Agenda item

3 Main Street, Burrough on the Hill

Applicant:     Mr & Mrs Thomas Allen

Location:      Top View, 3 Main Street, 3 Main Street, Burrough on the Hill

Proposal:     Proposed part demolition and creation of three detached dwellings.

 

(a)    The Assistant Director for Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services (JW) stated that:

 

·           With regards to the application itself, there is nothing new to report.

·           Wished to explain the plans to Members again and clarify questions arising at the site inspection regarding building proximity and height.

·           The application does not meet the terms of SS3 and recommended for refusal.

 

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

 

·           There is a proven need for smaller low cost units, something that this won’t provide. If units are sold at a later date, they will be way above what is affordable.

·           The part of the village is single storey dwellings. There have been letters of objections opposing the 2 storeys. This will be intrusive in a Conservation Area.

·           There is a minimal bus service and access will require a vehicle.

·           Concerned about the view to and from Burrough on the Hill. The heritage should be valued.

 

(c)    Mr Molyneux, an objector, was invited to speak and stated that:

 

·           The application does not meet the proven local need and does not comply with the Neighbourhood Plan.

·           The Conservation Area is a small hamlet with limited infrastructure. It is an unsustainable village.

·           The privacy of the adjacent bungalows at Top View would be affected and the site would become overdeveloped for a rural Conservation Area environment.

·           The two plots sitting on the ridge would have an impact on the landscape with the addition of the extra floor. Recent development demonstrated this.

·           Concerned about access being a single width drive from a B road on a sharp right angled bend.

 

(d)    Mr Allen, the Applicant, was invited to speak and stated that:

 

·           He intends to downsize to look after family.

·           1 unit would be sold to make the project viable. Large plot can facilitate this.

·           Only issues are sustainability. Since application there as been a Draft Neighbourhood Plan sent out for consultation.

·           Policy HR4 of the Draft Neighbourhood Plan singles out the need for 2 bedroom dwellings suitable for elderly/disabled people. The site is supporting this increased need.

·           Submitted letters of intent.

·           Promotes sustainability, as the village is not growing/thriving due to lack of development and support.

 

(e)    Cllr Higgins, the Ward Cllr, was invited to speak and stated that:

 

·           Wished to represent both the objectors and the applicant. Both have put forward a case for judgement.

·           Smaller houses are needed within the ward.

·           17 objections largely from the Village.

·           Doesn’t agree with the extra bungalow as it will affect the neighbour. There is no need for the 3^rd bungalow but understands the personal circumstances.

20:25 – Cllr Higgins left the discussion.

 

The Assistant Director for Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services gave merit to the application; however it wasn’t all the way there. He stated that the market need was lacking. He didn’t disagree with the surveys etc. but explained Somerby had been allocated the best part of 100 houses. These could fulfil the need so it is unclear where the remaining gap comes from.

 

Cllr Holmes proposed to refuse in line with the Officer recommendation. She added that it would require people with cars.

 

Cllr Chandler seconded stating that there is a proven need but this was out of the needs of most people.

 

A vote was taken.

Members voted unanimously to refuse the application.

 

Decision: REFUSE, in accordance with the recommendation.

 

REASONS: The development occupies an unsustainable location where there are limited local amenities, facilities and jobs, and where future residents are likely to depend highly on the use of a private motor vehicle. The proposal does not meet an identified proven local need and would be contrary to Policy SS3 of the Melton Local Plan which seeks to restrict development in such settlements to that which is based on a local proven need.