Agenda item

The Old Clay Pit, Grantham Road, Bottesford

17/01577/OUT

Applicant: Davidson Homes and Mr McNulty

Location: The Old Clay Pit, Grantham Road, Bottesford

Proposal: Outline application (access included) for residential development of up to 40 dwellings.

 

The Development Manager introduced the report.

 

The Chair invited the Parish Council representative to address the Committee. Mr Sparrow explained he had been asked to speak by the Chairman of the Parish Council, Mr Bayman, and it was clarified whether he was their representative.

 

Mr Sparrow stated that:

• Without contamination surveys this application should not be before Committee. Based on the experience of the construction of the dwelling adjacent to this piling on site will be required potentially unlocking contaminants
• Site water runs off into the River Devon so the consequences of getting this wrong could be catastrophic
• There is Japanese Knotweed on the site. It will be difficult if not impossible to certify the site ‘Knotweed Free’ to potential buyers.
• The site is 12 minutes walk to the Queen St/ High Street junction in Bottesford and 19 minutes to the School entrance. People do not walk to amenities from anywhere but the very heart of the village
• Free bus passes to the occupants of this development is a token gesture. Sustainability augments based on accessibility are therefore flawed.
• There is evidence of developers reneging on commitments to provide affordable housing
• Is it ‘up to 40 dwellings’ or ‘40 and leave part of the site undeveloped for a further application’
• National Government seeks a planning system in which local people in each neighbourhood specify what kind of development and use of land they want to see in their area. There is no Neighbourhood Plan and the opinion of the majority of the locals is that this development should not proceed.

 

The Chair enquired whether the views expressed were those of the Parish Council. Following clarification Mr Sparrow conformed they were not. The Chair ruled that the Committee should disregard the comments made as misleading and unrepresentative of the Parish Council’s position, which was conveyed in the report.

 

Mrs Ablewhite, an objector, was invited to speak and stated that:

• Japanese Knotweed is present on site.
• Lots of pollution will travel downstream to Easthorpe.
• This is a landfill site.
• There are Cyanide and asbestos on site.
• There are health and safety issues with contamination on site.
• This site is a danger to the whole parish.
• Water contamination in nearby river will affect the whole parish.
• There has been no ground analysis on the site.
• Nearby river will become polluted.
• This site is very contaminated and council should err on the side of caution and not risk the health and wellbeing of residents.
• Health of residents should come first.
• This site is very poorly connected to the rest of the village.

 

A Cllr queried if Mrs Ablewhite had seen the Japanese Knotweed on the site.

Mrs Ablewhite responded that nothing grows on the site and that Japanese Knotweed is prevalent across the village.

 

Councillors had no further questions for Mrs Ablewhite.

 

A Supporter was invited to speak, but was not present.

 

Jamie Pyper, the agent, was invited to speak and stated that:

• Agent is on behalf of Davidsons Developments, a 5 star house builder.
• Further details will be provided at REM stage.
• The Local Plan designated Bottesford as a service centre, so is a sustainable village for further development.
• This application has been made with a lot of input from the community and officers at MBC.
• This site is allocated in the Local Plan.
• Access and transport links are very good from this site.
• Environment Agency request that more tests will be carried out between the Outline and Reserved Matters stages of the application.
• This site is outside the flood risk area.
• This site is of very limited ecological value.
• The applicant is willing to accept conditions on the site.
• Agree with all policies and the report, so support the recommendation for permit.

 

A Cllr queried the cost of clearing the site before building.

Mr Pyper responded that the costs of this had been included in the viability assessment and the site is viable.

 

A Cllr asked if Mr Pyper is aware of the Knotweed on site or not.

Mr Pyper responded that we are aware of it on site and that it is not uncommon or other similar sights.

A Cllr stated that the Knotweed must be cleared from the site.

 

Applications and Advice Manager (LP) directed the Committee to the Parish Council comments included in the report.

The site has been restored from the tip site, according to LCC.

The previous refusal on this site was not due to the contamination on the site, but was due to previous guidance that has now been superseded.

 

The Chair opened up the application for a debate.

 

A Cllr stated that this was an unregulated landfill site, so there are very understandable contamination concerns. There has been nothing on the site for a very long time and it may not be safe to build on the site.

 

A Cllr queried whether the site had air vents installed since it was a landfill site to lessen build up of gases.

 

Applications and Advice Manager (LP) stated that there did not appear to be air vents on site, and a lot more work needed to be done before the Reserved Matters stage.

 

Cllr Botterill Proposed to defer the application, as there are concerns about not being able to access the site, and the site must be contaminated as there are concerns about what is growing on the site, so further tests need to be carried out before the application can be determined.

 

Cllr Rhodes Seconded the motion to defer, stating that the site must be contaminated and that the site could not be accessed on the site visit.

 

A Cllr stated that this is only an outline application, and that concerns about contamination can be sorted at Reserved Matters stage.

 

A Cllr stated that there must be clear reasons for deferral, and that they would support approval due to the current conditions and because it is currently only an outline application.

 

A Cllr asked if the Officer had visited the site.

Applications and Advice Manager (LP) responded that she had been on the site and that she had not noticed any air vents.

 

A Cllr queried why they had been unable to go on site when on the site visit.

Applications and Advice Manager (LP) answered that there was not a request to do so.

 

A Cllr stated that when on site visit, they had seen the site from two entrances, so got a good idea of the site.

 

A Cllr stated that they were apprehensive to permit when had not actually been on the site.

 

Cllrs sought clarification on the current reasons for deferral.

 

The current reasons for deferral are that they had been unable to get onto the site, and need to see evidence of contamination and water pollution from on the site itself before a judgement on the site can be made.

 

A Cllr stated that they need to do a site visit onto the actual site before this application comes back to the committee.

 

A Cllr stated that there are currently high readings for Cyanide on the site, and the site must be contaminated due to its previous use as a landfill site. Also, there is uncertainty about the suitability of the site, and they need to see more of the site. Also, the health and safety of the public must come first, and this site may pose a future threat to the health of residents without further investigation, so cannot be permitted at the moment.

 

A Vote is held on the motion to Defer.

8 Members support the motion.

2 Members voted against the motion.

0 Members abstained from the vote.

 

Cllr Higgins requested that his vote against the motion be recorded.

 

DETERMINATION: DEFERRED;  to allow a further site inspection to take place.

 

A Break was taken at 20:05

 

The Chair warned that due to the length of the agenda and the time already, that the agenda may have to be cut short.

 

The meeting restarted at 20:10