Agenda item

Land At South Of Hill Top Farm, Melton Mowbray

Applicant:     Mr M Brown

Location:      Land at South of Hill Top Farm, St Bartholomew’s Way, Melton Mowbray

Proposal:      Outline application for up to 30 dwellings (Access of St Bartholomew’s Way already approved)

 

(a)  The Planning Officer (LP) stated that: This application seeks outline permission for the erection of up to 30 dwellings with associated access which has been approved under application reference 15/00593/OUT.

 

All other matters are reserved at this time

 

The application is located to the south of Hill Top Farm St Bartholomew’s Way, the site itself is located alongside two previously approved applications for a total of 45 dwellings.  The application proposes to use the land previously considered unacceptable in application 15/00593/OUT within the 100m buffer of the Scheduled Ancient Monument.

 

The site is currently a field with no presumption in favour of development, however the proposal does include a mix of affordable housing.

 

The Borough whilst not deficient in terms of housing land supply, housing does remain one of the Council’s key priorities.

Since the publication of the committee report additional clarification has been sought from the Education authority for their contribution, the details as set out in the report remain up to date with a contribution request of £80,621.53 towards the Secondary School Sector.

 

It is considered that, on balance of the issues, there are benefits from this proposal when assessed under the NPPF in terms of housing supply and affordable housing in particular. 

 

The balancing issues are considered to be development of a greenfield site and the impact of the proposal on the nearby Sysonby Grange Scheduled Ancient Monument, the harm to the asset derives mainly form the proximity of the proposed development.  The narrowness of the buffer and topography of the site would lead to the development being intrusive to the setting and harmful to the significance of the asset.

 

As such the application is recommended for refusal for reasons as set out in the report.

 

(b)       Dr Patrick Clay, on behalf of the applicant , was invited to speak and stated that:

·         The setting of the monument has already been compromised by the wind farm.

·         The boundary may not be relevant to the site itself and has been compromised by development over the centuries, including St Bartholemew’s Way itself.

·         Trial trenching has been carried out and produced limited interest.

·         There will be information boards so as not to keep the site secret as it isn’t currently well known.

·         The site can’t be seen from new hedgerow. Topography falls away. Far less severe than Historic England suggest. In favour of protecting the setting.

 

A  Councillor asked if archaeological digs had taken place.

 

Dr Clay commented that they should be done if permission is granted.

A Councillor asked if they would let the hedgerow grow higher.

 

Dr Clay noted that this would afford the monument protection from the

permission already granted. You wouldn’t see the development and it would

protect the setting further which is already well protected.

 

(c)        Maurice Fairhurst, agent for the applicant, was invited to speak and stated that: we obtained expert advice from highways and ecological consultants. This has been researched in great detail. Already highlighted the benefits of the proposal. Straight forward and sensitive application. There will be tree planting. Approved development and access which has started to be constructed. Good accessibility. Financial contributions to school. Play space requirements can be met. No public access to view monument. Will provide access, and information board for the monument. Access already has highway approval. Benefits outweigh harm.

 

A Councillor asked if it would acceptable to condition completion to be 2 years instead of the usual 3.

 

Mr Fairhurst commented that it depends on the date it starts from and noted

that 2 years within the first REM would be appropriate.

 

A Councillor asked if the drainage would be adequate.

 

Mr Fairhurst noted that they had received favourable reports from the Lead Local Flood Authority. Providing it is designed properly it won’t contribute to flooding.

 

A Councillor asked who would design and maintain the information boards.

 

Mr Fairhurst commented that Dr Clay would be the best person to provide the

Wording however the maintenance was yet to be agreed.

 

(d)       Cllr Freer-Jones, Ward Councillor for Sysonby Ward, was invited to speak and stated that: a lot of thought and planning had gone in to the site. Impressed with the size of the gardens instead of squeezing them in. The applicant is going to live here too so they want it nice. Sites and monuments should be protected. Most consideration in any site ever visited. Thought gone in to a recreation area. Not many do this. Contributions to the community have been considered. They have mitigated against the objections of historic England very well. Setting of the monument is at the observers discretion and what can be seen from the actual area.

 

A Councillor asked how far the Monument is from the road.

 

It was noted that it is15 metres from the monument field to the mine road.

 

Cllr Wyatt proposed to permit the application.

 

Cllr Cumbers seconded the proposal and added conditions regarding

the interpretation boards and archaeological digs as well as the usual

conditions on applications.

 

Cllr Greenow noted that he would like to see a faster delivery and asked if the

proposer would consider adding a condition of 2 years.

 

The proposer and seconder agreed.

 

A vote was taken and the Members voted unanimously to permit.

 

Determination: PERMIT, subject to:

 

(i)         The completion of a s106 agreement securing the contributions to civic amenity provision, education and sustainable travel as set out in the report

(ii)        Conditions, the content of which was delegated to the Head of Regulatory Services

 

For the following reasons:

Although the Council can demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply, the delivery of housing in particular affordable housing is considered as a key priority for the Borough, this application presents housing that help to meet identified local needs, accordingly, the application represents a vehicle for the delivery of housing of the appropriate quantity, in proportion with the development ad of a type to support the housing need in a sustainable location close to Melton town centre.

 

It is considered that balanced against the positive elements, there is a clear harmful impact upon Sysonby Grange scheduled ancient monument as a result of the proximity of the proposed development.  However, this harm is considered to be ‘less than substantial’.

 

In conclusion it is considered that, on the balance of the issues, it is considered that the benefit – principally the contribution to housing supply –outweigh the harm arising from the site as discussed above.

 

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 in this case.