Agenda item

Land South Of Keystones, Sand Pit Lane, Long Clawson

Applicant: Davidsons Developments Ltd

Location: Land South of Keystones, Sand Pit Lane, Long Clawson

Proposal: Residential development of up to 55 dwellings, together with new areas of public open space, access, landscaping and drainage infrastructure.

 

Councillor Holmes Proposed a motion to withhold standing orders for the duration

of this meeting, as there are many interested parties to speak on each application.

This motion was Seconded by Councillor Greenow.

Councillors voted unanimously in favour of withholding standing orders.

Standing Orders Withheld for the rest of the meeting.

 

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

 

•           It is an Outline application with an illustrative layout

•           The most difficult of the apps tonight because of the conflict between the NP and the LP – but as stated earlier the NP carries more weight at present. The NP does not allocate it for housing and has protective policy under ENV8. This is the main driver behind our recommendation of refusal.

•           The application has attracted widespread objection on several grounds all of which are outlined, but there are particular contentions regarding heritage and drainage.

•           He described the main concerns – setting of the Manor House, Church, Conservation Area forming a historic core. Historic England have described the impact as ‘less than substantial harm’ (using those exact words) and this means the impact needs to be balanced against the benefits identified in NPPF –  housing provision including AH being  to the fore. This has included seeking their view on the mini roundabout, - their comments in this respect are on page 9.

•           Drainage – concerns have been raised that the scheme cannot be achieved. It will be noted that we have reverted back and for the with the LLFA (page 8) and whist they agree not every detail is yet secured, as is the nature of outline applications, they are not saying effective drainage would not be possible.

Finally, we have received conformation form the applicants that they would meet the s106 requests proposed by the Village Hall management body (page 16)

 

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

 

•           The Parish Council supports the reports and recommendations of all officers this evening.

•           This site is not identified in the Neighbourhood Plan, and is not allocated.

•           This site is not even a reserve site in the Neighbourhood Plan.

•           Environmental impacts should be included in the reasons for refusal.

•           The site is poor and not suitable for development.

•           It is next to a Conservation Area and a listed building.

•           The site has flood risks.

•           The reasons for refusal should include heritage, landscape and flooding.

•           It breaks policies H1, H2, H3 and H7 of the neighbourhood plan.

•           It breaks policies ENB8 and ENB9 of the neighbourhood plan.

 

Councillors had no questions for Cllr Tillyard.

 

c)         Dr Cooper, as an objector, was invited to speak and stated that:

•           This site is against the neighbourhood plan.

•           It would damage the heritage and assets of the village.

•           The nearby pond is fed by surface water run-off, so building on the field and the subsequent run off will destroy the Manor House pond.

•           They do not have the permission of the pond owner to drain and destroy the farm.

•           It will cause pollution in the area and lead to flooding due to less run off.

•           The LLFA comments of application 17/01234/OUT, a similar site, are different and oppose the application.

•           This site has a lot of drainage issues.

•           The pond is important to the church and the setting of the whole village.

 

A Cllr asked what would happen if water access to the pond is blocked over.

Dr Cooper responded that the pond would dry up.

 

A Cllr asked how many similar ponds are within the vicinity.

Dr Cooper responded that he didn’t know, and that is a reason why it is so unusual.

 

A Cllr asked why the pond has never dried up before, and queried whether it was a local spring.

Dr Cooper responded that the pond is a result of local surface water run off, and not a local spring.

 

d)         Simon Shouler, as an objector, was invited to speak and stated that:

•           Supports the recommendation to refuse.

•           This is due to both heritage and drainage issues.

•           There are very old buildings in Long Clawson.

•           Medieval pond relies on surface run off.

•           Manor Farm House is Grade 2* listed.

•           Nearby houses, church and vicarage are all important to the village character.

•           The site shouldn’t be changed from agriculture to housing.

•           Historic England say that the pond and the run off area should be protected.

•           Cannot justify the removal and drying up of the pond.

•           There are better sites within the village for development.

•           This site is unsafe and unwanted within the village.

•           There are heritage and drainage issues for refusal.

 

Cllrs had no questions for Mr Shouler.

 

e)         Guy Longley, as the agent, was invited to speak and stated that:

•           This has been previously recommended for approval.

•           Drainage issues at the site have been resolved.

•           There are no objections from statuary consultees.

•           It will provide education contributions for the primary school.

•           It will provide contributions for the village hall.

•           37% affordable housing on the site.

•           It is included in the Local Plan, and should be afforded more weight now that it has been submitted.

•           Decisions should be consistent with recent Committee meeting for Waltham on the Wolds.

•           Neighbourhood plan has not been to referendum, so should be afforded less weight as there is no certainty of outcome.

•           It is a site allocated in the Local Plan, so should be approved.

 

A Cllr asked what would be done about the medieval pond.

Mr Longley responded that the LLFA had no objections to the scheme, so all should be OK with regards to the pond.

 

f)          Cllr Rhodes, as Ward Councillor, was invited to speak and stated that:

•           This site used to be set for approval, but since then more drainage issues have come forward.

•           The Manor Farm House is very important as it is grade 2* listed, and the pond is also very important.

•           This site is vital to the character and setting of the whole village.

•           Cannot replace this setting with new estate housing.

•           There are other environmental considerations against this site.

•           There is a lot of local support in favour of the neighbourhood plan, which does not allocate this site.

•           This is the site that is most objected to of all of the applications in Long Clawson.

•           Council need to preserve its setting and its agricultural use.

 

Cllrs had no questions for Cllr Rhodes.

 

The Head of Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services responded that:

•           This site is not a reserve site in the neighbourhood plan.

•           Heritage England have stated that this site would cause less than substantial harm in the village, and that there would be safeguards in place to protect village assets.

•           The Neighbourhood Plan still has a lot of weight, even before the referendum

•           In Waltham on the Wolds, the neighbourhood plan was a lot less advanced than it is in Clawson, Harby and Hose.

•           We cannot be certain what would happen to the pond, and the LLFA have stated that it is not an insurmountable problem or grounds for refusal.

 

A Cllr stated that we should not further damage this site with further development, and we should protect our local heritage.

 

Cllr Holmes Proposed Refusal, due to heritage issues on the site.

 

Cllr Baguley Seconded the motion for Refusal, as it is a very sensitive site and the Farm Manor House is grade 2* listed and the pond should also be protected.

 

A Cllr commented that heritage assets are very important and should be protected, and that this is a very important site.

 

A Cllr stated that they fully support the motion for refusal, as we must consider the heritage of the village. Also, the educational contributions of roughly £1million seem accurate for the development.

 

A Cllr stated that Historic England have got this one wrong, and that these aspects must be considered and protected.

 

Cllrs agreed that the neighbourhood plan is very clear for this site, and it states that this site should not be considered for development within the village.

 

A Cllr stated that there are exceptional heritage issues on this site, and this application should be refused on the grounds of damage to the heritage of the village and the area.

 

Cllrs agreed that the neighbourhood plan is very important and needs to be a major consideration, after the localism act encouraged local people to shape the area around them. The neighbourhood plan is more advanced than the local plan, and as a result it must carry significant weight. Local people do not want houses on this site, so we should listen to what they want.

 

A Cllr stated that this is a very important site for the borough, and that they are strongly against approval on this site.

 

A Cllr stated that the field is very important for the pond, and that the field should be left alone or it will damage the pond.

 

Cllrs agreed that this site should not have been allocated in the neighbourhood plan, and that it would be a mistake to build on this site.

 

The Head of Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services sought clarification on the reasons for refusal and in particular whether the Committee considered the harm to Heritage Assets to be substantial. This was confirmed.

 

A Cllr responded that the reason is currently due to the truly exceptional heritage circumstances on and around the site.

 

A Cllr suggested that the reasons for refusal should be toned down, and not be for truly exceptional issues.  This was rejected by the proposer and the seconder.

 

A Vote was taken on the motion to reject the application on grounds of the Neighbourhood Plan and substantial harm to heritage issues around the site by virtue of impact on their setting.

 

9 Members supported the motion.

0 Members were against the motion.

2 Members abstained from the vote.

 

The Motion was carried and the application was refused for the following reasons:

 

1.  The  application  proposes  a  development  of  dwellings  that  is  contrary  to  the  Long  Clawson Neighbourhood  Plan.    The  development  is  not  allocated  as  a  housing  site  and  is  identified  as locally  important  and  valued view The application is therefore contrary to Policies H1, H2 H3  and ENV8  of the Clawson, Hose and Harby Neighbourhood Plan (Referendum Version) 2017 to 2036.

 

 2.  In the opinion of the  Local  Planning  Authority, the development  would amount  to substantial harm  to  the  adjacent  heritage  assets,  the  scheduled  Moated  site  north-east  of  St  Remigius' Church,  the  14th  century  grade  II*  St  Remigius  Church  ;the  grade  II*  Manor  Farmhouse  on West  End,  the  grade  II  Vicarage  and  the  Long  Clawson  Conservation  Area  by  virtue  of  a significant adverse impact upon their setting. It is not considered that the benefits provided by the proposals are exceptional to justify such harm and as such the proposal is contrary to para. 132 of the NPPF.