Agenda item

Land at Water Lane, Water Lane, Frisby on the Wreake

Applicant: Ms Siobhan Noble

Location: Land at Water Lane, Water Lane, Frisby on the Wreake

Proposal: Outline application for residential development of up to 22 dwellings (amended application).

 

Assistant Director of Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services stated that there had been updates to the report and stated that:

 

LLFA have been reconsulted on the technical assessment submitted by Dr Warwick They have reiterated their advice and commented that

“it is the responsibility of the LPA to assess the suitability of a site for development, applying a sequential based approach where appropriate. As such, the County Council’s previous position stands albeit with minor rewording to the 4th condition suggested, noting that this advice is only valid where the LPA deem the site to be suitable for development” The amended wording relates to ground water monitoring to inform the design of drainage and protection.

 

4 further objections have been received since publishing the report, from 1 nearby resident:

1.         There appear to be no benefits to the existing community to be provided by the Application.

2.         The Application is in conflict with numerous policies of the NP

 

Policy H5 Housing Mix: Priority should be given to dwellings with 3-bedrooms or fewer.

The suggested housing mix is 50% 3-bed and 50% 4-bedroom houses. This does not help Frisby’s need for smaller houses. This could be satisfied by adding a condition to provide fewer homes of more than 3-bedrooms, and replacing them with some 2-bedroom dwellings and bungalows into the housing mix.

 

Policy ENV5: Biodiversity

Frisby on the Wreake Neighbourhood Plan refers to Natural England’s Impact Risk Zones (IRZs), wildlife corridors and MLP Strategic Green Infrastructure policies in which the Wreake Valley is a top Priority.

 

This affects the Water Lane site as the extant Planning Application describes how surface water would be collected and discharged to a ditch on the edge of the woodland. The ditch feeds into the SSSI. The IRZ indicates that no discharges are acceptable at this location. This also affects MLP Policy EN3. The River Wreake Strategic River Corridor as a Priority Green Infrastructure Enhancement Area

 

The Rivers Eye and Wreake corridor is an integral element of the wider 6Cs GI network (sub-regional corridor). It contributes to the Borough’s and sub region’s biodiversity resource and has the potential to provide access to nature for the communities of the Borough, specifically those in the east of Melton Mowbray, which currently has limited provision for this….

 

The River Wreake as the continuation of the River Eye is part of the ‘Sub Regional Green Infrastructure Corridors’ within the 6Cs area. Feeding into the Soar and eventually the Trent, it is vital that its water quality is kept at a high level. In addition to its ecological network function the Wreake corridor has the potential to become a major recreational resource for the Borough. Along the river, away from public access needs the vegetation should be left to form a buffer along which wildlife can move. The streams and field drains that feed into the Wreake should also be protected from farm stock and buffered from other land-uses

The Water Lane site is entirely within this area.

 

Policy ENV2 and ENV6 – Protection of other sites (historical) and Loss of Non-designated Heritage Assets: the site is included in the fields containing Ridge and Furrow and also in the HER for other archaeology.

 

Policy ENV7 – Important Views: Unless one has tunnel vision, development of the site will adversely affect Views e) west towards Hoby from Water Lane and f) east towards village edge from the Leicestershire Round.

 

Policy ENV9 – Sustainability: The 128 bus service is known to be listed for radical reduction in frequency from its current 2-hourly service or even axed altogether. This service will at least reduce and the site has no public transport classified as a sustainable transport alternative under the 6Cs (the more frequent service is not within the 800m walking distance, and is, in fact 1250m).

 

CAENV1 – Other important space

The verge on Water Lane/the approach to the village will be badly affected, as will a significant part of the flood plain.

 

CAENV6 – Flood mitigation

It is public opinion that the measures being proposed to alleviate surface water and groundwater flooding on this site will worsen problems for existing housing and will be detrimental natural ability of the extensive washland to alleviate flooding in Frisby.

 

3. The site is in conflict with several policies in the incoming MLP

Policy EN1 – Landscape.  Protection of landscape, important views, approaches and settings.

 

MLP Policy EN2 – Biodiversity and Geodiversity.

 

Water Lane site produces risk of adverse effects on the Frisby March SSSI. (See below).

 

MLP Policy EN3 – The Melton Green Infrastructure Network

 

Water Lane site is in potential conflict with this policy as the site is within the primary green infrastructure area of the River Wreake and River Eye strategic corridor (see discussion and Figure 2 below).

 

MLP Policy EN6 – Settlement Character

 

Residents agree that the Water Lane site is in conflict with this policy as it is on the settlement edge/approach, and is adjacent to the Conservation Area where new housing will not be in keeping with low density housing in the area and features such as stone plinth and brick construction typical in the Conservation Area.

 

MLP Policy EN11 – Minimising the Risk of Flooding

 

MBC should also be considering all of the alternative sources mentioned in that paragraph. Water Lane site is in conflict with this policy regarding surface water flood risk. It is additionally affected by risk of flooding from reservoir breach and groundwater (the site is in hydraulic continuity with the river – LLFA comment and demonstrated by monitoring river level and water depth in a well on Water Lane).

 

•          Please put a condition on this site that some 2-bed and bungalows must be included in the mix.

•          The case officer's report states that the "housing mix contains over 50% smaller housing types and bungalows". This is misleading, as the housing mix clearly states that only three and four-bedroomed houses are planned. No two-bedroomed houses and no bungalows. Frisby already has plenty of four-bed houses and will soon be getting more on the other sites in the village.

•          The school catchment area now includes approx. 180 houses being built on the edge of Melton and 70 houses permitted at Brooksby. These will add an extra 60 children to the school before even including 99 new houses are already permitted in Frisby. I remind you that the school building is not going to be expanded - these extra children will be accommodated in the library!

•          The submitted Local Plan described this site as having too great an impact on the character of the settlement edge and projecting too far into the countryside.

 

Key issues

•          The site is an allocated site in the NP. It matches the site exactly (see slides)

•          The NP is not the Development Plan and MUST be followed unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

•          Allocation is considered to override the other polices of the NP – a development plan of any kind cannot allocate a site then rule it out with other policies.

•          This status also affect the flood risk issues – para 14 of NPPF states a sequential test is not needed if a site is allocated in a development plan

•          House types are not specified so comments re mix not applicable – condition necessary see condition 3 recommended

•          Access is to a large extent defined by the shape of the site – it only meets the public highway at one place so clearly the NP envisaged it to be as proposed or very similar, as there is no alternative

•          NPPF Para 104: For individual developments on sites allocated in development plans through the Sequential Test, applicants need not apply the Sequential Test.

 

 

 

Cllr Ron Thew, on behalf of the Parish Council, was invited to speak, and stated that:

•          Parish Council object to this site, despite it being in their Neighbourhood Plan,

•           Access is too close to the railway.

•          Network Rail advise that any entrance should be 150m from a level crossing

•           This site access is only 34m from crossing.

•          Queues to access the site will block the crossing and cause an accident

•           Network Rail have a lot of concerns and request further mitigation

•          Safety of residents must be a priority and this site access with the level crossing is unsafe.

 

A Cllr questioned if Network Rail were consulted on the Neighbourhood Plan, which allocated this site.

Dr Thew responded that Network Rail were consulted on the Neighbourhood Plan, but they replied that Network Rail are only to give advice and cannot make planning decisions.

 

A Cllr asked if the site entrance can be moved any further back from the crossing.

Dr Thew responded that the maximum distance from the crossing with the satisfactory visibility splays is 40m.

 

A Cllr asked if there had been considerations for a recessed entrance.

Dr Thew answered that it is not his responsibility to make the application better.

 

Councillors sought clarification on some of the pictures shown in the presentation.

A Cllr asked if this route is normally a rat run and if the crossing is normally busy.

Dr Thew answered that the crossing is very busy and will only become more dangerous with more housing and more traffic.

 

A Cllr asked why the site is allocated in the Neighbourhood Plan is the maximum entrance distance can only be 55m from the crossing.

Dr Thew answered that the village has accepted the Neighbourhood Plan, but were unable to persuade the Examiner at the Neighbourhood Plan examination that this site should not be allocated, and the Examiner referred to the advice of the technical consultees, so the site is allocated.

 

Mr Warwick, an objector, was invited to speak, and stated that:

•          Has 30 years experience working in Flooding and Land water specification and Groundwater analysis.

•           The Flood Risk Assessment on this site is flawed.

•           My Report needs to be addressed by the applicant and the LLFA.

•           There needs to be a sequential test on this site.

•           This site is in a Zone 1 Flood Risk.

•           Technical comments and objections from residents have been ignored.

•          There needs to be 2 meters to groundwater for new developments, but this site has only 0.7 meters.

•          The SUDS scheme with this application will become flooded and submerged.

•           Frisby village regularly floods.

•           My report must be addressed before the application goes any further.

 

A Cllr queried whether his report covered the whole field or just the application site.

Mr Warwick replied that his report covered both the whole field and the application site.

 

A Cllr asked how much has this site flooded this winter, as it has been a very wet winter.

Mr Warwick answered that he didn’t know as he does not have access to the site, but this site is in Flood Zone 1, so is very susceptible to flooding and it is common on site.

 

A Cllr asked is Mr Warwick had seen that a recent similar site in Somerby had been approved on appeal.

Mr Warwick answered that he had not seen that recent appeal decision.

 

A Cllr queried if the village has flooded since 2012, which is when the photos in the presentation are dated.

Mr Warwick answered that the village has flooded 3 times in the 10 years that he has lived there.

 

A Cllr asked how Mr Warwick has conducted his investigation and research without access to the site.

Mr Warwick replied that a nearby house has a well, from which ground water level can be measured, and can be compared with the river level on the other side of the site, and then the data can be extrapolated to find the ground water level on the site. This is because the groundwater level on the site is connected to the level of the river and the level of the well, so can be monitored without access to the site.

 

A Cllr sought clarification on some of the photos shown in the presentation.

Mr Warwick answered that when he conducted his research that river was at a typical level and not in flood, so will get worse when the river is in flood.

 

A Cllr asked what mitigation would be necessary to make this site suitable.

Mr Warwick answered that this site should never be permitted, so no level of mitigation will make the site acceptable.

 

Councillors had no further questions for Mr Warwick.

 

Peter Wilkinson, the Agent, was invited to speak, and stated that:

•          This scheme has been an application for a very long time, and has been through a lot of refinement and changed a lot to now be at the optimum that it can be.

•          Frisby Neighbourhood Plan recently passed referendum with a 93% Yes Vote, and it is an allocated site.

•          It is allocated in both the Neighbourhood Plan and the Melton Local Plan.

•           It is currently within the 5 Year Housing Land Supply.

•          This application has been considered by all statutory consultees at least twice, and has been to the LLFA four times.

•          This site has not flooded in the 18 months that this application has been submitted.

•          Councillors should agree with the Officers recommendation and vote to approve the application.

 

Councillors had no questions for Mr Wilkinson.

 

Cllr de Burle was invited to speak, on behalf of Cllr Hutchinson, the Ward Councillor, and stated that:

•           Proud of Neighbourhood Plan and passed with 93% Yes Vote.

•           Neighbourhood Plan was changed drastically at Examination, so this allocation is now contrary to lots of other policies within the same plan.

•           Frisby is a small community with few facilities.

•          Neighbourhood Plan sites allocated for 78 dwellings and 99 already have permission within the village.

•          This site is not needed; Frisby already has its share of housing permissions.

•           Safety is a big issue on this site.

•          The village is growing too rapidly; new people may not be able to integrate to the community if the village is growing too rapidly.

•          Lots of other permissions granted very close to Frisby, such as in Asfordby and in Brooksby, which will cause a big cumulative effect on the entire area.

•           Lots of potential traffic increase within the village.

•           Houses should be built in Melton and not in the surrounding villages.

•           These 22 houses are not needed in the village.

 

A Cllr stated that the Hoby Road site in Asfordby was recently granted for 70 dwellings on appeal.

A Cllr queried if there was a lot of standing water locally over the winter.

Cllr de Burle replied that there was a lot of standing water on the surrounding roads.

 

Assistant Director of Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services (JW) responded:

•          Network Rail comments are shown on Page 28 of the report, and are superseded by the new amended plans.

•          All key agencies and consultees understand that the entrance is only 34m from the crossing and have been invited comment on that understanding;

•          Network Rail recommends conditions on the site that are included in the report. This includes the late addition referred to.

•          Neighbourhood Plan allocates this site, and access to this site must be from Water Lane, being the only road to which the site connects

•           This site is allocated by the local community for development.

•           LLFA did receive the report from Mr Warwick.

•           Planning is governed by rules and policies not simply our discretion

•          NPPF states that a site does not need a sequential test if it is an allocated site in a development plan and has been subject to a sequential test.

•           MBC have not received report from the examiner for the Local Plan yet.

•          Neighbourhood Plan has more weight than the Local Plan as it is more advanced; the site allocated in both plans.

•          The Neighbourhood Plan passed with a 93% Yes Vote, and it is the legal document for this application.

 

The Chair opened up the application for a debate.

 

A Cllr commented that a site in Somerby had recently been approved on appeal, which was not dissimilar to this site. The Neighbourhood Plan examiner referred this allocation to the LLFA, and then it went to local referendum and passed with a 93% Yes Vote. There are a lot of housing and junctions near to railway crossings nationally and no reported accidents. 22 houses will not make that much difference for traffic. Network Rail are passing the book, and letting the LPA make the decision. However, need to avoid sign clutter on the entrance to the village. Want to add a condition that signs and design of signs be agreed by MBC, and condition a better housing mix for the village, as it needs smaller housing types.

 

A Cllr queried is the railway distance currently in the conditions.

Assistant Director of Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services (JW) responded that it is not currently conditioned but can be put in.

 

A Cllr commented that they are regularly in Frisby and nearby Hoby, and that is more houses are built then there will be a lot more traffic accidents. Recent accident at Bingham at a level crossing resulted in a fatality. Must take notice of the views of residents and cannot cause a serious accident. This site can be amended for fewer houses.

 

Assistant Director of Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services (JW) stated that you cannot get an optimum access onto the site, as the only access has to be onto Water Lane, and this will then be close to the level crossing.

 

Cllr Holmes Proposed a motion to defer whilst Flooding issues and safety concerns are addressed, and to re-consult Network Rail. Also, so the scheme can be amended to have fewer houses.

 

There was no seconder for the motion to defer.

 

Cllr Higgins proposed a motion to permit. Also, to delegate signage to officers to create a more pleasing entrance to the village, an additional condition for more two and three bed houses within the scheme, as per condition three in the report. Proposed to permit, with further details to be decided at Reserved Matters stage.

 

Cllr Cumbers seconded the motion to permit.

 

A Cllr stated that the Neighbourhood Plan is designed for development over the next 20 years, and should not all be built within the next two years.

 

A Cllr stated that they are happy to agree with the motion.

 

A Cllr stated that without the Neighbourhood Plan and the Local Plan, this application could be refused, but with both plans it has to be permitted.

 

A Cllr stated their agreement with the previous Councillor, that the Neighbourhood Plan is very strong and should to be complied with unless there are very strong grounds to depart.

 

A Cllr stated that without the Neighbourhood Plan, this application may have had a very different result.

 

A Vote was held on the motion to Permit.

8 Members supported the motion.

0 Members voted against the motion.

2 Members abstained from the vote.

 

DETERMINATION: PERMIT, subject to:

(a)       The completion of an agreement under s 106 for the quantities set out in the report to secure:

(i)         Contribution for the improvement of a civic amenity site

(ii)        Contribution to primary and secondary education

(iii)       Contribution to sustainable transport options

(iv)      Contribution to railway crossing safety measures, the design of which to be agreed in advance by MBC, to include signage appropriate for the rural environment

(v)       The provision of affordable housing, including the quantity, tenure, house type/size and occupation criteria to ensure they are provided to meet identified local needs;