Agenda item

Sysonby Lodge, Nottingham Road, Melton Mowbray

Applicant: Mr Brian Henton

Location: Sysonby Lodge, Nottingham Road, Melton Mowbray

Proposal: Outline Planning Application for a residential development comprising up to 24no. dwellings (Use Class C3) and associated access.

 

The Case Officer (JL) stated that there had been no updates to the report.

 

Maria Boyce, the agent was invited to speak and stated that:

• Previous application cannot go ahead without the funding provided by this application.
• This application will fund the restoration of Sysonby Lodge.

 

A Cllr stated that the scheme that had been approved at Craven Lodge looks fantastic, but that 60 trees on the site is a lot to lose.
Mrs Boyce responded that this has been calculated and worked out as the optimum scheme, and tries to retain as many trees as possible and the trees are not of that high a quality.

 

A Cllr asked how long the site has been under the ownership of the current application.

Mrs Boyce responded that the site has been in control of the current applicant for over 10 years.

 

A Cllr queried why there are no affordable housing or S106 agreement within the scheme.

Mrs Boyce responded that this is an enabling scheme, so all contributions go directly into the restoration of Sysonby Lodge.

 

A Cllr queried the presence of badgers on site.

Mrs Boyce answered that there will be sufficient mitigation if the scheme is approved.

 

The Chair opened up the application for a debate.

 

Cllr Rhodes stated that the listed building cannot be restored without the approval of this application, so refusal would condemn Sysonby Lodge. Cllr Rhodes proposed to permit the application.

 

Cllr Greenow seconded the motion to permit.

 

A Cllr stated that this site is part of the heritage of the area, so support the motion.

 

A Cllr stated that they were concerned about the loss of the trees on site, as the trees are part of the setting of the Lodge.

 

A Cllr stated that 60 trees is a lot to lose, so must try and keep the best and most mature trees on site.

 

The Case Officer (JL) stated that the trees must be lost to make room for housing to fund the restoration of the Lodge as a whole, and that lots more trees will be retained.

 

A Cllr proposed a condition that more trees be retained by the scheme.

 

The condition was refused by the proposer of the motion to permit.

 

A Cllr stated that they agreed with the current motion.

 

A Cllr queried the lack of S106 agreement.

The Case Officer (JL) responded that this is due to it being an enabling scheme, so all contributions will fund the restoration of the Lodge.

 

A Cllr stated that this site is an important heritage site in the area, so must be retained, and that further details of the scheme can be agreed upon at the reserved matters stage.

 

The Proposer and Seconder of the motion agree to condition that the scheme provide a play area on the site.

 

A Cllr stated that the benefits far outweigh the costs on this scheme, but can try and mitigate against the loss of further trees.

 

A Vote was taken on the motion to permit.

 

10 Members supported the motion.

0 Members voted against the motion.

0 Members abstained from the vote.

 

The motion passed unanimously.

 

DETERMINATION: PERMIT, subject to:

a)   The completion of a S106 for the phasing of the development as set out in the report and ;

b)   The conditions as set out in the report and an additional condition requiring provision of a play area.

 

REASONS: The proposed development is acceptable for its location on the basis of its requirement to enable the re-development and retention of Sysonby Lodge and the location of the dwellings in relation to the Listed Building. Conditions will ensure that this development would be of high quality and would not be harmful to the setting of the Listed Building. 

 

Harm to the setting of the adjacent heritage assets caused by the new development will be mitigated by appropriate landscaping. This would also include the re-planting of trees which would be lost as a result of the development.

 

A phasing scheme will be implemented through the agreement of a S106 to ensure that the appropriate required works are carried out to the Listed Building at an appropriate time and that the dwellings are not constructed without the restoration/ conversion works being carried out.

 

The applicant does not propose to provide any S106 contributions or affordable housing provision as requested and has submitted viability evidence to support their argument against providing these contributions. This information has been independently assessed by the Valuation Office and confirmed that should the S106 payments and affordable housing provision been provided, the scheme would be unviable.

 

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 on the balance of the issues, permission should be permitted.

 

As the time is close to the three hour normal meeting limit, The Chair checked that Officers are OK to continue past the normal 9pm limit.

Officers agreed to continue.

The Chair asked if Councillors are OK to continue.

Councillors voted to continue the meeting, past the usual 3 hour meeting limit.

 

A Vote was held on the motion to continue the meeting.

9 Members supported the motion.

0 Members voted against the motion,

1 Member abstained from the vote.

 

The motion passed, the meeting will continue past the normal 3 hour limit.

 

Cllr Holmes Proposed to defer application 18/00001/TPOMBC due to the late hour of the meeting, and its status as the last agenda item.

 

Cllr Higgins seconded the motion to defer.

 

A Vote was taken on the motion to defer application 18/00001/TPOMBC.

 

10 Members Supported the motion.

0 Members voted against the motion.

0 Members abstained from the vote.

 

The motion passed unanimously.

 

The item was deferred.