Agenda item

Land off Craven Street, Melton Mowbray

Applicant:     Dr Ervin

Location:      Land off Craven Street Melton Mowbray

Proposal:      Outline application for the erection of one dwelling

 

Cllr Greenow left the meeting at 6.33pm due to his declaration of interest.

 

(a)          The Applications And Advice Manager stated that: This application seeks outline planning permission for the erection of one dwelling, the application is in outline with all matters reserved, there is therefore no detail presented for consideration solely the principle of residential development in this location, it should be noted that the submission follows a previous identical permission reference 15/00286/OUT, the reason for the submission is that the permission expired in May of this year.

The application is presented to you due to the number of representation received, representations have been considered accordingly, however given the previous approval and the nature of the submission which is outline with all matters concerned the application is recommended for approval as per the officer report.

The Chair advised Members that more than one objector wished to speak and asked if Members would suspend standing orders to allow this. Cllr Posnett proposed to permit and Cllr Glancy seconded it. The Members voted unanimously to allow more than one objector to speak.

 

The Development Manager advised that she had received a number of photos from the objectors and asked if they were happy for these to be shown during both of their presentations.

 

(a)  Dr Wood, on behalf of the objectors, was invited to speak and stated that:

 

·         She is the owner and occupier of 52 Craven Street which is adjacent to the proposed development site.

·         According to planning policy it is inappropriate development of a garden.

·         There are mature shrubs and trees. Removal of these would have an impact on aesthetics and wildlife.

·         Prevent infill development in the Sandy Lane area.

·         There are no details with it being an outline application. The impact on boundaries is unknown.

·         It would overshadow our kitchen and nursery.

·         Loss of privacy to ours and neighbouring properties.

·         Currently predominantly Georgian style houses. A new build may affect the street scene.

·         No mention of access in the proposal. There is no access from Craven Street. The house that the garden belongs to is currently accessed via Ankle Hill.

·         It would create significant impact on traffic on Craven Street and the parking along the street. Parking is already an issue.

·         Access would impact on the current difficult parking situation and pedestrian and road safety.

 

A Member asked for clarification regarding who owns the hedge between the

properties.

 

Dr Wood replied that the boundary is currently in question and she is not sure who it belongs to as there are fences within the hedge.

 

(c)        Chris Adams, on behalf of the objectors, was invited to speak and stated that: he echoed much of Dr Wood’s comments. His main concern was the access on to the property and traffic calming measures. Parking is already an issue but adding an access would add an impact to this as it could be a loss of parking.

 

The Development Manager advised that the application is outline only and that we don’t know where the access would potentially be.

 

The Chair noted that it is difficult to judge the potential impact without knowing details. But everything could be determined and ensured it is satisfactory when the full application comes in.

 

A Member noted the difficulties in parking already along Craven Street and added that no matter where the access would be, it will probably impact the parking.

 

The Chair advised that we don’t know where they will route the access and it could be off Sandy Lane instead of Craven Street.

 

A Member commented that in effect the property would be in someone’s back garden sandwiched between 2 houses. Upon the site visit the outlook from number 53’s garden was like being in the countryside. The trees should be kept. Sympathised with neighbours concerns. Concerns regarding traffic congestion. They could get access on Sandy Lane, however this could cause other problems if it is near the junction. Possible issues with road safety due to the amount of parked cars. Not against anyone building a house but other things do need to be taken in to consideration. As it is outline there is nothing to address Members concerns at this moment.

 

Several Members voiced further concerns about the access and highways. A recent diversion along Craven Street had caused havoc. Also concerned about the loss of green area in an already densely populated area.

 

The Development Manager reminded Members that it is outline and it is the principal of development that they were deciding on. We can’t refuse on access when this has not been presented. We are discussing solely the principal of a house on the site. Everything else could be considered under a REM application.

 

The Solicitor advised Members of the fact that they have previously given planning permission for this site which has now lapsed and would need to give reasons for their change of decision. Page 41 of the report details this. The REM application would come to committee where you could look at everything. The law entitles applicants to put in outline applications.

 

A Member noted that the decision was 3 years ago and that they didn’t have the 5 year land supply then. There is a change of circumstances and a change of opinion.

 

The Solicitor advised that a single house would not have a massive bearing on the 5 year land supply. Previously the application in principal was deemed as acceptable.

 

A Member raised concerns that we are not in the same situation as 3 years ago. The traffic has become worse since then and will continue to increase. There is no space for access on Craven Street and if one were to be created it would lose parking for other vehicles.

 

Cllr Faulkner proposed to permit the application in its current form in line with officers’ recommendations and deal with any concerns at REM.

 

Cllr Botterill seconded the proposal.

 

A Member asked if they could condition what they would like to see in the REM.

 

The Development Manager advised that a common condition would be a mix in line with need which dictates the number of bedrooms.

 

The Chair asked if there could be a condition “in keeping with the street scene”.

 

The Development Manager advised that it needs to be an identified need and that they should be cautious of this.

 

A Member asked if they could request a bungalow as there is a need and this would also minimise impact on neighbours.

 

The Development Manger advised that the surrounding properties are two storey and this would be considered unreasonable.

 

The Chair and Solicitor advised that this is part of a debate for REM.

 

A vote was taken. 6 Members voted for permit and 2 Members voted against.

 

Determination: PERMIT, subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

 

Reason:  The development is not an allocated site for the purposes of the new Melton Local Plan however owing to the site being of not particular ecological/ attractive open space merit within an area of many other residential properties and previously approved scheme is seen to comply with the Local Plan policies as set out in the report and principles of the NPPF. The application was previously approved where the policy considerations remain relevant and therefore the principle of development remains established.