Agenda item

Field OS 3254, Blacksmith End, Stathern

Reference:	19/01193/OUT
Location:	Field OS 3254, Blacksmith End, Stathern
Proposal:	Residential development for 9 houses

 

The Development Manager addressed the Committee and provided a summary of the application.  She advised that since despatch of the agenda comments had been received from the Highway Authority relating to the public right of way which would amend condition 6 of the report.

 

The Development Manager referred to conflict between local plan policies in determining this application and although officers had made a finely balanced recommendation in favour of the application by referencing policies SS1 and SS2, it was recognised there was a strong conflict with policy C1(B).  Therefore officers felt it was for the Committee to determine which policy took precedence in this case. 

 

Pursuant to Chapter 2, Part 9, Paragraphs 2.8-2.28 of the Council’s Constitution in relation to  public speaking at Planning Committee, the Chair allowed the following to give a four minute presentation :

 

·         Ken Bray, Chairman, Stathern Parish Council

 

·         Alison Shelton

 

Following a query by a Councillor, it was confirmed that there was an error in the Local Plan relating to housing supply allocation, in that the flexibility it allowed should say ‘significant’ whilst it read ‘limited’. 

 

·         Nick Cooper, Agent

 

Following questions from Members, Mr Cooper confirmed

 

·         There had been public consultation through the Stathern Neighbourhood planning process and positive comments had been received concerning the site

·         The developer owned the whole site which he felt provided potential to contribute to the Borough’s housing need

 

In response to the speakers’ comments, the Development Manager explained that policy SS3 ‘unallocated sites’ had been questioned and she was persuaded by the arguments raised that it was not applicable in this case because the site was allocated. There was a strong case for policy C1(B) even though the application was SS2 compliant therefore she still felt it was for the Committee to determine which policy should prevail.

 

The Assistant Director referred to the error in the Local Plan relating to housing supply allocation mentioned previously.   He explained that reference was made by the Inspector to substantial flexibility rather than limited which was indicated in the Modifications.  However he further explained that meeting targets was the minimum requirement in terms of housing supply and did not mean there was no further demand and no upper limited was set.  Both locally and nationally the thinking was the more housing the better so long as sites concerned were acceptable in terms of environmental, infrastructure and all other relevant planning factors.

 

During discussion the following points were noted :

 

·         There was concern that the application was for 9 dwellings and this was just below the threshold of 10 homes which would then mean the developer would be required to make a contribution to infrastructure.  Based on a previous application that had been withdrawn for 45 homes on the site, it was felt that the developer could potentially submit 5 applications for 9 houses each and reach the same outcome.  Members felt that if this application was approved and the site was allocated then how could the Committee refuse further similar applications

·         All applications depended on the circumstances at that time however there was a presumption in favour of no upper limit nor to prevent growth

·         Should there be more applications submitted for the site, approval could be qualified which would need to be considered at the time

·         Consistency in decision-making and adhering to the Local Plan was important to Members

·         The site was allocated as a reserve site and could only be developed if approved sites became available.  It was stated that approved sites were progressing in Stathern  and the site could not be both windfall and a reserve site

·         There was a clash of policies and it was suggested that the Council could provide further guidance on interpretation of these policies

·         To approve this site would set a precedent for 9 home applications on reserve sites where there would be no requirement to give anything to the community

 

Councillor Evans proposed to refuse the application as it was contrary to policy C1(B).  Councillor Higgins seconded with the addition that the development was allocated as a reserve site that should only be considered should other allocated sites not come forward for development.  No evidence had been provided to indicate other sites were incapable of delivery. The Borough could demonstrate in excess of five year supply of deliverable housing sites.  Councillor Evans agreed the addition. 

 

RESOLVED

 

That application 19/00573/REM be REFUSED contrary to the recommendation set out in the report for the following reasons :

 

(Unanimous)

 

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.