Agenda item

Land at Butt Close, adjacent Hay Barn, Riverside Road, Melton Mowbray

Reference:	19/00707/FUL
Location:	Land at Butt Close, Adjacent Hay Barn, Riverside Road, Melton Mowbray
Proposal:	Construction of new dwelling

 

The Assistant Director for Planning and Delivery addressed the Committee and provided an updated summary of the application. It was noted that the application had been deferred at the last meeting held on 9 April 2020 to allow further opportunity for members of the public to make verbal representations  to the Committee.

 

Mr Worley further stated

 

·         an additional representation, including photographic evidence, had been received since agenda despatch which related to the siting of the caravan

·         the following issues had potentially breached planning control (including the additional representation mentioned above) and these were grouped into 3 areas as follows:

 

o   Concluded     

Siting of caravan – no enforcement action as no evidence of significant harm

Use of stables as commercial livery - closed as no evidence

 

o   Ongoing 

Excavation of pond behind St Leonards Close – this matter was expected to be concluded soon

Excavations a few weeks ago - discussions with the Legal Team were ongoing

 

o   Early stages       

Condition relating to glazing of 2 St Leonards Close

Siting of caravan (new case received that day)

 

He further stated that all planning applications were considered on merit, policy position and effects. The above matters did not affect the proposed application however no matter what the decision made, they would remain as issues to be followed up. With regard to conditions, these are defined in law to regulate development and therefore with regard to this development can only affect the house under consideration, they cannot be used on peripheral or detached issues. 

 

A Member stated that during this Covid-19 pandemic, the Council did not have the resources to undertake extra investigations and requested that rules be followed and the planning system should not be undermined.

 

There was a query as to the metal sheeting roof and whether this was recycled material. It was noted that this was a question for the agent.

 

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:

 

·         Alex Wood, Objector on behalf of residents on Chetwynd Drive (shared time allocation with Mr Evans)

·         Richard Evans, Objector on behalf of residents on St Leonards Close

 

It was asked whether Mr Evans knew whether the pathway adjacent to the site was a footpath or bridleway and Mr Evans believed it was a footpath only.

 

When asked what Mr Evans would like the Committee to consider, Mr Evans responded:

 

o   road access to be resolved before construction goes ahead particularly the southern access through the gate

o   the livery stables and caravan were adding to the obstruction of the footpath also to have these resolved before construction goes ahead

o   the footpath to be made safe and accessible to the public

o   strict conditions around  construction activity

o   avoid any further development on the site

o   existing sewage connection was already overloaded and this development would make the situation worse 

 

It was noted that Planning Officers would be asked to respond on whether these matters could be subject to conditions before the debate.

 

·         Richard Cooper, Agent, HSSP Architects

 

Mr Cooper responded to a query as to how timber involved in the construction stored carbon, and he advised that trees took in carbon as they grew and bricks for example required input of carbon during manufacture. Also he responded that although the metal roof would be new, it could be reused at the end of the building’s lifespan.

 

(Councillor Chandler here entered the meeting at 6.37 pm)

 

The Assistant Director for Planning and Delivery responded that Members could add a condition to make access to the site via Riverside Road only. The sewage was connected to the mains and therefore did not relate to the overloaded system referred to. The caravan issue had been concluded but may recently have been re-opened due to new evidence being promised. Ownership could not be conditioned nor could prevention of future applications. It was to be noted that conditions were to limit effects of the proposal and not on surrounding issues.

 

During discussion the following points were noted:

 

·         Members could determine whether Riverside Road was allocated as the access road to the site

·         It was felt that the harm outweighed the benefits to build on the site

·         There were reservations as the increase in traffic movement could be up to 2000 journeys per year using 3 cars

·         There was a proposal to defer pending a further opportunity for a site visit as several Members had had difficulty in gaining access to the site. It was felt to be important to view the site due to the public interest on the application

·         The seconder agreed and felt there was also a need to know whether the public route adjacent was a footpath or bridleway and the application should be deferred until this was also resolved

·         Although the application complied with policies SS1 and SS1 and no objections had been received from the Highway Authority, it was felt that a further site visit was required and there was support for deferral until this had taken place

·         There was concern as to whether vehicles could access the site

·         Two Members felt they had enough information to make a decision as they had already visited the site

·         Concern was raised as to the legality of a vehicle across the field access acting as a gate

·         It was felt that there were unresolved issues and too many unanswered questions therefore Members were right to defer before determining the application

 

Councillor Chandler proposed deferral to allow for a further site visit and to consider issues around the public footpath and legality of the use of the bridleway as the means of access.  Councillor Holmes seconded.

 

RESOLVED

 

That application 19/00707/FUL be DEFERRED to allow for a further site visit and to consider issues around the public footpath and legality of the use of the bridleway as the means of access.

 

(10 in favour, 1 against)