Agenda item

Sunny Cottage 2 Pinfold Lane Bottesford

Applicant: Mr Gamble

Location: Sunny Cottage, 2 Pinfold Lane, Bottesford

Proposal: Demolition of existing dwelling house and garage.  Replacement development of residential units to include four dwelling houses (C3 use) (amended proposal for four dwellings not five as previously submitted.)

 

Cllr Baguley returned to the meeting at 18:19

 

The Planning Officer (GBA) introduced the report and advised:

 

The application is for four new dwellings outline all matters reserved involving the demolition of one already on site.

Three more representations have been received which object on grounds of safety, important corner removing openness and report matters

Site visit will have informed the Committee’s appreciation for density in Bottesford – it is difficult to estimate and varies in different parts of the village but around the 8 dwellings per hectare.

 

He apologised that the site is referred to as Greenfield in the report but not the case.

 

The site is considered acceptable in terms of highway safety and improvement through Reserved matters. LCC Highways have been scrutinised over findings and are satisfied with their recommendation.

 

Development proposes two dwellings with good amenities to all and reflect local need with ample parking Features to integrate the site into the location will be brought about through a successful Reserved Matters scheme.

 

Sequential test queries

The flooding advisors maintain the EA guidelines and have been followed.

LLFA comments suggest that the development will have features to mitigate against impacts of flooding. 

 

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

•           Parish Council objects to this application.

•           There is a large residential area nearby that gains access through Pinfold Lane.

•           The proposed access is at the narrowest point on Pinfold Lane.

•           There are another two junctions nearby and this will make the highways issue worse.

•           This site is near the entrance to the village, and this will damage the village feel.

•           It is a poor design and not in keeping with the street scene.

 

A Cllr queried whether access had already been decided.

 

Mr Bayman responded that access is likely to be at the proposed site entrance on the illustrative plans.

 

A Cllr asked whether they had been any serious accidents on the road here.

Mr Bayman responded that there are constant near misses, and that you shouldn’t be waiting for a bad accident before anything is done about it.

 

b)         Kevin Stones, an objector, was invited to speak and stated that:

•           His rear garden backs onto this site.

•           It is not large enough for the proposed dwellings.

•           There are significant objections to this proposal within the village.

•           This will cause a lot of on street parking.

•           There are highways issues in the area, and a lot of schoolchildren use the nearby footpaths.

•           There are daily near misses in the area.

•           The highways issues here have been known to residents for years, and this proposal will make the site worse.

•           This is contrary to the NPPF as it will damage the village feel.

•           It will cause a loss of privacy for neighbours.

•           The form and character of the village will be ruined.

 

A Cllr queried where his property was on the map.

Mr Stones pointed out his property on the map, as it backs onto the site.

 

The Planning Officer (GBA) responded that LCC Highways have no issues with the development.

 

A Cllr sought clarification on what houses and house types would go on the site.

The Case Officer (GBA) responded that this could be decided by the Council at a later date through the conditions. The application is ‘outline’ only with a minimal level of information and though led than ideal, this is permissible.

 

A Cllr commented that there are highways issues on this site, as was demonstrated by the site visit. Also, this site is a sensitive area, and is next to the High Street Conservation Area. This proposal would lead to over intensification and overdevelopment of the site, as it will be at 43 houses per hectare. Also support the request for more flooding tests on the site.

 

A Cllr commented that there are known highways issues in this area, and the roads around there are dangerous. We cannot wait for somebody to be killed before anything is done with the road issues. This would lead to over intensification on the site.

 

The Case Officer (GBA) queried whether this site, with the addition of only a few houses, would affect the highways situation too much.

 

The Head of Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services commented that LCC Highways have to look at how much the new development will affect the current situation, and whether it makes the road safety “severe”, following NPPF requirements The approach to Highways road safety assessment was changed in 2012 by the NPPF, evidently to make it more favourable to development.

 

A Cllr commented that it is a matter of judgement how bad the current road safety situation is, and how much the new houses will affect it.

 

A Cllr queried whether the site was included in either the Local Plan or the Neighbourhood Plan.

 

The Head of Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services responded that the site is too small to be allocated in the Local Plan, and the Neighbourhood Plan for the area has not yet been published.

 

A Cllr questioned whether this is already significant allocations for the area in the Local Plan.

 

The Head of Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services responded that the area already has enough sites allocated in the Local Plan.

 

A Cllr commented that they cannot support until the access has been decided.

 

The Head of Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services commented that the current plans are only indicative and can change later on.

 

A Cllr commented that they have concerns with regards to the sequential test and over intensification on the site, and it is difficult to agree with the Planning Officer.

 

A Cllr commented that a sequential test was needed to establish flood risk, and this site is a Zone 2 flood area.

 

Cllr Holmes proposed a motion to refuse the application on grounds of the absence of a sequential test, over intensification of the site, poor design and site layout, and highways issues in the area.

 

Cllr Chandler seconded the motion to refuse.

 

A Cllr sought clarification as for the reasons for refusal.

The reasons for refusal were reiterated by Cllr Holmes.

 

A Vote was taken on the motion to refuse.

 

10 Members supported the motion.

0 Members voted against the motion.

1 Member abstained from the vote.

 

DETERMNATION: REFUSED, for the following reasons:

 

 1.  The  proposed  development  is  in  a  location  vulnerable  to  flooding  and  it  has  not  been demonstrated,  through  the  application  of  a  'Sequential  Test'  that  there  are  no  preferable  sites available (in terms of a lower level of flood risk), therefore, the development is contrary to the

advice in the NPPF at paragraphs 100, 101 & 103.

 

 2.  The development proposed is considered to have an adverse impact on the form and character of this part of the village of Bottesford. The proposed development on this site fails to respect the open nature of the local area. It is therefore contrary to policies BE1 of the Melton Local Plan 1999 and Paragraphs 17, 61 and 64 of the NPPF.

 

 3.  The development proposed is very close to a junction which is considered very dangerous for pedestrians, motorists and other road users.  The increased traffic movements which would be caused by this development is considered to also further increase the likelihood of accidents in the local area. For these reasons the development proposes a severe impact to highway safety, contrary to National Planning Policy Framework para. 32.