Agenda item

Land off Canal Lane, Hose

Applicant:     Andrew Granger & Co

Location:      Land off Canal Lane, Hose

Proposal:      Outline application for residential development of 16 dwellings with associated access.

 

(a)       The Planning Officer (LP) stated that: This application seeks outline permission for the erection of up to 16 dwellings with associated access.

All matters are reserved except for access from Canal Lane which would use a previously approved access point agreed as part of outline application 15/00944.

 

The application is located in Hose, the site itself is located to the rear of the existing built form of the village and forms what could be considered as a second phase to the previously approved 25 dwellings.

The site is currently a field with no presumption in favour of development, however the proposal does include a 37% 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 items have been received namely comments from the Parish Council and comments from the Lead Local Flood Authority.

 

The parish council object to the proposal on grounds of access and also request further archaeological details to be submitted.  Details of highways and access have been covered within the Committee report, in terms of archaeology conditions 23, 24 and 25 request such details.

The Parish Council have requested a contribution towards community facilities, however insufficient information has been presented to assess the requirement against CIL regulations in this instance. If Members are minded to approve the application, discussions can be held with both the parish council and the applicant regarding clarification and acceptance of the request.

 

Comments from the Local Lead Flood Authority have confirmed that the proposed development would be considered acceptable to Leicestershire County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority subject to conditions relating to Surface Water, Construction Surface Water, SUDS Maintenance Plan and Schedule and Infiltration Testing.

 

It is considered that, on balance of the issues, there are significant 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 which is considered to hold limited weight particularly as this proposal forms a second phase to an existing outline planning permission and the site is allocated for development.

 

As such the application is recommended for approval subject to

conditions as set out in the report and the additional conditions advised by the lead local flood authority.

 

(b)       Neil Benison, from M-EC on behalf of the agent for the applicant, was invited to speak and stated that: developing the highways had been done in consultation with the Highways Authority. Access was improved in 2015 and deemed still to be acceptable. It introduced a chicane for traffic calming an added additional passing bay out of the village. No grounds to resist permission on highway grounds. The LLFA have no objection. Similar conditions to 2015. The attenuation pond naturally drains to that area in to a ditch and across to a culvert. Managing surface water can be considered a benefit.

 

A Councillor raised the following concerns:

•           regarding provision of patient spaces at  Long Clawson Drs surgery

•           Single track road with no passing places (condition that there are passing places on Canal Lane)

•           Speed of traffic along the lanes

 

Cllr Holmes proposed refusal of the application and added that she would

like a condition adding for water and sewerage. The Drs surgery is overflowing. Concerns regarding school places. Hose is a tiny village and the infrastructure isn’t good enough. Over intensification of a small village.

 

Cllr Baguley seconded the proposal and added that the access is bad and

very narrow.

 

A Councillor asked for the date of the education figures.

 

The Planning Officer (LP) stated they were from April 2017.

 

A Councillor asked if we have we had conversations with CCG about health

care.

 

The Head of Strategic Planning And Regulatory Services commented that we

don’t consult individual surgeries but we do consult the CCG.

 

Cllr Holmes noted the she could change her proposal for refusal to deferment

and felt it was poor not to consult surgeries.

 

The Head of Strategic Planning And Regulatory Services responded that we

can consult surgeries if Members instruct us to. Options may be to defer for more

information or delegate to officers to follow that through.

 

Cllr Holmes asked the seconder, Cllr Baguley, if she would also consider

deferral.

 

A Councillor noted that they haven’t got the reasons for conditions.

 

Cllr Baguley commented that she still wishes to go with refusal due to issues

with sustainability.

 

A Councillor advised Members that decisions to have a new surgery rests

with the NHS not the CCG’s. It has been reported that it is possible to extend

Latham House surgery. No catchment area for the school it is based on

parental preference.

 

Cllr Holmes declared she was still proposing refusal due to floods and the

village is too small. Over intensification of a very wet site. Poor transport links.

Very narrow road. Concerns over education and health service.

 

Cllr Baguley confirmed that she would still be seconding the proposal.

It is an inappropriate development. Urban development.

 

The Head of Strategic Planning And Regulatory Services noted the reason for

refusal as: Hose is an unsustainable location for housing, opposite to local plan, passing places inadequate. Schools can’t accommodate additional children. Surgery can’t accommodate additional patients. Drainage is inadequate. Water can’t supply to properties or at least without detriment to someone else.

 

Cllr Holmes asked for the number of other developments in Hose.

 

The Head of Strategic Planning And Regulatory Services confirmed that there

are 77 dwellings over 3 sites.

 

A vote was taken. 2 Members voted in favour of refusal and 8 voted against.

There was 1 abstention. The reason for abstention was that the Member

would like more information.

 

Cllr Wyatt proposed to permit the application with the usual condition as

well as the ones previously referred to.

 

Cllr Glancy seconded the proposal.

 

A vote was taken. 8 Members voted to permit and 2 voted against. There was

1 abstention.

 

Determination: PERMIT, subject to:

(i)         The completion of an agreement under s 106 for the quantities set out in the above report to secure:

•              Contribution for the improvement to Education.

•              Contribution to maintenance of open space

•              The provision of affordable housing, including the quantity, tenure, house type/size and occupation criteria to ensure they are provided to meet identified local needs;

(ii)        Conditions, as set out in the report;

 

For the following reasons:

The Borough is not deficient in terms of housing land supply. The methodology used to demonstrate that there is a 5year supply has included sustainable sites, such as this, which have been scrutinised as part of the evidence supporting the new local plan.  Affordable housing provision remains of the Council’s key priorities.  This application presents affordable housing that helps to meet identified local needs.  Accordingly, the application represents a vehicle for the delivery of affordable housing of the appropriate quantity, in proportion with the development and of a type to support the housing need. 

 

Hose  is considered to be a sustainable location with a reasonable range of facilities and capacity to accommodate some growth.

 

It is considered that there are material considerations of significant weight in favour of the application, and its alignment with the Pre-submission Local plan adds additional support.

 

The site is considered to perform well in terms of access to facilities and transport links, particularly to Melton Mowbray and other Service Centres.

 

It is considered that balanced against the positive elements are the specific concerns raised in representations, particularly the development of the site from its green field state.

 

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 and affordable housing in particular.  The balancing issues – development of a green field site, landscape impact, issues of noise and drainage and limited sustainability – are considered to be of limited harm. 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

Cllr Chandler and Cllr Botterill left the meeting at 8.37pm due to their declarations of interest regarding application 17/00890/FUL.