Agenda item

Field OS 6934, Bypass, Asfordby

 

Applicant: C/O Fairhurst Consultancy

Location: Field OS 6934, Bypass, Asfordby

Proposal: Outline application for 55 dwellings

 

(a) The Regulatory Services Manager stated that this is an application for outline

planning permission, with all matters reserved except for access. It relates to a number of paddocks situated between existing housing and the by-pass.

 

There are no technical objections to the application and is proposed for development in both the emerging local and neighbourhood plans. The Neighbourhood Plan can be given considerable weight because it is a post –examination plan, which will soon be subject to a referendum. The Local Plan can be given limited weight.

Note that the applicants have submitted a viability assessment which has been considered by the district valuer. This confirms that the development can deliver very little affordable housing.

Recommend that permission is granted subject to a section 106 and conditions as reported.

 

(b) Cllr de Burle, the head of the Parish Council, was invited to speak and stated that:

·         Support application

·         Key in Asfordby Neighbourhood Plan

·         Plan formally adopted by the REEA Committee

·         Developer should be required to incorporate traffic calming measures on

·         Saxby Road from the site entrance extending past the school to the junction

·         of the Loughborough Road

·         Special attention to be given to concerns of potential flooding from surface water

·          

Cllr Chandler asked if he meant speed bumps by traffic calming measures.

 

Cllr de Burle stated that the road is narrow with a school entrance and often cars parked either side of the road. The village is sometimes used as a race track by drivers so traffic calming measures are needed.

 

(c) Maurice Fairhurst, the agent, was invited to speak and stated that:

·         Low grade, unkempt agricultural land

·         2.4 hectares (5.9 acres)

·         Outline application for access only

·         Sustainable under the NPPF

·         Social and economic benefits not outweighed by adverse impacts

·         Site allocated for housing in Local Plan and Asfordby Neighbourhood Plan

·         Unobtrusive

·         Hedges retained and supplemented along bypass boundary

·         Close to facilities such as school, shops, pubs, church etc.

·         Pedestrian access

·         New accesses and traffic calming measures provided

·         Footpaths into Regency Road and playing fields

·         Agreed conditions with Highways Authority

 

Cllr Wyatt asked what the proportion of bungalows is.

 

The Agent stated there would be 11.

 

Cllr Chandler asked if there could be an access brought to Regency Road.

 

The Agent stated that this had been thought about however the Highways Authority was keen to keep vehicular traffic on Saxelby Road. There is not enough visibility emerging from Regency Road. Used instead as cycle way and pedestrian access.

 

(d) Cllr Sheldon, the Ward Councillor, was invited to speak and stated that:

·         Flooding issue

·         Drain provided when the bypass was built no longer works

·         Maintenance of drainage needs to be addressed

·         Flooding previously occurred and flooded Prince Charles Square, Bradgate Lane and an old people's home

·          

Cllr Wyatt asked which home was flooded and stated that no flooding had occurred recently.

 

Cllr Sheldon stated that it was Bradgate Lane Flats. The issue had been rectified but needed to be sure the new drainage works and does not add to the problem.

 

The Regulatory Services Manager stated that condition 7 refers to drainage and the maintenance thereafter. Condition 13 covers traffic calming measures with the introduction of 20mph zone in the school area to maintain safety. Access on Regency Road is logical however adequate visibility is not provided thus it is unsuitable.

 

A Member asked if the 20mph zone was advisory or enforceable.

 

A Member clarified that it could not be enforced.

 

A Member asked how many houses were allocated to Asfordby in the Local Plan. Previously the area was left as there could be no buildings closer to the bypass.

 

The Head of Regulatory Services stated that there was a gross allocation of 290 but because of site limitations this comes down to 160.

 

Cllr Holmes proposed to defer the application until flooding issues were fixed.

 

The proposal was not seconded and the deferment failed.

 

A Member stated that previously houses were built and a steel culvert was provided to divert flooding to river, however holes were not cut into it. Since this was fixed there have been no flooding issues.

 

Cllr Greenow proposed to permit the application subject to a further condition which would read: Prior to first occupation details of a traffic calming scheme in the vicinity of Captain’s Close Primary School on Saxelby Road shall be first submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA and thereafter implemented in accordance with the approved scheme.

 

The Chair stated that Cllr Greenow's condition would supplant condition 13.

 

Cllr Posnett seconded the proposal to permit.

 

A Member stated that they would like to see a condition for specific earth bunding to safeguard traffic noise.

 

Cllr Greenow stated that the site is narrow and any bund would make it smaller. He was happy to leave condition 15 as it was.

 

The Regulatory Services Manager stated that condition 15 is not precise in noise proof measures. It could be a bund or acoustic fencing depending on the site, but would ensure residents are protected from noise.

 

A Member was concerned that condition 13 implementing traffic calming measures would incur a cost for the flashing bulbs on the school. Could the developers meet some of this cost.

 

Cllr Greenow appreciated the concern however it should be left to them to decide.

 

A vote was taken. 9 Members voted in favour of the proposal to permit. 2 Members voted against.

 

DETERMINATION: PERMIT subject to:

(i) The conditions as set out in the report and ;

(ii) The completion of a s 106 agreement as set out in the report

 

For the following reasons:

 

The application seeks outline consent for a residential development of 55 dwellings.

Approval is sought for the access into the site and the principles of residential

development on this site, contained within the line of the bypass. It is considered

that the application presents a balance of competing objectives and the Committee is

invited to reconcile these in reaching its conclusion.

Asfordby is a sustainable settlement with a reasonable range of facilities .The site is

considered to perform well in terms of access to facilities and transport links,

particularly to Melton Mowbray.

The site is allocated for development in the pre-submission local plan, it is accepted

that Asfordby is a reasonably sustainable location for residential development,

although at this stage the local plan can only be given limited weight.

The site is also allocated for development in the Asfordby Parish Neighbourhood

Plan. This should now be given considerable weight as it is a post examination plan

which will soon be the subject of a referendum.

The viability of the site and the ability of the development to deliver affordable

housing is a material consideration .The information submitted by the applicant and

independently verified on behalf of the Local Planning Authority indicates that this

scheme can only deliver one affordable dwelling.

10

This site is an underused strip of land contained within the bypass. Residential

development represents a good use of the site, with minimal impact upon the

character of the area. There are no technical issues or significant objections to the

proposal.

In conclusion it is considered that, on the balance of the issues, there are significant

benefits accruing from the proposal when assessed as required under the guidance

in the NPPF in terms of housing supply, with a high proportion of bungalows. The

balancing issues – impact upon neighbours and the character of the area and the

need to provide noise mitigation – are considered to be of limited harm.