Agenda item

Grange Farm House, Harby Lane, Hose

Applicant:     Mr G Stroud

 

Location:      Grange Farm House, Harby Lane, Hose

 

Proposal:      Proposed Residential Development for 35 Houses.

 

(a) The Planning Officer (JL) stated that: Late Representations.

The NHS have been contacted in relation to their contribution request as it has not been demonstrated that the surgery is currently at capacity. No additional information has been provided in relation to this.

The Parish Council had also made a request for proportionate Section 106 contributions towards children’s play equipment for the Hose Park (new climbing frame £15000) and repairs to the Hose Village Hall car park. The specific amounts required have not been provided and there has been no background information provided to justify the request, as required under Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations.

An additional objection has been received from a local resident, which has been circulated round the committee. This raises concerns in relation to the timing of the consultation of the application, and that the applicant would be aware of this issue, and that this lacks integrity and openness. The objector considers that the process should be repeated. They have also stated that should permission be granted, since the consultation closed, there has been a fire at the village hall, rendering the hall unusable and that the developer should provide funding to reinstate the village hall, or ideally upgrade. There has not been a S106 request made in relation to the village hall from the Parish Council and further justification would be required (as mentioned previously in relation to the Parish Council comment).

The application is for outline permission with access only, for the development of 35 dwellings. This site is an allocated site in the Local Plan, but not in the Neighbourhood Plan.

 

(b)       Cllr Phillip Tillyard, on behalf of Clawson, Hose and Harby Parish Council, was invited to speak and stated that:

·         This is not included in Harby neighbourhood plan but it is in the local plan.

·         Major concern that it has presented itself as a detached community on the edge of the village.

·         Footpath should be enhanced and improved to help accessibility in the village.

·         Requested S106 for playground equipment and the carpark. Important to make a contribution towards these facilities. The play ground is currently in a distressed state due to wear and tear. Figures not submitted yet.

 

A Cllr asked how much they would need and what is reasonable amount.

 

Cllr Tlllyard responded that they would need £15,000 for a climbing frame and that they needed to use the formula but it was likely to be a modest figure of £1500 to £2000 for the contribution. It is usually done on the number of units as a proportion of the whole village.

 

The Chair noted that they should have submitted the figures ahead of tonight’s meeting.

 

The Planning Officer (JL) advised that they had provided the figure of £15,000 but not the calculation.

 

The Development Manager confirmed that the calculations for other developments have previously been calculated this way, as suggested by Cllr Tillyard.

 

The Chair asked if they would breaking rules or the law if they added this in now.

 

The Solicitor to the Council responded that in essence planning are inviting you to make this subject to the section 106.

 

(c)        Maurice Fairhurst, agent for the applicant, was invited to speak and stated that:

·         It occupies over 2 hectares of flowing land.

·         Unremarkable in character or biodiversity.

·         It does have good footpath access which they are intending to make a main access in to the village.

·         Village is well served with existing facilities.

·         Substantially improved vehicular access. Won’t affect what is already there.

·         Highways support.

·         Site can accommodate a mix of dwellings.

·         Archaeological trenching now support the development subject to special landscaping to the countryside side of the site.

·         The proposal is acceptable in all other respects. The officers report covers the detail.

 

A Cllr asked if the applicant would consider adding the condition regarding a play ground contribution.

 

Mr Fairhurst responded that they already have to provide a play area in the actual development and there are a number of other contributions required so they may have to draw the line at contributing towards the existing play area.

 

A Cllr asked if the new play area be equipped.

 

Mr Fairhurst responded that a LEAP is an equipped area of play and a LAP is for an area of play without equipment. It has not yet been decided which this development will be providing.

 

The Planning Officer (JL) advised that the Local Plan inspectorate did find it acceptable. Conditions could be included in relation to the footpath.

 

A Cllr noted that the boundary of the site and the footpath do not conform to the Local Plan.

 

The Planning Officer responded that the footpath is where the buffer will be required by historical and ecology consultees. Condition so that it can’t be built on.

 

Assistant Director for Strategic Planning And Regulatory Services added that the application is as it is presented to us. If you would allow this deviation is for Members to debate. Condition 18 notes the landscaping to create a buffer.

 

Cllr Rhodes proposed to refuse the application as it is not in accordance with the local plan which should have been noted in the report.

 

A discussion took place regarding restriction of development on the strip of land near the footpath and if Members wished to do this.

 

Cllr Baguley seconded the proposal.

 

A Cllr asked for clarification regarding the farm track and the footpath and also noted that there was no S106 request from the police.

 

A Cllr confirmed that it is the farm track and it is outside the site in the local plan.

 

The Planning Officer (JL) advised that the police were consulted and made no request.

 

A Cllr asked if they would be setting a precedent if they permitted it and it’s not within the local plan.

 

The Assistant Director for Strategic Planning And Regulatory Services advised that it wouldn’t be setting a precedent and that it would be on it’s individual merits. He also confirmed his understanding that Cllr Rhodes is correct with regards to it being outside the local plan.

 

A Cllr suggested that they seek a deferment and bring it back with line in the correct place.

 

The Chair asked the proposer if they would amend their proposal to a deferment for this purpose.

 

Cllr Rhodes the proposer agreed.

 

The seconder, Cllr Baguley, agreed to the amendment to the proposal.

 

The Chair clarified the proposal for the benefit of the Members, to defer whilst the issue of the track to the Northern boundary of the site is determined.

 

A vote was taken and the Members voted unanimously to defer.

 

Determination: Deferred, to seek a revised site area which is in accordance with the Local Plan