Agenda item

Birleys Garage, 1 Waltham Lane, Long Clawson

20.40pm - 20.45pm Meeting suspended for short break.

 

Applicant: AG and JML Birley

Location: Birleys Garage, 1 Waltham Lane, Long Clawson

Proposal: Residential development of up to 45 houses.

 

a)         The Head of Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services stated that:

•           The application is in outline with an illustrative layout

•           the site  is allocated in both the NP and the LP for the no. of houses proposed

 

The application would not affect roadside trees and incorporates highways works and a footpath at the junction with East End  ,just to the north 9which were displayed)

 

He highlighted various matters for clarification:

 

Drainage - at the bottom of page 15 (65) in the left hand column the comments of a neighbour have been reported, relating to a ditch which runs along the northern edge of the eastern part of the site.  The application red line in slightly from the boundary hedge and ditch.  Indicative Layout drawing BG-16-01revC.

 

Ecology - the "no objection subject to conditions” view of the County Ecologist is reported at the bottom of page 7 (57).  The County Ecologist responded that her initial concerns had been met

 

Letter from the applicants solicitor:

•           Confirmation of the provision of 37% affordable housing – this would be refined by a scheme to be submitted under the s 106

•           Request that the s106 arrangements for the school are entered into by all successful applicants to ensure that the school goes ahead alongside the housing (if any).

 

This appears to be the same as the proposed recommendation.

 

b)         Cllr Tillyard, on behalf of the Parish Council, was invited to speak and stated that:

•           The neighbourhood plan agrees to permit this development.

•           The Parish Council support this application and the recommendation to permit.

 

Cllrs had no questions for Cllr Tillyard.

 

c)         Hamish Forbes, as an objector, was invited to speak and stated that:

•           Owns adjacent property to the north.

•           Borough Council or the applicant has never consulted him on the issues about the boundary ownership issues that have now been resolved.

•           There are already water flow issues that cause flooding and property damage.

•           The nearby brook leads to Hose, so may cause further flooding downstream.

•           Current drainage in the area is inadequate.

•           Phase 2 will flow into the pond and brook, and lead to further flooding.

•           There is possible contamination on the site, which could lead to the pollution of the brook, which is used as drinking water for livestock.

 

A Cllr queried what is phase 2 of the plan.

Mr Forbes responded that phase 2 is the demolition of the garage and the piggeries for additional housing.

A Cllr clarified that phase 2 is not part of this proposal, and sought further clarification on the location of the brook to the site.

Mr Forbes confirmed the brook location is to the East.

 

d)         Melanie Steadman, as an objector, was invited to speak and stated that:

•           It is in the Neighbourhood Plan, but should only be permitted subject to several conditions.

•           Buildings within the site should be no more than 2 storeys.

•           Preserve the local trees and hedgerow, which is a policy in the neighbourhood plan.

•           There is a shortage of bungalows within the village, so more bungalows should be built.

•           The village already has an abundance of affordable housing, so the percentage of affordable housing in this development should be reduced.

•           Road priority should be given to traffic travelling up the hill.

•           There needs to be sufficient parking on the site, as there is already congestion within the village.

 

A Cllr sought clarification on the affordable housing issue.

 

Mrs Steadman responded that the village already has 16% affordable housing, so doesn’t need any more, but requires bungalows within the village.

 

e)         Cllr Rhodes, as ward councillor, was invited to speak and stated that:

•           Expected to be able to support this application.

•           Take into account what the objectors have said.

•           There is a high flood risk in the area.

•           Need to rethink site layout to reduce flood risk.

 

Councillors had no questions for Cllr Rhodes.

 

The Head of Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services stated that:

•           This is only an illustrative layout.so may be subject to change.

•           The application is for “up to” 45 houses.

•           There could be conditions on house heights and tree retention etc.

•           Local trees would be retained, may have to implement a TPO.

 

A Cllr commented that there should be a condition to limit to a maximum of 2 storey houses.

 

A Cllr queried who is responsible for the adjacent hedgerow.

 

The Head of Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services answered that the hedgerow would remain under the control of whoever is currently controlling it, as it is not part of the application site.

 

A Cllr queried about the watercourse that may lead to flooding near the site.

 

The Head of Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services answered that the watercourse was very small.

 

A Cllr commented that a lack of watercourse maintenance is probably contributing to the flooding issues and must be looked at.

 

A Cllr stated that it is possible to condition to look at the flooding issues, as it is only an outline planning application.

 

Cllr Glancy proposed to permit the application, with additional conditions that there no houses that exceed 2 storeys, and that bungalows are included within the scheme.

 

Cllr Chandler Seconded the proposal to permit, as this is the ideal site for development within Long Clawson. Also, the site is currently derelict and site traffic would not have to travel through the village. Cllr Chandler proposed a condition to test for contamination before the application proceeds. Cllr Glancy agreed to this condition.

 

A Cllr commented that it is only an outline application, but the site plan should be altered so that the play areas included within the scheme are located at the centre of the site, rather than on the edge of the site. Cllr Chandler and Cllr Glancy both agree to this condition.

 

A Cllr commented that the site is included in the Neighbourhood Plan and is in keeping with the village scene and landscape.

 

A Cllr sought clarification on the separation between the garage and the site access.

 

The Head of Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services answered that the road would open up to allow access to the garage.

 

Cllrs discuss whether the road would be a public or an adopted road by LCC.

 

The Head of Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services commented that the road through the site would be a full 6m wide road, which may be adopted by LCC. If the road is adopted by LCC, as it meets LCC standards, then LCC will be responsible for its maintenance. If the road is not adopted, the residents will be responsible for its upkeep costs. Also, there must be street lighting on the site for it to meet LCC standards for possible adoption.

 

A Cllr suggested that priority is given to local buyers.

 

A Vote was taken on the motion to permit the application,

 

11 Members supported the motion.

0 Members were against the motion.

0 Members abstained from the vote.

 

The motion carried unanimously, the application is permitted subject to:

 

(a) The completion of a s 106 agreement securing:

 (i)        Contribution for the improvement to civic amenity sites.

(ii)        Contribution to travel packs

(iii)       Sustainable transportation

(iv)      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,

(v)       A contribution to primary education of a quantity commensurate to the cost of the extension of the school as set out in Item 3 shared on a proportionate basis based on housing quantities, between the sites which obtain permission

 

(b) Conditions as set out in the report with additional  conditions that

(i)         the site has no house of greater than 2 storeys,

(ii)        some bungalows being included within the scheme,

(iii)       tests for contamination and subsequent remediation on the site is undertaken.

 

For the following reasons:

 

The Borough is deficient in terms of housing delivery 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. Accordingly, the application presents a vehicle for the delivery of affordable housing of the appropriate quantity, in proportion with the development and of a type to support the local market housing needs.  Long Clawson is considered to be a sustainable location having access to employment, health care facilities, primary education, local shops, and a regular bus services.  It is considered that there are material considerations that weigh in favour of the application.

 

There are a number of other positive benefits of the scheme which include developer contributions to mitigate impacts upon local services. There are also benefits arising from the proposed highways improvements and the removal of unsightly buildings.

 

The application derives support from the emerging Local Plan and Neighbourhood Plan owing to its strong adherence to their content. In the case of the former this is considered to be limited, but in the latter, significant.

 

It is considered that balanced against the positive elements are the site specific concerns raised in representations.

 

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. In addition, other material considerations weigh in favour of the application.

 

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 should be granted.