Agenda item

Land Adj Crompton Road, Asfordby Hill

Applicant:     Mr Jonathan Chastney – Talavera Estates

 

Location:      Land adjacent Crompton Road, Crompton Road, Asfordby Hill

 

Proposal:      Erection of 16 dwellings

 

(a)  The Applications And Advice Manager stated that:

 

The application before you seeks the full planning permission for 16 dwellings off Crompton Road, Asfordby Hill, the site forms part of ASFH1 which is an allocated site in the emerging Melton Local Plan.

 

There has been one additional representation received since the publishing of the report which are comments from the Parish Council, they read as follows:-

 

“The Parish Council object on the following grounds:

 

1. The site does not form part of the resubmitted Asfordby Neighbourhood Plan.  The Parish council believes this alone should mean the applications rejected.
2. The site is on greenfield prime agricultural land.
3. There is a surplus of brownfield land available in the area of Asfordby Hill which should be used for new developments.  The residents of Asfordby Hill would like to see tis brownfield land developed.
4. There are few amenities in the area which means for most things residents would need to drive even to avail themselves of quite rudimentary facilities.

 

I would like to remind members that the status of the Asfordby Neighbourhood Plan has changed, and there is now a revised version submitted to the council for consultation which is running until 1^st May .

 

The proposal is recommended for approval subject to conditions as set out in the report.

 

(b) Sam Silcocks, agent on behalf of the applicant, was invited to speak and stated that:

 

• Support the officers recommendation to permit.
• The site is part of a residential allocation identified in the emerging local plan which should be given significant weight.
• Committed to the housing allocation.
• It would form part of the 5 year land supply target.
• There would be no adverse impacts arising from this site.
• The possible benefits for the scheme have been maximised.

 

(c)  Cllr Ronnie de Burle, Ward Councillor for Asfordby, was invited to speak and stated that:

 

• Representing the residents of Asfordby Hill who are opposed to this application.
• Reject an application on agricultural land. Until recently it had been farmed.
• Outside of the village boundary.
• Although it is an allocated site in the emerging plan, it is unresolved.
• Objection from Historic England
• The report doesn’t highlight that it is in area of separation.
• Housing allocation should be given greater weight.
• There are more appropriate brown fields sites in the hamlet.
• Asfordy have resubmitted their neighbourhood plan on the advice of the LPA.
• Full support of the community to develop brown fields sites.
• Report says there are local amenities such as shops and a Dr’s surgery but this is incorrect.

 

Cllr Higgins asked for clarification regarding Historic England’s objection to the local plan, as they didn’t mention this particular site and wondered about the specifics.

 

Cllr de Burle responded that he couldn’t answer but that it is a fact.

 

Cllr Higgins asked officers for further information regarding the scheduled ancient monument.

 

The Assistant Director for Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services responded that it was not discussed in meetings but featured in the Statement of Common Ground between Historic England and Melton BC produced for the Local Plan that explained that agreement had been reached that the policy for ASFH1 be amended to read “The design, layout and boundary treatment of any development proposed must conserve and enhance the setting of Kirby Bellars Scheduled Monument”.  He also referred to the site plan and reminded members that they are dealing with the red part on the site plan not the blue part, so this site is not as close to the boundary.

 

Cllr Wyatt asked if the houses displayed in the top section of the site plan are already built.

 

The Applications and Advice Manager responded that they were and that the new road would take you round and join up.

 

Cllr Cumbers asked for the location of the local area of play.

 

The Applications and Advice Manager indicated on the site plan that it would be located in the bottom corner.

 

Cllr Greenow proposed to permit the application in line with the officers recommendations as there was no significant reason to refuse.

 

Cllr Wyatt seconded the proposal and added that it would cause no harm and will complete the route around for access.

 

A Cllr raised concerns regarding the further development of adjacent land and its suitability for arable work.

 

A Cllr asked for clarity regarding the neighbourhood plan and the local plan

 

The Assistant Director for Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services responded that the Asfordby Neighbourhood Plan was advanced but has now  been quashed. It has gone back a few steps and the  local plan is now more advanced. We’re in the final throes of the local plan so it carries weight. The neighbourhood plan carries limited weight at present having set back to earlier stages.

 

A Cllr asked if this site was challenged during the Neighbourhood plan.

 

The Assistant Director for Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services noted that it was challenged. It was found against by the Examiner and also support for the Local Plan allocation as received from the applicant.

 

A Cllr raised concerns regarding the location of the local area of play and the traffic that may pass by it.

 

A vote was taken. 10 Members voted for the proposal and 1 Member abstained.

 

Determination: PERMIT, subject to the completion of a s106 agreement and conditions as set out in the report

 

Reason: The proposed development would provide housing on a site which has been allocated in the Emerging Local Plan. Additionally, the proposed development would provide a good mix of housing types and tenures (including social rented and intermediate housing), which have been identified as in need. Asfordby Hill is a location which is considered to perform well in sustainability terms and adequate access and parking can be provided. 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. 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 should  be granted