Agenda item

Report addressing the issues raised common to each of the applications

The Head of Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services introduced the report which explained the weight that should be afforded to the Neighbourhood Plan (NP) and the emerging Local Plan (LP) in their relative state of advancement. He also explained the scheme developed by the LEA to expand the Primary School, including its limitations.

On Education, this has been a long standing difficulty raised in numerous objections in each of the applications. In response to this we have liaised with both the LEA and the school. They have devised a scheme that would allow expansion to allow for 30 additional children – the equivalent using the LEA’s measured of 127 houses. This has been designed out and costed by the LEA and the details are set out in the report. They have also advised it is a singular solution that cannot be downscaled or broken into parts.

Whilst aware of the likely costs, the no. of houses it will be divided between depends on the decisions that occur tonight. That is why – for those applications rec,. approval all are ‘subject to’ the final calculation on costs and of course the applicants’ willingness to meet them.

On the NP and LP the report addresses the question of weight following the relevant guidance from NPPF which will be familiar to the Committee. This has produced 2 key results :

•           The NP carries significant weight owing to the stage it has reached , having passed Examination

•           The NP is more advanced and less contended than the LP and in comparison outweighs the LP as a result. This is significant particularly to one of the applications tonight because the NP and LP address it in opposite terms, To reiterate, in current circumstanced, the NP holds greater weight.

He reported responses to the is paper:

Parish Council:

1.         The Parish Council (PC) is aware of the present need for Melton Borough Council (MBC) to determine the outstanding planning applications.

2.         The Neighbourhood Plan (NP) is expected to run alongside the emerging Melon Local Plan (LP) and give added local detail and content, while not conflicting with the LP’s strategic aims and policies. 

3.         The PC notes that the first Core planning principle in para. 17 of the NPPF is that planning should: “be genuinely plan-led, empowering local people to shape their surroundings with succinct local and neighbourhood plans setting out a positive vision for the future of the area.” 

4.         The PC agrees with the weight assigned due to the progress of the LCHH NP and MBC’s LP.  and that the NP attracts a higher level of weight in the determination of planning applications at present

5.         In line with NPPF para. 14, Councillors will be aware that there remains a legitimate point of public debate about the precise level of Housing Need within the Borough as a whole, and how that may impact upon the three villages

6.         Our own local consultations and NP community vision have led us to prefer a slightly lower OAN for new housing, as shown by the joint HEDNA study.  But we acknowledge MBC’s may aim for a higher provision It is part of the Inspector’s identification of Matters 2 - Strategy, and 3, relating to housing and employment land, both provisionally scheduled for discussion on the opening day. 

7.         The LCHH NP allows for the possibility that MBC’s view of the right level of OAN for housing may be the one eventually preferred by the LP Examining Inspector.  In that event, the NP has identified an adequate level of Reserve housing sites. 

8.         Given the numbers of “in principle” planning permissions for new dwellings already granted it is clear that the parish will be able to meet the lion’s share of its housing need for the entire 25 year plan period within the next 5 – 10 years. 

8.         There are 5 proposals on your agenda; the PC accepts that each must be considered on its own merits having regard to the policy framework above. 

9.         In view of the NP Policies H1 and H2 the PC is generally supportive of the Officer’s recommendation to: REFUSE three of the applications, and, in principle, to APPROVE two of the applications subject to conditions and the completion of S106 planning obligations.

10.       There are some clarifications and points of detail on some of the sites.  The points of detail in the PC formal response(s) for each planning application remain valid alongside the NP Policies.

As these are site specific points they are best addressed by the PC chairman as each application is considered

LCHH PC supports the conclusions recommended by the MBC officers subject to detailed points relevant to each site.

Lcc Education

A detailed table of costs associated with the transportation of primary school children if the school is not extended or there is a delay in doing so is provided. However it is strongly caveated that these can be avoided if funding for the school is secured at early stages (so that it can be ready for when children move in)

 As with the school extension itself, firm conclusions cannot be drawn until we know how many houses are expected. Therefore it is suggested that, if and where applicable, this is added to the recommendations to be ‘subject to agreement’ with developers.

Letter from the Charity that remains the landowner of the school:

•           The charity last intervened in the school to deliver the School Hall it enjoys today. This was achieved without any LCC monies.

•           The LCC approach set out in the papers may not be the only way that capacity can be increased. Expansion in an organic way may be possible, possibly acquiring adjacent properties to achieve this

•           The costs identified by the LEA are questioned

•           The Charity would like to discuss alternative approaches with the LEA and ensure that the s106 monies are sued in the most sustainable way.

Finally I am alerted to an error which regrettably has been duplicated across several applications. This is in the part that addresses ‘Planning Policies and compliance with the NPPF’ on pages 21, 71 and 95 where it is stated that the Borough is deficient in housing land supply. Please may I apologise and advise that we are confident we do have a 5 yr land supply at present. This does not assist with the question of village envelopes as we cannot contest that the 1999 plan is out of date, but it does mean that the delivery of housing of any given site can be given less weight as a ‘benefit’ in NPPF terms, than in a scenario where there is no such supply.

The Highways recent accident record was displayed. This is because of the point made in all of the applications about the dangerous nature of the road network in the village, with its bends and parked vehicles. There are 3 recent accidents, all of which were classified as slight injury accidents.  All 3 accidents involved stationary or parked vehicles; none are on the bends.

Furthermore, dependent upon where each development is located, the Highways Authority advise that it would probably be likely that only a very small percentage of the traffic generated from each development would actually travel through the middle of Long Clawson, as the major destinations for travel such as Melton, Leicester or Nottingham may mean that vehicles do not need to pass through the middle of the village.  Therefore even though there is an issue with parking in Long Clawson, it could be difficult to demonstrate that a site would create a significant impact on the flow of traffic through the village.

The recommendation of the report was highlighted:

that the Committee proceeds to determine each application in turn, on its individual merits, under the terms set out by para 14 of the NPPF: “permission should be granted unless the impacts would “significantly and demonstrably” outweigh the benefits”.