Agenda item

Land and Buildings North Canal Farm, Pagets End, Long Clawson

The chair stated that there is an update regarding the following application which is a precursor to debate.

 

Applicant:     R D And J K Chandler

Location:      Land And Buildings North Canal Farm, Pagets End, Long Clawson

Proposal:      Demolition of agricultural buildings, construction of up to 40 dwellings, improvements to existing access, formation of surface water attenuation pool and associated infrastructure, provision of public open space and landscaping.

 

(a) The Planning Officer (LP) stated that:

The proposal is before you again to update the committee and to provide deails of the change in circumstances that have taken place since the consideration of the application in December 2017.

When the applicaiton was preivously heard at planning committee the resoultion was to permit the proposal, subject to the demonstration that a footpath link can be secured, this wasn’t by way of permission this was a requirement to satisfy the resolution of approval.

Additonal information has been received from the applicant which demonstrates land ownership and they feel that a condition could be added to an approval which would require the provison of the footpath from the development site through to the village green at East End as indicated by the green line.

Due to the passage of time it was considered appropriate to bring the application back to committee as signifcant changes have taken place since December 2017 and decisions must be taken in a manner that reflects the circumstances that apply at the point they are made.

The Melton Local Plan was formally adopted by Full Council on 10^th October 2018 with the Clawson, Harby and Hose Neighbourhood Plan being adopted in June 2018.  Therefore the previous cirucmstances that applied to the committee’s consideration on 4^th December 2017 have been superseded. 

The progress of both plans to adoption means that the legal requirement to apply full weight to be attributed to them has taken effect, which was not the case in December 2017. 

The progress of both Plans is considered to assign greater weight against the application, owing to the content of the proposal being allocated only as a reserve for housing development in both.

It is recommended that Planning Permission is refused, reflecting the current considerations and their relative status.

 

The chair reminded members that at this particular time comments need to be limited to the merits of the application under consideration. And this is not to be used as a personal platform for political or personal promotion.

 

(b) Kevin Rolling, an Objector was invited to speak and stated that:

·         As a third party owner of the private footpath, he rejected the use of private land for a public footpath serving the development.

·         In the fourth schedule of covenant with the applicant, item 9 clearly states; ‘if called upon to do so by the vendor, his successor entitled to the estate or dovecote farm or by the district or county authority within 15 years of the date hereof. The purchaser, that’s me, will dedicate a footpath over such access road and footpaths coloured blue on the plan as made reasonably required.’ This schedule is dated 2^nd February 1996 and at no point within 15 years of that date was a request made.

·         The footpath is locked at regular intervals and there are permanent signs in pace to state the land is private property. Reserve legal right to continue to do this.

·         A 2m wide footpath would be required and this is, in places is far less. Not willing to permit the erection of lighting or tarmac.

·         Both footpaths terminate at a Village green which must be crossed to gain refuge to a pavement and cannot be altered to accommodate the use of pushchairs, wheelchairs etc.

A Cllr reiterated that the village green is public.

 

Mr Rolling confirmed that it is protected in law and cannot be altered. It would require a hard surface.

 

The Chair queried whether there is any other route for pedestrians. Would be unsuitable for wheelchairs etc., but doesn’t preclude anybody walking across it in its natural state providing they are not causing damage.

 

A Cllr expressed concerns about the need to put down a hard surface on a village green.

 

Mr Rolling described the green as boggy grassland with a loose driveway with no foundations.

 

The Chair sought clarification regarding the 15 year limit.

 

(c) David Haston, Agent to the Applicant was invited to speak and stated that:

·         Previous benefits discussed outweigh the policies that preclude.

·         Adopted plans have not changed the fact that this is identified as a reserved site.

·         Utilised an existing developed site and would remove unsightly buildings and slurry lagoon.

·         Removed source of odour which could affect properties.

·         Reduced traffic.

·         Help fund relocation of 300 cow dairy herd.

·         Landscape restoration project across countryside to the north.

·         Contributions to primary school.

·         Ammonia emission from farm would be high, and storage of slurry means the need to relocate is more compelling and urgent.

·         No doubt that the existing footpath link, as apposed to public right of way, from the site can be lawfully used by virtue of the rights reserved in the 1996 conveyance of Prospect House. The rights reserved apply whether developed or in present state. Available to current owners and all future owners. This extends to tenants and visiting friends, all entitled to use the footpath.

·         To be used by all people in connection to the development.

·         Benefits still outweigh and policy conflicts or perceived harm.

A Cllr questioned whether the site is in the Neighbourhood Plan or Local Plan.

 

Mr Haston confirmed that the site is not allocated but it reserved for housing. This was the case as of the previous meeting, at the time of an emerging Neighbourhood Plan.

 

A Cllr questioned whether Mr Haston was contesting the speaker’s view of the covenant on the land and asked to hear Mr Haston’s again.

 

Mr Haston explained that anybody who was not an owner/tenant or visitor to a person that was, does not have right to use the footpath. Public footpath outside site boundary that does link into village green

 

(d) Cllr Rhodes, the Ward Cllr was invited to speak and stated that:

·         Previously took view it should be determined against the Neighbourhood Plan.

·         Applications must be decided against the law and plans, both relevant and this application does not conform to either.

·         Disputed land and village green has complications and no guarantee that all have a right to use it.

·         Can’t be made adequate for all, as it’s not wide enough and leads to the village green.

A Cllr questioned why a footpath can’t be taken from the western side.

 

Cllr Rhodes stated that all the footpaths have to go across the village green.

 

A Cllr reiterated that the village green is public and anyone can walk over it. Should it have gravel/ concrete down?

 

Cllr Rhodes agreed, adding that it is not possible to put down the right surface for all as a permanent fixture as it wouldn’t meet standards.

 

18:31 Cllr Rhodes left the meeting.

 

A Cllr stated that the footpath holds limited weight. The Local Plan has just been adopted and if it’s driven straight through then it will lead to more speculative applications.

 

Cllr Baguley added that it was a reserved site. Only to be considered if no other allocated sites are coming forward. There are sites coming forward and members could be setting dangerous president. There are too many issues with lighting the footpath and making it suitable for wheelchairs/pushchairs. It would be voting against the Local Plan. Would like to propose.

 

The chair asked if they wished to propose after more of the debate had been heard.

 

A Cllr stated that it was undetermined in December 2017, Pre Neighbourhood and Local Plan, it should’ve passed. Expressed concern about odour from the dairy farm. Disputed that there needs to be anything other than grass on the village green.

 

A Cllr sought advice from the solicitor about the weight of the footpath.

Solicitor to the Council stated that it was not the role of the committee to adjudicate the status of the footpath and it is normally not normally relevant to planning consideration. They stated the site is reserved, only to be used f the allocated fails so it would be contrary to plans. They advised to limit considerations to the materials of the Neighbourhood and Local Plan.

 

A Cllr added that the plans should be considered, and also that there had been no complaints about odour so this was not a concern. They asked whether any letter had been issued confirming permission.

 

The Development Manager stated there was a resolution to permit. No decision has been made and no permission granted.

 

A Cllr expressed concerns regarding health issues and questioned why housing was so close to farmyard.

 

A Cllr stated that they had previously voted to permit based on there being no plan in place and could see the benefits of relocating the farm. However it was now different with the new plans.

 

The Chair added that although the circumstances have not changed, regulations have. I.e the Local and Neighbourhood Plans. These have to be given weight. With regards to the foul smell/nuisance from the farm, it is not he committee’s job to make them compliant. He added that this is a reserved site and only to be brought into effect if other sites are unable or unlikely to come forward it’s not believed they won’t.

 

Cllr Baguley proposed to refuse the application.

Cllr Glancy seconded.

 

A vote was taken. 8 members voted to refuse the application. 2 members abstained from the vote. 1 member was absent from the vote.

 

Cllr Botterill and Cllr Holmes wished to have their vote to abstain recorded.

 

18:46 The Solicitor to the Council left the meeting.

 

18:47 The Solicitor to the Council and Cllr Rhodes returned to the meeting.

 

 Determination:

The application proposes a development of dwellings that is contrary to Policy C1 (B) of the adopted Melton Local Plan 2018.  The development is allocated as a reserve site that should only be considered should other allocated sites not come forward for development.  No evidence has been provided to indicate other sites are incapable of delivery The Borough can demonstrate in excess of five year supply of deliverable housing sites.  The application is therefore contrary to Policies SS1 and SS2 and C1 (B) of the Melton Local Plan 2011-2036.

The application proposes a development of dwellings that is contrary to the Long Clawson Hose and Harby Neighbourhood Plan.  The development is allocated as a reserve site that should only be considered should demand for housing in the Borough shift resulting in a greater allocation to Long Clawson, or other allocated sites not come forward for development.  The application is therefore contrary to Policies H1, H2 and H3 of the Clawson Hose and Harby Neighbourhood Plan 2017-2036.