Agenda item

Owl End, 24 Mill Lane, Frisby on the Wreake

Applicant:      Mr & Mrs Halford

Location:        Owl End, 24 Mill Lane, Frisby

Proposal:       Single, self-build dwelling (resubmission of application 17/00477/FUL)

 

(a)       The Applications and Advice Manager (LP) stated that:

The application site comprises 0.16 hectares on the northern edge of Frisby on the Wreake.  The site is currently utilised as associated with Owl End positioned to the south of Mill Lane, the southern boundary of the site adjoins 22 Mill lane, to the east of the site is arable land.  This application proposes a dwelling in a sustainable location with a reasonable range of facilities and capacity to accommodate some growth.  It is considered that there are material considerations of weight in favour of the application.

 

The site is considered to perform reasonably well in terms of access to facilities and transport links.

 

It is considered that balanced against the positive elements are the specific concerns raised in representations, particularly the development of the site from its garden state, additional traffic and the impact on the character of the village and conflict with Policy H3 of the emerging Neighbourhood Plan.

 

In conclusion it is considered that, on the balance of the issues, there are benefits accruing from the proposal when assessed as required under the guidance in the NPPF in terms of housing supply.  The balancing issues are considered to be of limited harm given their scale, significance and in the case of the Neighbourhood Plan, the relative weight it can carry in its current circumstances.

 

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.

 

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

•           New application does not address or mitigate previous concerns

•           Safety on Mill Lane and threat of flooding

•           Outside limits to developments and village envelope

•           Within conservation area

•           To not refuse would set a dangerous precedent for further development

•           Driveway would destroy verge and cobbles and change street view

•           Close to listed buildings and conservation area

 

(c)        Brian Howes, an objector, was invited to speak and stated that:

•           Flooding and road safety concerns

•           Drive entrance is in Flood Zone 2

•           No change to flooding issues in new application

•           Removed smaller house represented only approximately 15% of total plot

•           Amount of hardstanding remains almost unchanged

•           Water from hardstanding will overflow into the lane

•           Mill Lane regularly used by pedestrians, horse riders and bicycles

•           Large vehicles have to reverse up the lane

•           Close to a blind bend

 

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

•           Single dwelling

•           Efficient and low maintenance

•           Surrounding embankments reduce impact of development

•           Design sympathetic to village

•           Variations of heights typical of Frisby

•           Overcame concerns on refused application

•           Reduced from 2 dwellings to 1, reduced in length and granny annex removed

•           All healthy trees can be retained plus additional planting

•           Low risk for flooding

 

A Cllr asked if the access is in the same location as previous, and asked for clarification on the drainage plan and surface of the driveway.

 

Mr Wilkinson confirmed that the access is in the same location. The drainage is to be agreed by condition and there is an intention for rainwater harvesting which will reduce the amount of surface water. Rest of site will be laid to grass.

 

A Cllr asked if the embankment to the east of the site will remain.

 

Mr Wilkinson confirmed that it would.

 

The Chair asked if Members would continue the meeting should the meeting go beyond 9pm. Cllr Wyatt proposed to continue the meeting and was seconded by Cllr Baguley. It was unanimously decided that the meeting would continue.

 

(e)       The Chair read out a statement from Cllr Edward Hutchison, the ward councillor:

•           Little has changed on application

•           Hardstanding has not reduced and same trees will be taken out

•           Additional water runoff issues that will add to current flood issues

•           Space left to build deleted property

•           Historic verge with cobbles will be destroyed

•           Streetscene will be changed

•           Steep incline on drive – unsafe

•           Outside of village envelope and limits to development

•           If planning allowed precedent will be set

 

The Chair asked Mr Wilkinson if the trees will be retained due to the conflicting statements.

 

Mr Wilkinson confirmed that healthy trees would be retained but there are dead trees which need to be taken out.

 

The Applications and Advice Manager (LP) stated that a landscape plan and tree assessment had been received. In terms of drainage, SUDs will be introduced to alleviate concerns. The application has changed as there is a reduction in dwellings.

 

A Cllr noted that there will be a rainwater harvesting system which is a benefit.

 

A Cllr asked how point 8 protects the trees, such as the trees within the plot. Could it be made stronger.

 

The Applications and Advice Manager (LP) confirmed that further or stricter conditions could be imposed.

 

A Cllr asked if the retention of cobbles could be conditioned.

 

The Applications and Advice Manager (LP) confirmed it could.

 

Cllr Wyatt proposed to permit the application.

 

Cllr Greenow seconded the proposal to permit subject to the cobbles being retained and healthy trees are protected.

 

Cllr Wyatt confirmed he was happy to include this.

 

A vote was taken and it was unanimously decided that the application should be approved.

 

Determination: PERMIT, subject to the conditions set out in the report and an additional condition requiring retention of the cobbles.

 

For the following reasons:

This application proposes a dwelling in a sustainable location with a reasonable range of facilities and capacity to accommodate some growth.  It is considered that there are material considerations of weight in favour of the application.

 

The site is considered to perform reasonably well in terms of access to facilities and transport links.

 

It is considered that balanced against the positive elements are the specific concerns raised in representations, particularly the development of the site from its garden state, additional traffic and the impact on the character of the village and conflict with Policy H3 of the emerging Neighbourhood Plan.

 

In conclusion it is considered that, on the balance of the issues, there are benefits accruing from the proposal when assessed as required under the guidance in the NPPF in terms of housing supply.  The balancing issues are considered to be of limited harm given their scale, significance and in the case of the Neighbourhood Plan, the relative weight it can carry in its current circumstances.

 

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.