Agenda item

Fair Farm, Melton Rd, Waltham on the Wolds

Applicant:     K&A Watchorn and Sons

Location:      Fair Farm, 33 Melton Road, Waltham on the Wolds

Proposal:      Residential development of up to 60 new dwellings, together with new areas of public open space, landscaping, access and drainage infrastructure.

 

a)    The Head of Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services stated that there has been an update to the report and summarised:

 

Applicant’s letter

Letter seeking to address concerns raised on 29/6/2017.

Suggests a standard condition to safeguard the position regarding drainage (surface and foul) as follows:

 

 

·         Severn Trent have advised they can provide water supply

·         Western Power have conformed they can supply the site and costs have been agreed

·         Confirm acceptance of the s106 request from the CCG (£26,640)

·      He site is allocated in the Local Plan and within the village envelope of the Neighbourhood Plan

·      It is also the only site that accesses the A607 and does not impact on High St

·      This is the 4^th time the application has been presented to Committee and a decision is anticipated

 

b)    Martin Lusty, On behalf of the Parish Council, was invited to speak and stated:

·         All Councillors supported the local plan, and this site does not fit into the local plan.

·         Waltham already has approval for all but five houses that need to be allocated to Waltham according to the local plan.

·         Development within the villages must be proportionate and within the character of the village, this application would cause irreparable harm to Waltham.

·         The site is allocated in the local plan, but these allocations have already been taken up elsewhere in the village.

·         The site is environmentally significant and is class 3A farmland.

·         Site regularly floods.

·         Only objections to the neighbourhood plan are from developers, all the villages agree on the plan.

·         There is unproven housing need in Waltham.

 

A Cllr questioned whether there is a housing needs survey for the village.

 

Mr Lusty responded that there is a housing needs survey included in the Neighbourhood plan, which is currently in an examination stage.

 

A Cllr queried how many houses are currently in the village.

 

Mr Lusty responded that there are currently 450 houses.

 

The Chair sought clarification on the housing numbers for the local plan, as the numbers disagree on the housing requirement for Waltham. Waltham may need 45 more houses, as other villages may not complete their requirements.

Mr Lusty clarified that according to the residual housing requirement calculations in the local plan, Waltham needs to build another 76 houses by 2036, of which 71 have already been allocated, so there is only need for another 5 houses.

 

c)    Mr Mills, on behalf of Lydia Carrigan an objector, was invited to speak and stated:

·         Public Transport links in Waltham are poor.

·         Villagers need cars to be able to get anywhere, which is harmful to the environment.

·         Extra cars as a result of this development would create more traffic in the village, particularly on the A607.

·         Waltham needs time to gradually absorb the new developments, cannot all happen at once.

·         We need to protect the countryside and the landscape in the borough.

·         The history of the site needs to be protected.

·         Planning should be to meet housing need rather than planning for the sake of planning.

·         Waltham does not need any more large developments.

·         Primary School is not big enough and Primary School children should not be bussed into Melton to go to a Primary School that has enough capacity.

 

Councillors had no questions for Mr Mills.

 

d)    Tim Love, representative of the applicant, was invited to speak and stated:

·         How much weight should be placed on each of the local plan and the neighbourhood plan.

·         The site is distant from the conservation area.

·         Within the village envelope.

·         Exits onto the A607, so avoids the traffic issue on High Street.

·         Severn Trent has to conform to the law and connect up all new houses to both water and sewage supply.

·         Contributions will be made to the health centre, water board, electricity board and the local education authority.

·         22 new affordable houses will be built.

·         It is an infill plot within the village.

·         There is already approved land within the same field.

 

A Cllr questioned the potential contributions to Severn Trent.

 

Mr Love responded that contributions are necessary to connect new houses onto the existing mains supply.

 

The Head of Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services commented that Severn Trent Water would have to do a capacity assessment before any building work took place, and that the local plan is a consideration but is not yet adopted. The site is currently part of WAL2 in the local plan, but Waltham only has a minimum of 5 more houses for their local plan allocation. The developments are about locally derived need for housing, rather than government targets for house building. Reassurance that the school could be expanded, and that as a result no primary school children would be bussed out of the village.

 

A Cllr stated that Severn Trent Water stated that there are 8 areas in Leicestershire that need upgrading, and the Waltham is currently the fourth area on the list.

 

Cllrs debated housing allocation numbers in the local plan, and agreed that all housing allocations should be fluid and are designed as a minimum figure rather than an exact amount.

 

A Cllr commented that the access is out onto Melton Road rather than High Street, and queried as to whether we can approve less than the full application, so less than 60 houses would be approved. Also raised concerns about the water supply.

 

The Head of Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services commented that those comments sounded like a refusal and that for this to be approved for less than 60 houses would require a refusal and then a resubmission of the application at a later date.

 

A Cllr commented that the site is in the local plan, adjoins already established houses, exits onto the A607 rather than High Street and includes affordable housing within the scheme. The Primary School can be expanded to meet demand, and that bus services are not profitable, so villagers have to either use it or lose it. The local plan is a 20 year plan, so does not need to happen overnight, and investigations into archaeology must be undertaken before any development begins.

 

The Head of Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services confirmed that the development would connect to the other application within the same field.

 

The Chair commented that the numbers in the local plan are a guide, and that this development is difficult to refuse, as the exit onto the A607 is positive.

 

A Cllr noted that this application is the opposite of the previous application and features good access directly onto the A607.

 

Cllr Wyatt Proposed to permit.

 

Cllr Faulkner Seconded on the condition that Severn Trent Water can give assurances about the water issues.

 

Cllr Wyatt cannot support the condition.

 

Cllr Faulkner withdrew the condition and still seconded the motion.

 

A Cllr queried whether the £30,000 highways contribution would be for a new crossing. The Head of Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services confirmed than the highways contribution would be used for all traffic measures involved in the application.

 

Cllrs debated the water issues in Waltham, whether the current system can cope and if the new development would force Severn Trent Water to provide a better service. Severn Trent Water are forced by law to connect up all new homes to water supply. Severn Trent Water have not committed to infrastructure improvements in Waltham.

 

A Cllr commented that it felt like MBC were snubbed by Severn Trent Water. Cllrs reiterated that Severn Trent Water are forced to connect new houses to the water supply, and that we cannot consider the current water supply issues as part of this application.

 

A Cllr expressed concern that the committee did not visit the school, and queried the plans for expansion for the school.

 

A Cllr noted that currently disabled children are bussed all around the county for their primary schooling, and that getting the bus to school can be a necessity these days.

 

The Head of Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services showed plans for the expansion of the school, and a Cllr confirmed that school expansion can be done with little disruption to the school.

 

A Vote was taken on the motion to approve the application. 8 members voted for approval, 1 member voted against and 2 members abstained. Cllr Chandler asked for her vote against to be recorded.

 

Motion Carried - Application Approved.

 

Determination: PERMIT; subject to:

(a)  The completion of a s106 securing the obligations as set out in the report;

(b)  The conditions as set out in the report

 

REASONS

 

It is considered that the application presents a balance of competing objectives and the Committee is invited to reconcile these in reaching its conclusion.

 

The Borough is deficient in terms of housing supply more generally and this would be partly addressed by the application, Affordable housing provision remains one of the Council’s key priorities. This application presents some affordable housing that helps to meet identified local needs.

 

Waltham is considered to be a sustainable location for housing having access to various facilities, primary education, local shops, and a regular bus services and limited distances to employment opportunities and this has been established in previous decisions. 

 

It is considered that balanced against the positive elements are the site specific concerns raised in representations, particularly the development of the site from its green field state and impact on the character of the village and highway safety.

 

The Local Highway Authority do not consider that the proposal would lead to severe harm to highway safety.  In terms of character of the area, the submitted application is in outline stage only and the applicant has undertaken a detailed appraisal of the character of the settlement including a landscape assessment.  The site is not covered by any specific designation however the proximity to the Conservation Area to the north is noted. 

 

Full details of appearance, layout and scale will be a matter for subsequent reserved matters applications where matters of design and impact can be fully assessed.

 

Contributions to provide additional capacity at the nearest Civic Amenity site and library are of a tariffed style request that will be ’pooled’ under CIL Regulation 123 (3) whereby no more than five contributions can be pooled for any single infrastructure project.  As stated above the request for improvements to the civic amenity site and library has been allocated to a specific project that will increase the capacity at the site.

 

 

The education contribution would be used for the provision, improvement, remodelling or enhancement of education facilities at schools in the locality of the development which the residents of the development would usually be expected to attend at both Primary and Secondary level (if applicable). They are therefore all considered appropriate for inclusion in a Section 106 agreement.

 

In conclusion it is considered that, on the balance of the issues, there are significant benefits accruing from this proposal when assessed as required under the guidance in the NPPF in terms of housing supply and affordable housing in particular. The balancing issue is considered to be development of a greenfield site.

 

The issue of development a greenfield site is considered to be of limited harm, bearing in mind its location and the absence of any identification that it is of particular landscape value, and conflict with Local ands Neighbourhood Plans have limited weight as a consequence of their state of advancement and circumstances surrounding them.

 

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.