Agenda item

21 Baggrave End, Barsby

Applicant:     Mr Cassa Miller

Location:      Penlan, 21 Baggrave End, Barsby

Proposal:      Demolition of existing dwelling, erection of a replacement dwelling, demolition of outbuildings/farm buildings and erection of three dwellings, alterations to access, provision of parking and associated works.

 

(a)                   The Development Manager was invited to speak and stated that:

The application seeks full planning permission for the demolition of the existing dwelling house known as Penlan  and its replacement with a new 3 bed house (plot 4), the demolition of existing outbuildings/farm buildings to the rear, and the erection of three further houses (two further 3 bed‘s and one 4 bed) on land to the rear which are proposed in a linear form behind the frontage dwelling at Plot 4 on rising land currently occupied by a range of derelict farmyard buildings that are to be demolished. 

The proposal is located within Barsby which is identified as a Rural Settlement in the Local Plan and therefore should be assessed in accordance with Policy SS3.During the life of the application, the applicant has submitted additional information which they feel demonstrates the need as set out within Policy SS3, this information is all within the committee report but makes reference to a Housing Needs Survey in the Parish conducted in February 2017 this was part of a group of surveys which also covered Gaddesby and Ashby Folville.  Additional information has been submitted setting out the respondents who have identified a need for housing in Barsby and the agent has stated that the survey work has demonstrated that there is a proven local need for more than 3 x 3 or 4 bedroom houses in Barsby. The test to comply with Policy SS3 is set high to reflect the limited number of dwellings that are to be provided under this policy and to ensure new dwellings in such villages are approved only when they meet a proven, local need. As such a convincing case to justify the proposal has not been made in order to comply with the strict criteria of Policy SS3 as the survey returns referred to, are not specific to the localised area and refer to the Parish, which includes Gaddesby where there may be several sites available to meet housing need and significant housing allocation approximately 34 have been provided,  and the requests for new housing in Barsby are more reflecting of  a personal desire to live in this village which could be termed as market demand rather than proven need and therefore refusal is recommended due to the proposal not meeting an identified proven local need and being contrary to Policy SS3 of the Melton Local Plan.

Concern is also raised with regard to the form and scale of the proposal which is considered to be over intensive and would be typically urban in nature and out of character with the rural village location. Therefore the proposal is also recommended for refusal due to the conflict with Policy D1 of the Melton Local Plan.

 

(b) Mr Pavlovic, was invited to speak on behalf of the Applicant and stated that:

·                         Application was previously refused based upon its unsuitable location and failure to identify need.

·                         Housing assessment carried out by the Applicant, feedback was listed from respondents.

·                         SS3 supported by survey and MBC Housing Officer.

·                         The proposed would be a high quality replacement, as the existing building has vermin issues.

·                         Proposal is D1 reflective, not harmful and will comply with policies.

A Cllr asked whether the Applicant would consider a condition to include local connections rather than open market.

 

Mr Pavlovic replied yes.

 

A Cllr queried a piece of land being given to a neighbour.

 

Mr Pavlovic stated that he was unaware of this, therefore unable to answer.

 

The Assistant Director for Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services demonstrated on the map the piece of land in question he thought it may be but again, could not be certain.

 

A Cllr expressed concerns over the road, as it is narrow and on an incline. They stated it would be dangerous in bad weather conditions and also expressed concerns of over intensification.

 

Cllr Higgins proposed to refuse. He stated that he could sympathise with the Applicant but the proposed would not satisfy SS3 and would be too dense. However, the possibility of local connections was encouraging.

 

Cllr Chandler seconded the proposal. She stated that the survey left a lot to be desired and praised LCC Highways. The impact of the development would be severe and it would be over intensification.

 

A Cllr agreed that D1 needed sticking to and supported the proposal to refuse.

 

A Cllr stated that it would have an impact on the Conservation Area and also supported the refusal.

 

Cllr Higgins clarified that he wished to agree with Officer Recommendation.

 

A vote was taken.

Members voted unanimously to refuse.

 

Decision: REFUSE in accordance with the recommendation

 

REASONS:

1.         Other than the replacement dwelling proposed, the proposal would result in the erection of three market dwellings, without a convincing case to demonstrate a proven local need for the proposal. The development is in a 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 is therefore contrary to Policy SS3 of the Melton Local Plan which states that in Rural Settlements, such as Barsby, new housing development has to meet a proven local need as identified by substantive evidence. In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the proposal is not supported or justified by the required substantive evidence that would demonstrate compliance with Policy SS3, and would justify the granting of planning permission in this case.

2.         In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the scheme, by reason of its form, scale, design and layout, would give rise to an over intensive, cramped development that is urban in nature and out of character with this village location, and not sympathetic to the site surroundings. The proposal, by reason of the siting, design and massing of the proposed dwellings, with their restricted amenity areas, would result in an obtrusive development that would be over bearing, and detrimental to the outlook, privacy and amenity of neighbours and neighbouring properties. For these reasons, the proposal is considered to conflict with Policy D1 of the Melton Local Plan, which requires all new development to be sympathetic to the character of the area, and that the amenity of neighbours and neighbouring properties should not be compromised.