Agenda item

Field No 3968, Melton Spinney Road, Thorpe Arnold

 

Applicant:     Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd

 

Location:      Field No 3968, Melton Spinney Road, Thorpe Arnold

 

Proposal:      Residential development for up to 200 dwellings including means of access, open space and associated development

 

The Chair explained that Cllr Glancy would be present for the Officers report and then make her statement before leaving.

 

(a)       The Head of Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services stated that: Long standing application raising many issues.

The application proposes 200 dwellings and the following are the key issues,

 

·         Level of affordable housing: proposes 10% affordable housing, of which 25% would be bungalows –note narrative explaining viability appraisal and gov. policy on this subject.

·         the Local Plan and the NPPF – site is part of the North SUE and is contributing some parts in accordance with emerging policy

·         Transport issues: Highway safety, traffic impact and public transport – highways satisfied with the  impacts subject to  a series of mitigations secured by conditions and s106, including of course the contribution to the MMDR. Highways have also looked at the detailed issues raised by residents (e.g. the pinch point, twin lakes traffic etc.) and consider the application acceptable

·         Impact upon residential amenities – site is in outline and whilst an approach has been suggested, this is not fixed. However the site is large and there are no doubts an acceptable scheme can be developed. Members are invited to specify any essentials to achieve this in the conditions.

·         Infrastructure and facilities: A contribution to schools police, libraries and waste in order to maintain capacity.

·         Ecology – no issues , the conditions requested can be accommodated

·         Proximity to, and effect upon, Melton country park – again a scheme is presented but is indicative. Members are also invited to specify their minimum requirements having heard the comments

 

Further comments on the adequacy of the contribution and the prospects should the MMDR funding bid not be successful. The response is as follows;

 

• HA believe inclusion in the wider solution (MMDR) better than bespoke measures for the app in isolation.
• off-site measures would likely have resulted in a situation where no single development would be able to proceed, or simply accept residual severe impacts.
• A contributions-based approach could result in shorter-term impacts prior to the delivery of mitigation measures, in accordance with LCC Cabinet’s resolution in September 2015
• It is correct to identify that there could potentially be a shortfall in developer contributions towards the MMDR if the £8,653 per dwelling rate is applied to all sites throughout the Melton North Sustainable Neighbourhood;
• However The MMDR bid includes the northern section of the MMDR, and takes account of the £8,653 per-dwelling from developers
•  Should the bid prove unsuccessful there will be further opportunities to obtain public funding and that the scheme will be very well placed to take advantage of these, given the strength of the case
• In the (highly unlikely) event that no public funding is secured specific segments of the road would be built in parallel with development parcels with specific trigger points as appropriate. 
• this would still result in the northern section of MMDR being delivered, albeit over a longer period than if the Highway Authority does receive public funding.
• developers would be able to deliver ‘their’ sections of the distributor road at significantly lower cost
• The £8,653 per-dwelling figure is based on the strategic highway contribution agreed through the Leicester Road S106 Agreement. Given the above and the lack of substantive evidence to support an alternative per-dwelling figure in relation to this site, the CHA considers that this figure continues to form the most appropriate basis for the contribution.
• when additional evidence and more robust forecasts for growth and infrastructure requirements become available, please be assured that LCC will work together with MBC in reconsidering the contributions structure applied for future planning applications. However, until such time that evidence is available, we continue to advise that a contribution of £8,653 per dwelling is sought.

 

 

Cllr Glancy, Ward Councillor for Melton Newport Ward, was invited to make her announcement and stated that: As a ward Councillor representing the residents of Newport Ward I want the best possible development and the least impact for the whole town and borough.   In some respects this development goes some way towards this objective with the improved design and layout including buffer zones for the Country Park I have managed to negotiate although I would like to see a much wider buffer for the Country Park to align more with the Local Plan and a limit to NO 2 and half story or 3 story homes on this land, towering over the landscape surrounding the park.  BUT we still have the problem of no decision on access into the Country Park and despite what the officer indicated at the site visit – no access has been agreed. Communities and Social Affairs Committee noted the request for access but have reserved the final decision until such time as a full ecological study of the Country Park has been undertaken Cllr Son Lumley will no doubt cover more on this later. 

 

There is the major problem of the severe traffic impact on Thorpe Road/Saxby Rd, Norman Way/Scalford Rd and Norman Way/Wilton Rd junctions as identified by Highways in their comments dated March 2017 which I hope you have all read and further note that until such time as the Melton Mowbray Distributor Road is provided the impact of this development is considered to be severe the proposals being contrary to paragraph 14 of the NPPF the impact significantly and demonstrably outweighing the benefits.  Highways suggest implementing SCOOT 3 system to coordinate the operation of the traffic signals at these junctions which will positively reduce the impact but acknowledges that the impact will not go below severe. As a borough Councillor I cannot bury my head in the sand and keep my fingers crossed that our bid for DfT funding is successful and everything will be OK, I would like to think it would be but in reality it is unknown.  We cannot subject the town to intolerable traffic congestion which will deter new employers.

YES this land is in the Local Plan as part of the Northern SUE but we have projected the Sustainable Neighbourhoods to come on line late 5^th year onwards and no doubt then we will have a clearer picture regarding the DfT funding by then. I wonder why Taylor Wimpey have gone it alone on this land at a time when the Local Plan is currently being examined. 

I understand Mr Worley has sought further comments from Highways, which we have just heard. However this afternoon at the Local Plan Examination Andy Yeomanson from Highways responded when questioned about the MM Transport Strategy by a developer ‘they could have taken a more rigid approach, there are still details regarding timing and trigger points to be worked out but thought it best to have contributions which may or may not be the best way forward – worrying.

 

I have concluded in order to avoid a mistake that we cannot rectify there are 3 possible solutions:-

1)    refuse the application on the grounds of the severe impact on the safe and efficient operation of the highway network until such time as funding from DfT is confirmed for the MMDR or

2)    defer this application on the grounds of seeking further confirmation of the DfT funding, after all we should know in about 12 weeks or so BUT

3)    should you be mindful to approve I would ask you to include a review of the developer contribution in the Highways contribution condition should DfT funding not be forthcoming to enable a recalculation if necessary PLUS a condition to limit the development to 1 and 2 story homes due to the topography of the land

 

Can I also ask that officers liaise with the ward councillors regarding design and layout should this application be approved tonight.

 

Cllr Glancy left the meeting at 6.29pm.

The Chair noted a request to permit 3 objectors to speak regarding this application and asked if Members would consider suspending standing orders to allow this.

 

Cllr Chandler proposed to permit 3 objectors to speak and Cllr Wyatt seconded the proposal. A vote was taken and the Members voted unanimously to allow the proposal.

 

(b)       Jane Wilson (The Friends of the Melton Country Park), on behalf of the objectors, was invited to speak and stated that: they support the need for new homes but object to this proposal in its current form. Concerns regarding:

·         Ecology and wildlife. Protected species of birds.

·         Adverse affect on biodiversity.

·         Does not contribute to and enhance the area.

·         1200 park users signed the petition against.

·         Size of buffer zones.

·         Height of dwellings on raised ground. Will tower over the park.

·         Will change from a country park to a town park.

 

A Member asked why yellow hammer birds at been declared as rare in the country park when they are a common bird.

Jane Wilson responded that it was due to data collected over 20 years regarding the country park.

 

A Member asked where the highest point of the country park is.

 

Jane Wilson responded that it is on the north eastern edge of the park.

 

(c)        Craig Heaney (Thorpe Park Residents), on behalf of the objectors, was invited to speak and stated that: they had concerns due to:

·         Increased traffic and poor accessibility.

·         Severe impact on traffic.

·         Reliant upon relief road so this decision is premature.

·         Highway safety.

·         Multi modal solutions are impractical for residents who travel outside of Melton for work.

·         Poor transport links.

·         Contravenes NPPF and should be refused.

 

(d)       David Adams, on behalf of the objectors, was invited to speak and stated that: he had concerns due to:

• Road safety.
• Accident at pinch point in December 2017. This has not featured in the report.
• Floods and proposed alleviation methods/ponds.
• Lack of access for emergency services.

 

(e)       Roger Smith, agent for the applicant and Ellie Smith, the applicant, were invited to speak. Roger Smith stated that:

• The application dates back to 2014.
• Site identified as an urban extension.
• Officers report is comprehensive and well balanced and recommends approval subject to a section 106.
• Issue of traffic is key and the applicant has tried to address that with LCC highways.
• Revised the scheme to address concerns of local residents.
• Requirement to maintain linear open space.
• Pinch points confirmed by highways as adequate.
• Possible access to the country park in the southwestern corner.
• Section 106 to facilitate link to country park or improvements to the park.
• More ecological work to be undertaken.
• Taylor Wimpey will work with Cllrs and residents with regards to reserved matters.

 

Ellie Smith, the applicant, stated that:

• There are no outstanding technical objections.
• Will conclude section 106 as soon as possible.
• The development will come forward in a timely manner with a show home proposed for completion by September 2019.
• Sustainable neighbourhood.
• £1.7 million for highway improvements.
• £750,000 for transport links.
• There will be bungalows on site.
• Contributions towards Secondary education.
• Will generate 860 jobs including graduates and trainees.
• Subject to signing of the section 106 agreement.

 

A Member asked when the development would be completed.

 

Ellie Smith responded that it would be some where in the region of a 5 year timescale and proceeded to explain the first house should be in early 2019.

The Chair advised that The Head of Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services had indicated this as the norm.

 

(f)        Cllr Lumley, Ward Councillor for Melton Newport Ward, was invited to speak and stated that:

• They want the best possible development with the least impact.
• There are outstanding fundamental issues that have not been resolved.
• Concerns regarding the additional access in to the country park which has not been resolved.
• Request for access to the full ecological study.
• Concerned with type of housing which has been earmarked. The gradient of the land and the proposed 2 and 3 storey houses would block views and sunlight.
• The land is unsuitable for town houses and they are short of bungalows.
• The buffer zone between country park and housing developments needs to be bigger.
• This shouldn’t have a negative impact on current residents.
• Garages should be big enough for modern vehicles and there should be sufficient parking.
• Ongoing issue with NP4. Increasing problem with developers transferring land to council.
• Concerns regarding the maintenance of the buffer zones.

 

The Chair reminded Members of condition C item 3. There is to be a masterplan with limits to properties to be no greater than 2 storeys. Layout and planting will contribute to this. Would think the developers would be mindful of the height of the land. We could specify a different buffer zone should we desire.

The Head of Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services addressed concerns regarding buffer zones with regards to wildlife. Drainage will require a fully worked up scheme with conditions as this is an outline application. The proposed new access in to the country park is on MBC property so it is not guaranteed and may never happen. So it is suggested that the application is considered on the basis that this may not come to fruition. The delays with the application are due integrating the highways  work with LCC’s own data and analysis and the detailed highways analysis. Agreed with the Chairs comments regarding the masterplan.

 

The Chair advised Members that it would be pointless trying to condition that there is an access to the country park when the applicant does not own the land.

 

The Head of Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services added that the worst case scenario is that there won’t be an access.

 

A Member expressed their concern over their lack of control of the proposed new access and the increased number of people trying to use the existing accesses.

 

A Member asked what the average density per head in the town is.

 

The Head of Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services responded that it is varied Oten urban locations are cited at 40 per hectare and 30 in villages.

 

Members raised concerns regarding the size of the proposed buffer zones and the maintenance of these.

 

The Head of Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services advised Members that the buffer zones will be part of the open space of the site, like a playground. The maintenance of them can be conditioned and MBC adoption is one option.

 

A Member noted that the new dwellings will be paying council tax and felt the council could take the maintenance on.

 

A Member asked how far it is from the east corner to Twinlakes park.

 

The Head of Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services responded that it is the approximate length of the field which adjoins tis application site to the north.

 

Members discussed the corridors around the proposal and the boundaries and suggested that they could be made in to woodland instead of vacant space and become an asset rather than an open border.

 

Cllr Chandler proposed to permit the application. Houses have to be built and the distributor road will be coming. It is a suitable site and flooding issues will be addressed as the water will flow. There is not enough affordable housing but they are paying £1.7 million towards the road.

 

Cllr Wyatt seconded the proposal.

 

A Member asked it the proposer and seconder would consider adding a condition regarding the size of the buffer zones.

 

Cllr Chandler agreed as long as it was also conditioned who would maintain them.

 

Cllr Wyatt felt that the proposed buffer zones were adequate.

 

A Member suggested that a measurement should be agreed.

 

The Chair suggested that the buffer zones could be increased to 30 metres on the southern side and 50 metres on the western side. Details of the planting could be left to officers and involve the ward Cllrs and the friends of the country park, as per the recommendation. The buffer zones could be an extension of the country park.

 

Cllr Chandler, the proposer, agreed to the suggestions.

 

Cllr Wyatt, the seconder, noted that he was more inclined to 20 metres however he would accept the additions to the proposal to permit.

 

A Member wished clarify what would happen to northern boundary.

 

The Chair responded that this is on to an open field. If it became housing in the future then that would be due to another application.

 

Members discussed if the size of the proposed buffer zone conditions was reasonable.

 

The Head of Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services advised that it is a matter of judgement but that he felt they are reasonable.

 

 A Member raised a concern regarding policy H11 and the access to the country park.

 

The Head of Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services advised that an application of this scale will come back to Committee for reserved matters.

 

A Member raised concerns regarding pedestrian safety (condition 3) and asked if there could be a barrier at the pinch point to stop vehicles mounting the pavement, and if this could be added a condition by the proposer and seconder.

 

The Chair asked if this could be part of reserved matters or if it had to be conditioned at this stage.

 

The Head of Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services noted that if Members think it is essential to the success of the application then it should be done at this stage.

 

Cllr Chandler, the proposer,  agreed to add this condition and also asked officers to aske highways to advise on any further safety measures that could be taken.

 

Cllr Wyatt , the seconder, agreed.

 

A Vote was taken. The Members present voted unanimously to permit.

 

Determination:

(i)            PERMIT, subject to:

• Completion of a s106 in the terms set out in the report
• The conditions as set out in the report, with condition 3 (i) and (ii) specified as 50m and 30m respectively;
• An additional condition requiring safety measures on the new footpath link at the point where it meets the existing footpath on Melton Spinney Rd, subject to agreement by the Highways Authority;

(ii)        the precise wording of conditions delegated to the Head of Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services in consultation with the Ward Members:

REASONS: The Borough is deficient in terms of housing delivery and this would be partly addressed by the application. Affordable housing provision remains one of the Council’s key priorities. This application presents some affordable housing that helps to meet identified local needs. It is proposed at a level lower (10%) than that required to meet identified needs and specified in emerging policy, however it is justified in terms of a detailed Viability exercise and expectations conveyed by NPPG. This is directly associated with the contributions the development proposes to make to infrastructure, and to the MMDR, public transport and education capacity in particular.

Accordingly, the application presents a vehicle for the delivery of affordable housing of the appropriate quantity, in proportion with the development and of a type to support the local market housing needs.  The site is considered to be a sustainable location having access to employment, servicers, public transport etc. in Melton Mowbray town centre and some closer. Its sustainability could be enhanced further if a connection is made into the Country Park and provision has been made to facilitate this within the proposed s106. However, even without this it is considered to perform well, and compares favourably to most other development (existing and proposed). It is considered that there are material considerations that weigh in favour of the application.

There are also benefits arising from the proposed highways improvements and, significantly, the substantial contribution towards the MMDR and progress towards this key infrastructure. There is a strong prospect – though not a guarantee – that the MMDR could be in place prior to the development being completed. The application derives support from the emerging Local Plan owing to its adherence to their content.

 

It is considered that balanced against the positive elements are the site specific concerns raised in representations. There is a lengthy range of issues that require carful attention and many can be mitigated, or eliminated altogether, by conditions and the content of the s106 For example flooding and drainage, various transport measures, residential amenity issues  etc. Though capable of mitigation, it is considered that the impact on the Country Park remains a harmful consequence which needs to be weighed against the benefits. Also, though again mitigated to a satisfactory level, the impact on highways conditions until such time as the MMTS solution is effective (if applicable)..

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 and contribution to key infrastructure in particular.

Applying the ‘test’ required by the NPPF that permission should be granted unless the impacts would “significantly and demonstrably” outweigh the benefits; it is considered that permission can be granted.

 

 

Cllrs Holmes, Glancy and Posnett returned to the meeting at 7.38pm