a very large site in terms of its land take.  The somewhat blunt instrument of measuring estimated capacity of these sites simply applied a ‘houses per hectare’ measure and delivered a large figure.  In this particular case, the figure was completely artificial as that site included a number of other uses apart from housing.  Members were referred to paragraphs 5.14 and 5.15 of the report and it was confirmed that the proposal was for 48 houses not the 67 that the measurement indicated.  The Head of Regulatory Services also confirmed that he had no concerns about reducing 20 houses as a result of this amendment.  The physical changes to the documents could be made during the round of focused changes.

 

Upon being put to the vote the amendment was carried.

 

Councillor Wright then referred to paragraph 3.20.2 of the report concerning site EAST2 which was he said a garden and not a field and had resulted in objections from residents and the Bottesford Neighbourhood Steering Group.  He  proposed an amendment that it be removed.  Councillor Wyatt seconded the amendment.  The Head of Regulatory Services responded that the Member was correct that EAST2 did fall within the area of separation but when actually viewed on site with its boundary features, officers were of the opinion that it was not making a physical contribution to the area of separation between Easthorpe and Bottesford.

 

 Concern was expressed about removing particular sites without fully understanding the background.  Councillor Higgins therefore agreed that this site could be referred back to the Working Group for further consideration.  Upon being put to the vote this amendment was lost.

 

Councillor Freer-Jones thanked officers for the preceding overview sessions on the Local Plan and moved an amendment to part (iv) of the motion in order to protect the identity of the area to the southern boundary between the town and Burton Lazars.  It was proposed to add the following words to Policy SS4 subsections en1 and en3 to read “with particular regard to the ridgeline to the south of Melton Mowbray that separates the visual connection between Melton Mowbray and Burton Lazars”.  The amendment was seconded by Councillor Glancy who expressed the view that it was important to protect development on the fringes of the town to ensure it would fit well with the area of separation.  The Head of Regulatory Services confirmed that the wording proposed would add more prescriptive protection to that area.  Upon being put to the vote the amendment was carried.

 

RESOLVED:  That

 

(1)  the responses to representations outlined in the Schedule of responses for individual settlements (Appendix 1 and 1a, as made available in the Members Room) be agreed;

 

(2)  amendments proposed to Policies C1(A) and C1(B) be agreed based on updated site assessment work and suggested changes and its associated  ‘reasoned justification’ as a ‘Focussed Change’ for consultation (full details are contained within Item 3I of this agenda) with an amendment to the identification of the site and capacity of site ref. FRIS3 to reflect the current planning application, i.e. to be annotated to depict the ‘developable area’ proposed by the planning application and resultant reduction in capacity to 48;

 

(3)  the responses outlined in the schedule of responses for Policies SS4 and SS5 (Appendix 2a, 2b and 3 of the report) be agreed;

 

(4)  amendments proposed to the policies be agreed as outlined in paragraph 7.23 of this report and its associated  ‘reasoned justification’ as a ‘Focussed Change’ for consultation (full details are contained within Item 3I of this agenda (Minute CO29 refers) and the addition of the following wording to Policy SS4 subsections en1 and en3 to read “with particular regard to the ridgeline to the south of Melton Mowbray that separates the visual connection between Melton Mowbray and Burton Lazars”;

 

(5)  the modifications identified elsewhere in this report be agreed.