Agenda item

Land And Buildings North Canal Farm, Pagets End, Long Clawson

Applicant: R D and J K Chandler

Location: Land And Buildings North Canal Farm, Pagets End, Long Clawson

Proposal: Demolition of agricultural buildings, construction of up to 40 dwellings, improvements to existing access, formation of surface water attenuation pool and associated infrastructure, provision of public open space and landscaping.

 

a)         The Applications and advice Manager advised that:

 

The application is for outline planning permission for the erection of up to 40 residential dwellings, the application relates to the approval of the access with all other matters being reserved, the application is supported with an indicative layout plan showing how the houses may fit on the site.

 

The application site is located in Long Clawson and lies next to existing dwellings.  Statutory consultees have assessed the proposal and raise no objections subject to conditions.

 

There are updates to the report, within the report the site is referenced as North Canal Farm, however the actual site address is Canal Farm rather than North Canal Farm.

 

The site would be accessed via the existing entrance off Canal Lane, and not via Paget’s End as stated on the first page of the report.

 

As within the conclusions section of other reports an error has been made in which it has been stated that the Council is deficient in terns of housing delivery, the applicant has questioned why this statement has not been considered and or addressed within this report, this is an error, the council can demonstrate beyond a five year housing land supply and this also forms part of the balancing for members when determining the applications.

 

The application is a reserved housing site referenced Long 5 in the submitted version of the Local Plan and similarly is a reserve housing site in the Neighbourhood Plan referenced NPLONG 5.

 

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, however the weight attached to the site being a reserved site and not allocated for housing outweighs the benefits in this instance.

 

As such the application is recommended for refusal as per the 2 reasons set out in the report.

 

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

•           The Parish Council supports the officer’s recommendation to refuse.

•           This is a reserve site in both the local plan and the neighbourhood plan.

•           The site is not suitable for large scale development.

•           The visual impacts are intrusive.

•           The neighbourhood have objectively assessed the site, and the site is poor compared to others within the village.

•           There are environmental and landscape impacts of this site.

•           It has poor links to the village centre.

•           There are transport issues for this site, and this site would irreversibly harm both the environment and the local highways.

 

Cllrs had no questions for Cllr Tillyard.

 

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

•           The Design and Access statement for this application is incorrect.

•           Pagets End is a private road, with no public access.

•           Walking links are poor from this site.

•           The footpath links are owned by different owners, so footpaths in to the village are not guaranteed.

•           Highways recommended refusal before they changed to permit.

•           LPA should consider refusal for transport issues.

•           The access to the site is along a narrow lane, so is not suitable.

•           It is only a reserve site in the neighbourhood plan.

 

Cllrs sought clarification on the location of the footpath.

Ms Steadman responded that the footpath is privately owned, and clarified the footpath location.

 

c)         David Haston, as the agent, was invited to speak and stated that:

•           This site would boost local housing land supply.

•           It offers 40% affordable housing

•           It would include contributions to both education and transport.

•           It is only a reserve site, but it was recommended to be an allocated site and has been demoted to reserve site focus for no discernible reason and no explanation has been given.

•           The site offers unique benefits, such as access to other settlements without travelling through the village.

•           It is a Brownfield site.

•           It would restore the landscape and reduce agricultural vehicles.

•           Cows would be relocated to another part of the farm.

•           Benefits outweigh the harm.

 

A Cllr queried whether the applicant would grant public access to the site.

Mr Haston confirmed that the applicant will allow site access.

 

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

•           It is only a reserve site in both the Neighbourhood Plan and the Local Plan.

•           There are landscape and visual issues with the site.

•           Cannot guarantee footpath access to village centre, and this must be provided for any site in the village.

•           There are better sites available in Long Clawson.

 

A Cllr queried whether the Neighbourhood Plan has footpath requirements.

Cllr Rhodes responded that he was unsure.

 

The Case Officer (LP) stated that:

•           The neighbourhood plan is well progressed, and it is listed as a reserve site.

•           This is only an outline application, so the final scheme may look different.

•           Highways have raised no issues with the site.

 

The Head of Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services stated that it is a reserve site in both the Local Plan and the Neighbourhood Plan, so the site must be acceptable in ‘suitability’ terms, and has not been allocated owing to the presence of superior alternatives.

 

A Cllr queried whether this is a Brownfield site.

The Head of Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services answered that it is not a Brownfield site, as it is still currently classed as agricultural land.

 

Cllr Baguley proposed to refuse the application as it is only a reserve site in the neighbourhood and local plans.

 

Cllr Cumbers Seconded the motion to refuse the application.

 

A Cllr commented that this is a farmyard, but it is poorly maintained and stores 300 cows. There are concerns over animal welfare, and it would be a benefit for cows to be moved to another part of the farm. As it is a Brownfield site, there may be reasons to permit.

 

Another Cllr commented that there are issues with cows and smell on this site, and if it is approved, this would improve as the cows would be moved to another section of the farm further away form the village and residential properties.

 

A Cllr stated that this application is finely balanced, as the application has no link to the rest of the village, and this site has particularly poor accessibility to the rest of the village.

 

A Cllr stated that the farmer could already have moved the cows elsewhere to try and improve their welfare.

 

A Cllr stated that the site has several benefits, but the residents do not want the site, as it is only a reserve site in the Neighbourhood Plan, and as a result will vote to refuse permission.

 

A Vote was held on the motion to refuse the application on grounds that it is contradictory to both the Local Plan and the Neighbourhood Plan, as per the recommendation in the report.

 

5 Members supported the motion.

6 Members were against the motion.

 

The motion to refuse the application failed.

 

Cllr Wyatt proposed to permit, subject to the footpath issues being resolved, as the site would eliminate the current eyesore, and provide better housing for the area.

 

Cllr Botterill Seconded the motion to permit, as it would be good for the long-term future of the village, and livestock would be moved away from the village.

 

A Cllr suggested that maybe we should vote for a deferment, whilst the footpath issues are resolved, as they are vitally important for this site.

 

A Cllr asked for clarification on what this would mean for the local plan at examination.

 

The Head of Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services responded that this would lead to Examination issues, as it is only a reserve site.

 

Cllrs clarified that the current motion to permit, subject to the footpath issues being resolved.

 

A Vote was held on the motion to permit, subject to the footpath issue being resolved, the completion of a s106 agreement and conditions, details of which were delegated to the Head of Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services.

 

6 Members voted in favour of the motion.

5 Members voted against the motion.

 

DETERMINATION: PERMIT, subject to:

(i)         Demonstration that a footpath link to the centre of the village can be secured and remain available on a permanent basis;

(ii)        The completion of a s106 agreement securing:

•           Contribution for the improvement to civic amenity sites.

•           Contribution to travel packs

•           Sustainable transportation

•           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,

•           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

•           Village Hall improvements

(each as set out in the report)

(iii)       Conditions, details of which were delegated to the Head of Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services.

 

FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:

The benefits of the development -  delivery of housing, affordable housing and also removal of nuisance from the village from odour and farm vehicles -  are sufficient to outweigh the adverse effects which includes the weight of the Local Plan, the more substantial weight of the Neighbourhood Plan and all other factors.

 

Cllrs Chandler, Cumbers and Baguley requested that their votes against the motion be recorded.