Agenda item

Land Rear Of 1 To 3, Hickling Lane, Long Clawson

Applicant: Mr T Hazelton

Location: Land Rear Of 1 To 3 Hickling Lane, Long Clawson

Proposal: Outline application for the erection of up to 31 dwellings with associated access, open space and parking

 

 

The Applications and Advice Manager (LP) introduced the application and advised:

 

The application is for outline planning permission for the erection of up to 31 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: comments have now been received from the Lead Local Flood Authority.  They have stated that the revised FRA includes a drainage strategy and additional detail as requested in their previous consultation response.  The drainage strategy does not contain any level details, however on cross-checking against the submitted topographic details, it is found that the proposals would be deliverable.

 

The LLFA welcome the use of various SuDS treatment trains within the strategy however it is noted that some appear to be shown in locations that may ultimately become private space.  As such, consideration regarding the maintenance of these features will be required when discharging the appropriate conditions.

It is noted within the FRA that intrusive ground investigation works have been commissioned.  The FRA advises that it is believed these works will demonstrate infiltration is not viable on-sit.  Result from infiltration testing will be required in order to discharge the relevant condition.

 

As with other applications this evening 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, 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 an allocated housing site referenced LONG2 in the submitted version of the Local Plan and similarly is an allocated housing site in the Neighbourhood Plan referenced NPLONG 6.

 

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, and the allocation of the site in both the emerging Local and Neighbourhood Plans is considered to further add to the weight in favour of the development.

 

As such the application is recommended for approval as set out in the report along with the additional conditions from the Lead Local Flood Authority.

 

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

•           The Parish Council supported this application and will continue to support.

•           Drainage from this site will run down Hickling Lane,

•           Needs to be subject to conditions to ensure that a suitable drainage scheme is in place.

•           The houses on the edge of the scheme should be a maximum of one storey so they do not overlook or overbear the neighbours to the scheme.

•           The Parish Council want to be involved with the developer to ensure the scheme is suitable for the landscape of the village.

 

A Cllr queried the location of the bungalows on the site.

 

Cllr Tillyard responded that the bungalows should be on the edge of the site, so that the neighbours who are adjacent to the site are not overlooked.

 

A Cllr commented that congestion and parking on Hickling Lane is usually very difficult.

 

Cllr Tillyard responded that the parking issues on Hickling Lane should be improving, as a new car park is now in place so people will not be forced to park on the roadside.

 

b)         Brian Wiles, an objector, was invited to speak and stated that:

•           There are safety issues on this site.

•           Objects to the 31 houses, as Hickling Lane is already unsafe.

•           The road is always very busy and there are HGVs who use the road regularly.

•           The footpath is single file only, and the whole situation is an accident waiting to happen.

•           The junction is unsafe, and the new houses built on this site would only make the situation worse and more likely to cause an accident.

 

Cllrs had no questions for Mr Wiles.

 

c)         Moira Hart, an objector, was invited to speak and stated that:

•           It is included in the Neighbourhood Plan but it is now over-allocated.

•           There are drainage issues on the site, and there is a high flood risk.

•           There are already flood issues in this area of the village.

•           Site access is poor, as this is the main route through the village for HGVs and village traffic.

•           Alternative site access would be better.

•           Pedestrian access to the site is very poor, the local footpaths are very narrow, meaning residents would have to drive, and the congestion is already bad in the village.

 

Cllrs had no questions for Mrs Hart

 

d)         Adam Murray, the agent, was invited to speak and stated:

•           There is a shortage of houses; this site would provide 31 more.

•           It is included in both the local plan and the neighbourhood plan.

•           There is local support for this application.

•           This site includes bungalows and affordable housing.

•           The site would retain local trees and hedgerows.

•           There are no technical objections to the site.

•           The applicant will agree to the S106 contributions.

•           Agrees with the recommendation to approve.

 

Cllrs had no questions for Mr Murray.

 

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

•           The reserve site has been approved, so Long Clawson has now reached its allocation.

•           It should be possible to now consider this site to be the reserve site for the village.

•           Access to the site is poor.

•           There is a safety issue on the road and access from Hickling Lane.

•           There are drainage issues on this site.

 

A Cllr questioned whether there has been flooding near the site.

 

Cllr Rhodes responded that he cannot confirm where specifically flooding has occurred, but it needs to be looked at and followed closely.

 

The Applications and Advice Manager (LP) responded that the highways issues have been examined by LCC, and they have no reason for refusal. Also, there have been no objections from the LLFA, and there would be a SUDS plan in place.

 

A Cllr commented that this should become the new reserve site, but there is a drainage issue, flooding in the area as well as transport issues on the access road.

 

The Head of Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services responded that the options are limited to deferment, approval or refusal – Planning Committee cannot change the content of the now submitted Local Plan by giving this site ‘reserve site’ standing. The LLFA would introduce a new SUDS approach.

 

Cllr Baguley Proposed to refuse the application, due to road safety concerns.

 

Cllr Cumbers Seconded the motion to refuse, adding that Long Clawson already has its neighbourhood plan allocation, and doesn’t require any more housing.

 

A Cllr commented that the proposal is to refuse on transport issues, which have been seem as acceptable by the local highways authority, and there have been no technical objections.

 

Cllr Cumbers proposed to add the fact that Long Clawson has now filled its allocation for housing to the reasons for refusal. Cllr Baguley agreed.

 

A Cllr stated that there are already drainage issues in the area, as the ground is heavy clay. There are parked cars along the access road, so definitely support the refusal.

 

A Cllr stated that the site is in the neighbourhood plan, so could the application be deferred? New car parks will reduce roadside parking in the village.

 

A Cllr commented that the site has very dangerous access, so could the application be deferred whilst the access is relocated. A Cllr stated that there have been no flood alleviation works in the area, so the flooding issues will persist.

 

A Cllr stated that this site should become the reserve site, after the reserve site was approved.

 

A Cllr stated that neither the LLFA or LCC Highways have objected, and it is included in both the Local Plan and the Neighbourhood Plan. The officer has also recommended approval, so it may lead to a lost appeal if the application is rejected.

 

The Head of Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services commented that the village has now exceeded its total allocation in the neighbourhood plan, despite that fact this site is still allocated in the neighbourhood plan.

 

A Cllr comments that there were concerns raised in the report, but none were large enough to warrant grounds for refusal.

 

A Cllr states that they agree that the application should be deferred, whilst a new site access is sought, as nobody objects to the site.

 

Cllr Baguley withdrew the proposal to refuse.

 

Cllr Baguley proposed a motion to defer the application whilst a new access to the site is sought.

 

Cllr Cumbers Seconded the motion to defer the application whilst a new access is sought.

 

A Cllr commented that the allocations in the Neighbourhood Plans are all minimums not maximums.

 

A Cllr commented that there should be caution in using flooding as one of the reasons for deferral or refusal, as the LLFA has no objections to the site. The Highways issue with access is the only reason for deferral.

 

A Vote was taken on the motion to defer the application whilst a new access to the site is looked at.

 

11 Members supported the motion.

0 Members voted against the motion.

0 Members abstained from the vote.

 

The motion was unanimously carried;

 

DETERMINATION: DEFERRED, to request reconsideration of the location of the access and consideration of the suggestion it could be on Broughton Lane rather than Hickling Lane.