Agenda item

Land off Great Lane, Frisby on the Wreake

Applicant:     Bellway Homes

 

Location:      Land of Great Lane, Frisby on the Wreake

 

Proposal:      Application for approval of Reserved Matters – 16/00491/OUT – Outline application for residential development with associated landscaping, open space, drainage infrastructure and vehicular and pedestrian access.

 

(a)       The Development Manager stated that: This is a reserved matters submission for the erection of 53 dwellings, the proposal was deferred at the committee of 26th April 2018 for the following reasons.

 

•           Reduce or revisit the parking for plots 9, 10 and 11

•           Revisit the house types including single storey dwellings, across the front of Great Lane

•           Relocation of the play area

•           The number of houses to 48

•           Increase the number of bungalows

 

The application was further deferred at the meeting of 14th June 2018 to

Allow for further discussions between the applicants with the ward councillor and parish council (to be facilitated officers)

 

A meeting was held between those parties and revised information submitted for consideration. 

o          The parking provision has been amended as requested

o          Two additional bungalows have been submitted on plots 1 and 2 which front Great Lane

o          Additional drainage has been submitted in relation to the Play Area and further confirmation that natural surveillance would be provided to the play area.

o          With regards to the housing number this remains at 53, and it should be noted that no legal requirement by way of condition was attached to the outline permission which restricted the development to 48 dwellings.

 

It is considered that the revised information submitted meets the requests of the Committee and earlier deferrals and the recommendation remains as approval subject to a number of conditions which will need updating from the original report of 26th April 2018.

 

(b)       Cllr Sercombe, on behalf of Frisby Parish Council, was invited to speak and stated that:

•           The compromise in the main is satisfactory.

•           Developer within their rights to apply for more than 48 dwellings which were muted at outline but villagers feel betrayed.

•           Overdevelopment upon overdevelopment.

•           Along with other developments in the village this will take the numbers to way above what is in the local plan and what they should naturally be.

•           Concerns have been addressed but not to universal satisfaction of all the residents.

•           Ask committee to ensure all the points are resolved and put down in writing for perpetuity.

•           To ensure requested covenants and conditions that have been agreed by the developer are watertight and there is no wriggle room for the future.

•           Ensure roads and drainage infrastructure are properly adopted by the relevant authorities.

•           The number and type of houses is set in stone and the mix is in keeping with the local plan and neighbourhood plan.

 

A Cllr asked if the Parish Council is as satisfied as they can be.

 

Cllr Sercombe responded that it is not unanimous. Some people still believe the neighbourhood plan should carry more weight. Reached a compromise that is as fair and equitable as it can be for both parties. The residents most greatly affected would have liked more bungalows and more restrictions, however that was not deliverable. Still a lot of angst in the village regarding this.

 

A Cllr noted that the report states that the Parish Council are unhappy with the play area but that it had not been mentioned this evening. Are they now satisfied?

 

Cllr Sercombe responded that in an ideal world the play area should be more centrally located as per the recommendation but in the overall scheme of things it is a good as we’ll get. The play area is overseen by a large number of houses. There were other issues we prioritised more so it’s a fair compromise.

 

(c)        Shaun Groom, on behalf of the objectors, was invited to speak and stated that:

•           Echo the majority of the comments of the Parish Council.

•           Underline concerns and disenchantment that residents have experienced:-

1.         In Spring/Summer of 2016, residents were consulted via a letter box ballot, village meetings and an open day. Which were hosted by, the previous agent, Richborough Estates. Quoted text from documents which was to appease and satisfy the residents in pursuit of their outline permission - ‘lower building heights to tie in with existing street scene, new buildings set back to retain the rural feel along Great Lane, meandering residential lane, garages between new buildings to create larger gaps and also indicated on the plan, lower density down to 20 DPH along the back of Great Lane’.

2.         The play ground was shown located on higher ground and more centrally. Not in the wettest, steepest part of the field. Due to it being a dry year, the current ground conditions don’t show the true state of the field.

3.         We were under the understanding that these points would be considered and included in any amended/final revised plans.

•           Ask that the developer is held to account in fulfilling the requirements to the letter.

 

A Cllr asked if any of the conditions were written down at the open day.

 

Mr Groom responded that the residents were presented with a glossy idea of what it might look like and believed that the outline was for 48 dwellings. The concern now is the density of the 53 dwellings. The document I have was also presented and is on the Councils on line files.

 

A Cllr noted that the indicative plan has to be treated with caution.

 

(d)       Sally Smith, on behalf of the applicant, was invited to speak and stated that:

            Meeting held to reach a compromise on the 5 reasons for deferral:-

1.         Parking - It was agreed that the proposed parking arrangements were acceptable, although there was an amendment to the proposed garage on plot 7, which has been moved further away from the site boundary. 

2.         Great Lane frontage – two additional bungalows have been added on plots 1 &2 to address the concerns of residents. Also moved plot 53 further away from the boundary and given a commitment to apply covenants to retain the hedgerow along the Great Lane frontage. We have amended plot 3 from a 5 bed, 2 ½ storey dwelling to a 4 bed, 2 storey dwelling.

3.         Play area location – overlooked by 26% of properties so natural surveillance is achieved.

4.         Drainage– details have been provided which indicate run off from the open space is limited to its own area which is minimal. To alleviate any concerns a land drain will be provided along its northern boundary being the low point of the POS.

5.         Number of dwellings – the number was not defined in the outline permission. The design is thought to respect the sites location and optimises the use of available land which is a requirement of the emerging local plan and the NPPF. The increase in the number of bungalows is now 11% of the whole development. As a result of the house changes, the scheme has become even more policy compliant in terms of housing mix.

 

A Cllr asked for clarification regarding the drainage in the play area.

 

Ms Smith responded that it is part of the scheme and that any rain on the play area will drain in to the land drain.

 

A Cllr asked if developers propose one idea and then are inclined to change it and increase the number of dwellings.

 

Ms Smith responded that they had bought the land from  Richborough and that the information they received in terms of planning permission didn’t restrict the number of dwellings. We had a pre-app meeting and raised that we weren’t following the indicative plan and it wasn’t raised as an issue as the scheme wasn’t overdeveloped. Richborough obtained the outline permission and when we bought the land, we didn’t follow their commitments as they weren’t documented .

 

A Cllr raised concerns regarding the dimensions of garage G4 and noted that it is not designed in accordance with the LHDG and not suitable for use as a garage.

 

Ms Smith responded that it depends on the size of a car and that there is a certain requirement but wasn’t sure of the actual dimensions.

 

The Cllr responded that if they are starting with a blank canvas it should be built to the specifications mentioned.

 

(e)       Cllr Hutchinson, Ward Cllr for Frisby, was invited to speak and stated that:

•           At the meeting to reach a compromise, an improved outline proposal was reached. It involved some concessions from both sides.

•           Disappointed that there were no concessions on reducing the number of homes.

•           Overdevelopment on overdevelopment.

•           We should not have accepted an open ended housing capacity at outline and feel we were hoodwinked by Richborough Estates.

•           Note that the other 2 developments at Frisby both have maximum capacities and conditions on their outline applications.

•           The agreed amendments regarding reducing the reduction of bedrooms and moving plot 53 further away from the boundary and the covenant to retain high hedges have significantly improved the gate way entrance.

•           Some of the concerns regarding the play area have been helped by improved drainage, ground works and a site visit.

•           Concerns regarding roads and drainage and would like the following conditions:- All roads must be constructed to the 6C standard that is adoptable by the local County Council. All sewerage and drainage must be constructed to the 6C standard that is adoptable by Severn Trent. All covenant hedges should be a minimum height of 1.8 metres. All boundary fence materials should be agreed with adjoining residents.

•           Significant improvement since the first REM application.

 

 

The Chair noted that the suggested condition regarding the boundary fence should be in consultation with the Ward Cllr, but the residents can contact the Ward Cllr with their views.

 

A Cllr asked if there was anything written down about how the development was going to be. Ms Smith has previously said that Richborough hadn’t passed it on. It should match the outline that was agreed in the first place.

 

Cllr Hutchinson responded that there was a booklet like a planning design statement which was circulated by Richborough. The opening paragraph of which talks about 48 houses. It stated that the application was outline and all matters will go to reserved matters. Would think Bellway have seen this document.

 

The Development Manager advised that this is allocated within the neighbourhood plan for “approximately 48 dwellings”. It is inaccurate to claim a developer can’t just do as they wish; they have to work within any restrictions imposed and ultimately their proposals need to be found satisfactory in their own right. This application is in accordance with the outline; there were no guarantees regarding the figure of 48 and whilst there were a lot of Indicative diagrams, these are not ‘binding’.

 

A Cllr commented that Bellway Homes were not legally bound by their predecessors indicative  document and that number given by the previous applicant. It is a higher number than was wanted by several parties but does commend the Ward Cllr, the Parish Council and Bellway Homes for progressing the application and reaching a compromise.

 

A Cllr raised concerns about the increase in the number of homes. The approximation of 48 being 53 is an increase of 10% which is stretching the credibility.

 

A Cllr commented that they should have put it in the outline permission previously.

 

Cllr Glancy proposed to permit the application but would like more information on the county highways conditions being included. Also would like the garage size to be checked and make sure it is fit for purpose.

 

Cllr Greenow stated that he may second the proposal but as well as Cllr Glancy’s request regarding the highways he also wanted more information regarding the drainage.

 

The Development Manager responded that highways is able to be addressed by conditions because design standards are not prescribed by other legislation. However the drainage is governed other legislation so should not be duplicated through the planning decision. There is a drainage pond near by which is part of another application.

 

The Assistant Director of Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services added that the highways adoption don’t extend to cul de sacs. The issue with drainage is governed by separate legislation and planning aren’t meant to duplicate conditions that already exist.

 

The Solicitor to the Council confirmed  that with regards to the drainage, the appropriate standards will be covered by and imposed by other legislation.

 

Cllr Greenow seconded the proposal subject to the condition regarding roads being built to an adoptable standard. He didn’t think the hedges could be conditioned but that this could be covered by the boundary materials, which he would like to be agreed in consultation with the Ward Member. It is not reasonable to condition a hedge. Asked officers to confirm that the conditions will include the plans that have been amended.

 

The Development Manager confirmed.

 

Cllr Glancy the proposer, confirmed that she would accept the additional conditions.

 

A Cllr expressed their disappointment regarding the 1.8 metre height of the hedge.

 

Cllr Greenow noted that he had not added this condition as seconder as he believed it formed part of the next condition regarding the boundary materials.

 

A Cllr was concerned regarding: -

•           Drainage and the clay soil.

•           The classification of the roads as service vehicles do not need to come on to unclassified roads.

•           Frisby is very rural and green and they need the hedges to retain the character.

 

The Development Manager noted that there is already a condition regarding drainage which has led us to the pond which is part of a discharge for a separate application. Bellway have also offered further land drains. All of that would be part of a condition.

 

A Cllr asked if the proposer and seconder would agree to a condition that drainage needs to be in place before the building work commences.

 

The Chair advised that they could request it before first occupancy but not before building commences.

 

A vote was taken. 10 Members voted to permit the application and there was 1 abstention.

 

Determination:

(a)PERMIT, in accordance with the conditions as set out in the report and the additional conditions that highways are built to an adoptable standard.

(b) that discharge of conditions relating to boundary treatment are carried out in consultation with the Ward Member;

 

 

For the following reasons

Outline planning permission was granted on the basis that the advantages were judged to outweigh the disadvantages, including the contribution that the development would make to housing supply, both in the market and affordable sectors in a location which performs reasonably well in sustainability terms.

 

This development brings forward a reasonable mixture of housing which would contribute to identified needs and provides 21 affordable homes. It accords with the outline permission and s106 provisions in this respect.

 

The detailed layout shows a well designed development laid out with separate groups of dwellings, many of which take advantage of views over landscaped or public spaces. The landscaped areas incorporate SUDs schemes and areas of buffer planting. There is space around the site to sustain wildlife habitats and provide good levels of privacy and amenity for neighbours and the occupiers of the new dwellings.

 

The proposal is one that is allocated for housing in both the Local and Neighbourhood Plans, both of which are well advanced, and this adds significant weight to the proposal.

 

There are matters of concern that have been raised through representations received, however these predominantly relate to matters of drainage and highways, both of which are to be further considered through the submission of further details to both the Local Planning Authority and the County Highway Authority for formal consideration.

 

Amendments to the application have been achieved to mitigate some of the concerns raised by residents and the Parish Council to reach a satisfactory compromise.