Agenda item

Owl End, Mill Lane, Frisby on the Wreake

Applicant: Mr & Mrs Halford

Location: Owl End, Mill Lane, Frisby on the Wreake

Proposal: Two detached dwellings

 

(a) The Planning Officer stated that:

This application seeks full planning permission for the construction of 2 detached dwellings on the northern edge of Frisby on the Wreake.

The site is currently used as garden area for Owl End, the site is separated from Owl end by garden planting, the site is outside of but adjoins the Frisby on the Wreake Conservation Area.

 

Members should be aware that a request has been made to the Secretary of

State to consider this planning application against the call-in policy as set out in the written Ministerial Statement of 26 October 2012.

 

Members should note that if they are minded to approve the application, then a decision cannot be issued until the Secretary of State has considered whether or not to call in the application. Therefore the officer recommendation in this instance is amended to approval ‘subject to’ the assessment of the application by the Secretary of State.

 

The application presents a balance of competing objectives, there are benefits

from this proposal when assessed under the NPPF in terms of housing in a

location that preforms reasonably well in terms of access to facilities and

transport links particularly to Melton Mowbray.

 

The balancing issues are considered to be development of a greenfield site and potential conflict with the Frisby Neighbourhood Plan. The Neighbourhood Plan has completed the Local Authority publicity period but is yet to be the subject of Examination or Referendum and one task for the Committee will be to consider the weight it should carry. Details of the position and content of the NP are addressed on pages 8 and 9 of the report

 

The application is recommended for approval subject to review by the Secretary of State and conditions as set out in the report.

 

(b) Mike Patterson, on behalf of objectors, was invited to speak and stated that:

·         Area floods and can be impassable by cars

·         The flooding issue has not been resolved and further development may

·         increase the problem

·         Cobbles should be retained

·         Parking on the sides of the road causes bottlenecks

·         Traffic increase

·         Farmers, Network Rail and National Grid often use the road

·         Speed issues endanger pedestrians and horses

·         No clearly defined footpath

·         Single track entrance with blind bend

·         Outside limited development line

·         Borders conservation area

·         Overly developed character and unsympathetic

·         Overbearing

·          

The Head of Regulatory Services stated the site is outside the village

envelope but sought clarification how that was in conflict with the Neighbourhood Plan.

 

Mr Patterson explained that Policy H3 in the Neighbourhood Plan supports

development within limits to development but it does not specifically exclude it

outside. The Neighbourhood Plan sets out the context about protection of the

countryside and the need to focus development where the community wants

it. Whereas the Policy H3 have taken in isolation does appear to be loose,

with the narrative it meets the basic condition. There could be disagreements

as to the robustness of the policy.

 

A Cllr sought clarification what the distance from the application site to the

listed building was.

 

Mr Patterson stated that it was on the other side of the road, approximately

30/40 yards away. The Grade I listed church is sited approximately 100yards

from the site.

 

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

·         Reasonable range of facilities such as shops and a school all within

·         walking distance

·         No objection from Highways Authority

·         Traffic speeds low

·         Low risk of flooding as advised by statutory consultees

·         Well contained

·         Trees will be retained or replaced

·         Built on the lower parts of the site to reduce impact

·         Style typical of Frisby

·         No important trees, views or heritage assets

·         Sustainable

·         No technical objections

·         Outside conservation area and in keeping with the character

·         Consistent with Local Plan

·         Meets needs of housing shortage

·          

The Head of Regulatory Services asked the agent the same question

regarding how the Neighbourhood Plan affects the application.

 

The Agent stated that although it is outside the limits to development, there is

no policy which prevents the development of sites outside.

 

A Cllr asked if the plum tree could be retained.

 

The Agent said that all would be done to retain and protect the tree.

 

A Cllr asked if there was a need for an annex, as they are used to seeing accommodation where there is already a need.

 

The Agent stated that there is no immediate need; it will give the family

flexibility for the future.

 

The Chair asked if Members would suspend standing orders to allow a

representative from the Parish Council to speak. It was unanimously agreed

that standing orders would be suspended.

 

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

·         Visibility on Mill Lane is tricky

·         Busy pedestrian traffic

·         Support concerns of residents

·         Aware of legal anomalies as to how much weight should be given by local councillors to emerging Neighbourhood Plans but ask that determination of app which contravenes the Neighbourhood Plan be deferred until legal situation is resolved

·         Para 14 and 49 of NPPF – if council has 5yr supply of land they do not have to grant planning apps that are outside the limited developments unless a robust case can be made to demonstrate that the housing will make a social, economic or environmental benefit that outweighs the harm of the development

·         As MBC have a published 7 and a half year land supply with sufficient

housing to meet required need then they are not obligated to pass a

development so close to a Listed Building and in a Conservation Area

·         Parish Council wrote to Secretary of State expressing concerns and asking for intervention as set out under the written ministerial statement of Oct 2012 – a case officer has been allocated

 

A Cllr stated that the application was submitted in April so could not understand the call in.

 

The Head of Regulatory Services advised that there had not been a call in but the LPA would need to inform the government if the application is approved to allow the Sec. of State the opportunity to call in.

 

(e) Cllr Hutchison, the Ward Councillor, was invited to speak and stated that:

·         Flooding and traffic issues

·         Negative impact on street scene

·         Would destroy the historic verge

·         Outside Neighbourhood Plan limits to developments

·         Modest development and single home should be considered

·         Residents and street scene should be protected

·         Consider deferment for re-designed considerations

 

The Head of Regulatory Services asked how it was envisaged that one dwelling instead of two would overcome the ‘limit to development’ objection.

 

Cllr Hutchison stated that would be up to the developers if they could fit a

dwelling onto that plot within the limits.

 

The Head of Regulatory Services advised that the application needed to be

assessed on a number of dynamics, of which the progress of the Neighbourhood Plan is one. The NP states that within the limits to development, development will be supported subject to meeting criteria. There is no equivalent to Policy H3 to what happens outside the village envelope. He referred to Mr Patterson’s response, that it was in the narrative, the focusing of the limits to development as a more sustainable solution. He referred to the part of the report that addressed what weight the Neighbourhood Plan carries based on the guidance applied by national policy and how it relates to this application.

In terms of the limits to development, the NP stated it has been drawn follow

clearly defined features such as walls, fences, hedgerows and roads.

 

Members observations from the site visit should be used to help decide if it accords with the line that is drawn on the plan, and if the boundary line follows a firm feature.

 

A Cllr stated that they thought the line does not follow a clearly defined feature. They thought that the clearly defined feature would actually be the fence at the back of the garden, therefore only limited weight could be given. They had concerns on flooding as the depth and size of the site would hold water and how much of that would run off and hit the road.

 

The Head of Regulatory Services stated that the LLFA do not get involved in

applications of under 10 dwellings. Condition 4 would cover drainage and surface water.

 

Cllr Chandler proposed to refuse the application as it is over intensive and was concerned that trees would be removed and as they hold a lot of water this would lead to flooding.

 

Cllr Holmes seconded the proposal to refuse the application.

 

A Cllr agreed with the proposal to refuse and stated that with the annex it is

actually an application for three dwellings, and there is no current need for the

annex.

 

A Cllr stated that the application does not promote mixed use and function of

sites as promoted by the NPPF para 17.

 

Cllr Chandler stated that she was happy to have this included as a reason to

refuse.

 

A Cllr stated that they could not support the refusal as it is a small scale

application.

 

A vote was taken. 7 Members voted in favour of the proposal to refuse. 3

Members voted against. Cllr Baguley wished for her vote against the proposal to be recorded.

 

DETERMINATION: REFUSE for the following reasons:

 

1. The proposed development would result in the removal of trees on the

site which contribute to the alleviation issues of flooding in the area.

This would be contrary to one of the core principles of the NPPF set out

in Paragraph 17 to: Promote mixed use developments, and encourage

multiple benefits from the use of land in urban and rural areas,

recognising that some open land can perform many functions (such as

wildlife, recreation, flood risk mitigation, carbon storage, or food

production).

 

2. The proposal represents over-intensification of the site out of keeping

and harmful to its surroundings, contrary to the objectives of Policy BE1

of the adopted Melton Local plan.