Agenda item

The Spinney, Brooksby

Applicant: Brooksby Melton College

Location: Spinney Campus - Brooksby Melton College Brooksby

Proposal: Mixed use redevelopment of the disused education/agricultural complex at the Spinney, Brooksby for residential development (up to 70 dwellings), B1 development (up to 850 sq.m.) and village shop 100 sq.m. (A1) with means of access (outline application).

 

(a) The Planning Officer stated that: As set out earlier the previous submission 15/00246 is currently being held in abeyance by the planning inspector, the reason for this is non determination of the application.

The proposal is an exact resubmission of the previous application for a mixed use redevelopment of the disused education/agricultural complex at the spinney, Brooksby for residential development consisting of up to 70 dwellings, b1 development up to 850 sq. metres and a village shop of 100 sq. metres, the application is an outline application with only access considered at this stage.

The proposal is part of the College’s development programme and detailed information ahs been provided to explain that its proceeds will support the ongoing improvement of the facilities of the college at both its Melton campus and Brooksby, including significant repairs to the Grade II listed Brooksby Hall that lies opposite, as well as funding the affordable hosing proposed at King Street Melton.

Following on from comments received in relation to additional traffic and the use of the road to gain access to the A46 additional comments have been sought from the County Highway Authority and I quote their following response

Following advice from the CHA the applicant factored their 2013 traffic counts to 2017 flows using the standard industry TEMPRO database. The CHA considered this to be a suitable base on which to test the impact of the development on the highway network.

The trip distribution in the submitted Transport Statement showed that the majority of the development traffic would use the main highway network and travel toward the larger built up areas of Melton Mowbray and Leicester. It is acknowledged that the roads through the villages are of a lower standard that the A607 and there is some additional development traffic through the surrounding villages as a result of the proposed development however the roads will remain well within their capacities.

The cumulative impact of trips associated with the other activities on the site and the ongoing development at the Brooksby campus have also been taken into account and there is sufficient capacity on the network to accommodate these trips. The CHA did not have any evidence to suggest that the proposed development traffic on the A607 would cause ‘severe’ harm on the highway network in accordance with Paragraph 32 of the NPPF.

Given the location and nature of the proposed development and the personal injury collision data the CHA would not be in favour of reducing the speed limit as the character of the road will be unchanged. The CHA would also need to gain the support of the Police to enforce any speed limit change in this area. As outlined in the final CHA observations the CHA did not seek to resist the application or request a change in the speed limit based on highway safety grounds.

That ends the CHA comments.

The application should be considered under paragraph 14 of the NPPF and requires that planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impact would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

This is a familiar position for the committee, particularly in relation to housing sites. However this proposal is considered to be unique in its offer of benefits but also unusual in respect of the scale and nature of harm.

The benefits can be summarised as follows

·         Provision of housing

·         Provision of B1 floor space

·         Highway improvements

·         Provision of affordable housing (off site)

·         Improvement to cultural facilities (the theatre)

·         Enhancement to cultural heritage in a way that could not be provided through the public purse without permission being granted

·         The dedication of land to Mencap

Balanced against these is the location of the site as fundamentally unsustainable due to its distance from facilities and resultant high level of car dependency. Location is not the sole determinate of sustainability, it is considered it is the main factor in the Borough and this location and drives at the heart of sustainable development required by the NPPF.

In conclusion it is considered that, on the balance of the issues, whilst there are significant benefits accruing from the proposal when assessed as required under the guidance in the NPPF in terms of housing supply, affordable housing and conservation, the balancing issue which is development of a site in an unsustainable location, is very significant and should attract weight accordingly.

Therefore applying the test required by the NPPF the application is recommended for refusal as set out in the report.

In conclusion it is considered that there are significant benefits accruing from the proposal when assessed as required under the guidance in the NPPF in terms of hosing supply and affordable housing and protection of heritage assets in particular. The balancing issues, which are impact on heritage assets are considered to be of limited harm in this location and the application is therefore recommended for approval subject to conditions as set out within the report.

 

(b) Cllr Wheeler, on behalf of Hoby with Rotherby Parish Council, was invited to speak and stated that

·         The Parish Council is in agreement with the recommendation

·         Fundamentally flawed application due to being unsustainable.

·         College is trying to meet challenging financial requirements.

·         Bus service is not adequate.

·         Potential 150 additional cars from 70 proposed dwellings.

·         Health and Safety issues for students crossing A607 with increasing traffic.

·         The Parish Council are halfway through the neighbourhood development plan. 43 per cent object 27 per cent support.

·         Despite recent traffic survey, commuters go straight through the parish

·         If development goes ahead, no offer of affordable housing has been made.

·         50 children to 100 houses in current situation. Ratio would be made higher than national average. Primary school only has 1 place at present – at capacity already.

·         If this is permitted what is to stop the college from expanding again to meet future financial needs.

·         Main concerns are traffic issues and affordable housing.

·         Members had no questions for Cllr Wheeler.

·         Simon Chadwick, on behalf of the applicant, was invited to speak and stated that

·         King Street application has now been permitted. Members previously said that valance would change last time and make this more favourable.

·         Permitting this application would enable King Street affordable housing to come forward.

·         Improvements to the theatre have been well received by the community.

·         Application provides local employment opportunities as part of mixed use scheme.

·         Benefits outweigh impacts when both applications are considered alongside each other.

·          

A Councillor asked with regards to affordable housing being located on King Street, why the college has not considered affordable housing on this site as well, and asked that if the application was permitted would the applicant consider affordable housing.

Simon Chadwick responded that the location for affordable housing is more suited to the town location as the town is more accessible. Would possibly consider affordables on the Spinney site although this would impact the viability of scheme and would change dynamic of current funding for the theatre and Brooksby Hall.

The Councillor responded that housing need exists across the whole borough not just in the town. Disappointed this has not already been included, think provision of affordable housing would help move this application forward.

The Chair commented that this is more of an item for debate.

A Councillor commented that the shop has never been a viable option. Agree with the Parish Council, 500 houses would be required to make any shop viable. With regards to selling produce from the farm, when the farm was taken over from the county council the applicant stopped farming the land.

Simon Chadwick responded that a section 106 agreement regarding the shop will be provided whether successful or not, confirming that the shop would be a convenience store.

The Planning Officer responded to the Parish Council comments regarding education that this is measured by the County Council who take into account existing and proposed numbers when considering applications.

Cllr Holmes proposed to refuse the application, seconded by Cllr Baguley.

 

A Councillor stated agreement with the application being unsustainable and reiterates the point regarding the lack of affordable housing. Transport is an issue. Totally unsustainable application.

A Councillor added as the Chair of the Local Plan that the approach to the location of affordable housing by the applicant is unacceptable. Rural areas need affordable housing as well as the town, there are already numerous affordable sites in the town.

The Head of Regulatory Services expressed concern regarding the understanding of the education issue, stating that the funding will expand to create necessary capacity.

With regards to affordable housing, the Council have been supporting application to migrate affordable housing into Melton Mowbray due to the bulk of the population being in the town.

If this application is unsustainable for affluent people it would not be good for disadvantaged people either.

A Councillor commented that the application site is a brownfield site that needs developing but developers do not understand the local situation and need to rethink their plans.

A Councillor commented that outline permission could represent a nice opportunity for suitable mix. The capacity of the Church is not as relevant as it used to be. Shop viability is not our problem. Disagree that the application is unsustainable, easy access to Melton and Leicester. There are buses and both are a short journey by car. Would have considered supporting this application if previous comments had not been made by the applicant with regards to affordable housing.

A vote was taken. 7 Members voted to refuse the application. 2 Members voted against. There were no abstentions.

 

DETERMINATION: Refused as per recommendation:

In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the proposal would, if approved, result in the erection of residential dwellings in an unsustainable location, where there are limited local amenities, facilities and where future residents are likely to depend on the use of the car, contrary to the advice contained in NPPF in promoting sustainable development. It is considered that there is insufficient benefits arising from the proposal to outweigh the harm arising in this location.

 

Cllr Posnett returned to the meeting.