Agenda item

Dairy Houses 9 Langar Lane Harby

 Applicant: Redmile Developments LTD

Location: Dairy Houses, 9 Langar Lane, Harby

Proposal: Erection of 5 dwellings (re-locations of Plots 7, 8 and 10 of planning permission 15/00933/FUL and erection of an additional 2 dwellings plot 11 and 12).

 

The Planning Officer introduced the application and advised:

•           A very detailed response to the Committee report has been submitted from an objector, commenting on much of its content. This was reported in full and is summarised as follows:

-           The size and scale and mass has already been breached and now the developer seeks to further undermine that phrase with over development of the site which is not matched by other properties on Langar Lane.   One large property, recently built by the developer was given planning consent even though it is out of proportion to the plot that it sits on and dominates the future development as a whole.

-           Insufficient consideration may be given to the whole situation in favour of a timed schedule to get properties built. 

-           The over development makes the site more urban than it is rural and does not enhance the surrounding countryside or the village atmosphere

-           The development proposed is not safe for motorists, pedestrians, horses or people with disabilities.  There appears to be inadequate footpaths suitable for disability scooters or wheelchairs.  A roadway shared with motor vehicles into the site is not suitable for the disabled transport.

-           this latest planning application is approved it will fly in the face of Good Design, and the site that is over developed and looks very urban will not integrate and will stand out like sore thumb on one of the main approach roads into Harby, and this old and historic village.

-           How would the three properties he refers to be appropriate and ‘would address the street scene.’?  The rest of the properties on Langar Lane are better spaced, stand back from the road with greenery to the front of the properties and wide verges, with nothing built behind them (in the majority of cases)   These new proposed properties are closer together, border the narrow pavements with minimal area for greenery at the front and there are no bungalows in the proposal.

-           LCC Highways are said to have raised no objections on safety grounds.  Why is that? The additional house will attract residents with cars.  In theory the number of residents in each house could easily result in more vehicles than parking spaces on driveways allow.  Where will these vehicles park?  Undoubtedly on Langar Lane.  This will create an added danger for drivers entering to leaving the development and for drivers negotiating parked vehicles on a busy Langar Lane. Are the Highways fully aware of the difficulties already posed on Langar Lane?  Vehicles speed out of the village and into it over a humpback bridge which makes visibility difficult in the area of the entrance to this development.  Large vehicles such as tractors with heavy trailers use this route and whilst the drivers will sit higher in the cabs it will not make negotiating Langar Lane easier if vehicles are parked outside 3 properties.  Two new properties with more parking at the rear would be safer and more aesthetically pleasing for the area as well reducing the over development and urban appearance of the site.

-           Most of the conditions were not complied with and the whole length of Langer Lane became a shambles of uncoordinated works and a safety hazard during the construction phase 1. 

-           It also states that the Applicant has indicated that School Lane, Dickmans Lane and Boyer’s Orchard will not be used by delivery drivers.   There were several ‘guarantees’ and ‘assurances’ given to resident before construction started.  None were kept. 

-           Two, four bedroom properties has the potential for at least 4 cars per household, perhaps more.  Parking space is not sufficient on two properties to accommodate 8 vehicles?

-           There is an estimate of available spaces at the school which conveniently suits the figure of 4 children from the new properties.  The school capacity is limited.  What if there are 10 children in the new plots.  These estimated figures will then be useless and wrong.  This section is not a valid argument in my opinion. Like so many things, the report takes account of the best case scenario and not the worst case and the best laid plans etc., never – or rarely – work out as expected.

-           Access road width is stated as being sufficient to allow two cars to pass each other.  Should any errant parking take place and then a wider vehicle – fire engine for instance, needs access;

-           It is contested whether the size of the gardens proposed are adequate for the corresponding size of properties from the plans, the gardens are very minimal which will detract from the individual buildings and the site as a whole. 

-           ‘The application is for full planning permission and therefore it is considered that the proposal present is what will be constructed.’  This in my opinion is a naive statement. As we all know, various amendments can be made by the developer during construction – and have been in the past – and what initial planning is granted is NOT always what is eventually built.

-           If previous bad practice is not recognised and dealt with (and you may pass the buck and say that this is the problem of other departments) then developments will despoil the village and ruin the heritage of the area.

-           NP POLICY H7: HOUSING DESIGN: The over development does not enhance the ‘character of the area’

-           The over development and bunching of properties on Langar Lane does not reflect the character or density of the surrounding area.

 

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

•           Permission has already been granted on this site for 10 houses.

•           There was originally planned to be 5 houses on each side of the road.

•           There are concerns about the house on plot 10.

•           There would be over-congestion on the site if this application were approved.

•           There are Parking and safety issues on this site and the surrounding area.

•           There is no independent access due to plot 10 blocking access.

•           Plot 10 makes the site overcrowded.

•           There have already been 139 dwellings granted permission in Harby.

 

Cllrs had no questions for Cllr Tillyard.

 

b)         Phillip Goodman, an objector, was invited to speak and stated that:

•           He is a former planning inspector who helped to produce the local Neighbourhood Plan.

•           The site would be cramped and overcrowded.

•           It reduces green space in the area.

•           It would cause on street parking in the vicinity.

•           There is limited space for refuse bins on the site.

•           Housing needs are already met in the Local Plan and the Neighbourhood Plan.

•           The street scene would be very cramped here.

•           It is contrary to the NPPF, and Local Plan and the Neighbourhood Plan.

 

A Cllr asked what the Neighbourhood Plan allocation was for the site.

Mr Goodman answered that the Neighbourhood Plan allocated 10 dwellings for the site, which have already been granted.

 

c)         Caroline Chave, the agent, was invited to speak and stated that:

•           This site is already a Brownfield site.

•           The site is within the village envelope.

•           The used to be a dairy on the site, which closed in 2012.

•           The Larger self-build units that were intended for the site have not sold, so are being redeveloped into smaller units.

•           This will make better use of the village Brownfield land.

•           The proposed buildings are of lower heights that other buildings within the village.

•           The properties are traditionally designed properties.

•           Each dwelling will have 2 parking spaces and a garage.

•           The self-build projects have central government support.

 

Cllrs had no questions for Ms Chave.

 

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

•           Agree with the Parish Council and with Phillip Goodman.

•           There is not room for 5 dwellings on this site.

•           LCC Highways advice can be ignored if you disagree.

•           There is only room for 2 houses on the front of the development, not the 3 that are planned.

 

Cllrs had no questions for Cllr Rhodes.

 

The Planning Officer (JL) clarified on site parking provision by reference to the layout plan. Parking is off Langar Lane, and for plot 10, parking is to the rear of the property.

 

A Cllr commented that it looks like a promising development, but looks over intensive. A Neighbour has reported possible issues with drainage in the vicinity of the development.

 

Cllr Baguley proposed a motion for refusal on grounds that it is over intensive and out of keeping with the area and the street scene as a result.

 

Cllr Holmes seconded the motion for refusal. It is on a busy road and would lead to on street parking.

 

A Cllr commented that the development looked nice, but it would be cramped and overdeveloped. It will cause on street parking and so supports the motion to refuse.

 

A Cllr queried if we know the numbers and calculations for how cramped the plots would be. The Head of Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services responded that there is no specified arithmetic standard. It would be dependent upon the Committee’s judgement of the impacts of the development.

 

A Cllr stated that it would lead to further urbanisation within the village, and that we need to preserve village character.

 

A Cllr commented that there are no planning reasons for refusal of this development.

The Head of Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services responded that design and village character are important considerations for the Committee to judge.

 

A Cllr stated that it is replacing two large houses with three smaller ones, and so is in favour of permit.

 

A Cllr queried the current state of the Neighbourhood Plan.

The Head of Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services stated that the Neighbourhood Plan is currently post-examination so has significant weight.

 

A Cllr stated that the Neighbourhood Plan allocated 10 dwellings on this site, so it should stick to the 10 that have already been granted permission.

The Head of Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services responded that the NPPF would regard more houses as a benefit, and that Harby already has its NP allocation.

 

A Cllr commented that look and appearance of a development must be taken into account.

 

A Cllr commented that the site looks too cramped.

 

A Cllr stated that there would be an increase in on street parking if this development went ahead, irrespective of the advice of LCC Highways.

 

The Head of Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services stated that the judgement must be made on whether the increase in traffic and road safety issues would represent a hazard and whether it would be severe.

 

A Vote was taken on the motion to refuse.

 

7 Councillors supported the motion.

4 Councillors opposed the motion.

0 Councillors abstained from the vote.

 

DETERMINATION: REFUSED, for the following reason:

 

In  the  opinion  of  the  Local  Planning  Authority,  the  proposed  development  is  considered  to represent  the  overdevelopment  of  the  site,  especially  the  proposed  dwellings  fronting  Langar Lane, which  would fail to respect its surroundings, reinforce local distinctiveness and have an

adverse impact on the quality of the street scene. It is considered that the proposed development would  be  harmful  to  the  character  and  appearance  of  the  street  scene  and  wider  village.  The proposal is considered contrary to Section 7 of the NPPF 'Requiring Good Design', Policies OS1 and  BE1  of  the  Melton  Local  Plan  1999  and  Policy  H7  of  the  Clawson,  Hose  and  Harby Neighbourhood Development Plan, which seeks to ensure development is sympathetic to the site and surroundings. It is not considered that the benefits of the scheme are sufficient to outweigh these impacts.