Agenda item

Report addressing the issues raised common to each of the applications

The Head of Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services introduced the report and advised that it updates the position in respect of the issues requested by the Committee on 29^th June. To summarise:

·         STW have advised their approach to new developments and for both sewerage and water supply is to undertake capacity assessments and provide whatever enhancements are necessary (they have articulated this by saying if this means a new main, a bigger sewer or even a new treatments works, then that is what they have to do).

·         There are 3 important principles involved in this – (i) they do not simply add more burden on exiting systems, (ii) it cannot be to the detriment of existing provision and, (iii) STW bare the cost, so it does not burden exiting residents of developers.

·         They have advised us what they intend to do about the existing issues – though they are not dependent or affected by the new development. This is the laying of a new water main from Burrough and treatment of waste at the pumping station so that odour is removed.

·         Updated on education – (i) Primary – position in June still stands; the school can be expanded on phased basis to accommodate any, some or all of the proposals. (ii) Secondary – there is limited capacity (note this is fully up to date) but this will soon be absorbed (58 houses) after which contributions will be necessary. There is no limit upon these so ultimately all permutations can be accommodated.

·         Health – in each case the CCG has sought a contributions commensurate to the scale of the developments (this is detailed in each report).

·         Electricity – details have been provided about how each site can be serviced.

Some comments received on all applications:

3 comments additional to those reported addressing the applications together:

·         The water supply is already temperamental with bouts of low pressure. Don’t believe this area of the system could cope with extra dwellings, the smallest of these three proposals. Severn Trent Water company cannot currently supply demand. Question their response to the Planning Committee that they can cope with a further four developments totalling another 328 dwellings.

·         The drainage is not adequate for the premises already being served – water frequently runs in torrents down the High Street and Melton Road in heavy rain.

·         The drains frequently smell. The sewerage system is apparently not working as it should, a leak to this system could prove fatal to young, elderly and those without an immune system.

·         The A607 is the main link between the A1 in Grantham and Thurmaston in Leicester and is a very busy road during normal traffic days, without the extra burden of more traffic starting within the village.

·         The Primary school is situated on this road. Developments will cause an increase in traffic flow to the A607 very close to the village school. Even an additional 60 to the current number planned could seriously affect the local primary school, located on the main road, as its location of the school is already dangerous, particularly when the road is congested at the beginning and end of the school day, never mind adding in both more children (from the dwellings) and more vehicles (both in terms of vehicles owned by any dwelling residents but also in terms of the residents of this proposed area directly using the road the school lies on).

·         The High Street/Goadby Road are also very busy due to the traffic crossing through the village to cross the Vale of Belvoir in either direction. The High Street already struggles with the current volume of traffic it sees, particularly when commercial and farming vehicles need to use it - it is a relatively narrow road, not originally designed for traffic parked at the sides to use the amenities (the shop, deli and church) alongside heavy flows of traffic in mornings and evenings in line with the average work day.

·         Note how many speeding offences have recently been recorded in Waltham, as reported by the Melton Times!  Councillors were made aware of the tremendous impact of HGV’s travelling via the A607, through Waltham last week, due to a major incident on the A1 motorway.  An incident recently occurred at the proposed junction for application 16/00847/OUT.

·         The School is in a vulnerable location (as stated above), and will not be able to accommodate the number of potential new children associated with the addition of up to 328 new homes.

·         Public transport to/from the village is limited. Services have been reduced over the years and it is no longer possible to get into Loughborough, Nottingham, Melton or Oakham independently in order to start work at 9am or earlier, or indeed get back in the evening.

·         The negative impact on local wildlife and habitats is self evident in the destruction of existing green spaces.

·         The population of the village would be virtually doubled if these developments are all allowed to proceed. This would completely alter the environment current residents.

·         Waltham was designated as a village that should provide 90 extra dwellings, 70 of which are included in plans already approved.

·         Surgery and Health facilities to be completely insufficient.

Returning to the report, one issue that is applicable to each of the applications is the weight of the LP and NP. Significant detail is provided regarding their status and the weight they attract when measured by the criteria set out in the NPPF (pages 4 and 5). Members will note we have concluded ‘limited’ in both cases, owing to the extent of progress and issues unresolved.

However how the plans relate to the individual applications – i.e. whether their limited weight is a factor in favour or against – varies from application to application depending on how they relate to its content. This is addressed in each of the individual reports and you will see the differences.

This brings me to the conclusion and recommendation of this report. We are operating under Para 14 of the NPPF which requires that each application is determined on its individual merits, balancing harm against benefits (as set out in the NPPF), and permitting unless (quote) “any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole” and the reports are set out in this manner. Members are invited to proceed and determine the applications on this basis.