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 Planning Development Manager 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 30 April 2020 to allow further opportunity for Members to visit the site and to clarify the status of the bridleway as a means of access.

 

Ms Parker referred to paragraph 5.5.4 of the report which explained that Riverside Road was to be a bridleway which travelled along Riverside Road and connected St Leonards Close with Asfordby Road. This upgrade from a public footpath to a bridleway was at the request of Leicestershire County Council in the approval of the application at St Leonards Close. The works to upgrade from a footpath to a bridleway were being undertaken. Riverside Road had and always would be used by mechanised vehicles and this situation was not unusual and neither was the situation changing should this application be approved. The footpath was part of the application site.

 

The Solicitor advised that whether the footpath was a footpath or bridleway nor the legality of the access were planning considerations. He further advised vehicular access was already in place without interfering with the footpath.

 

There was a query as to whether there was a policy that allowed for development to take place without vehicular access and it was noted that policy D1 required adequate access. 

 

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 3 minute presentation:

 

·         Charles Ellis, Objector

 

·         Richard Cooper, Agent, HSSP Architects

 

Mr Cooper confirmed that there would be a reduction in traffic on Riverside Road as the road previously serviced 2 dwellings and, if approved, the road would only provide access for one property, being the one under consideration.

 

It was noted that the Committee could add a condition for the access to be via Riverside Road only. 

 

With regard to works on Mr Ellis’s neighbouring property, the application only covered the property in question therefore there could be no condition applied to regulate works carried out on a neighbouring property.

 

During discussion the following points were noted:

 

·         There was concern about the access until the bridleway was completed

·         As the application was in line with the Local Plan, met the relevant policies with no detrimental impact and had sustainable qualifications it was felt acceptable so long as officers monitored the archaeological matters which were to be addressed and the footpath issue was resolved

·         The Solicitor reiterated that the footpath was not a material consideration

·         Due to the narrow access and as there was no Neighbourhood Plan in place, a Member could not support the application and another Member agreed with this view adding they had concerns with the boundary hedge and the mobile home

·         It was advised that there was a landscaping condition which could be amended to be more specific about the hedge and the mobile home had been removed

·         The property fitted with the Local Plan, had no detrimental impact on the character of the area, complied with relevant policies and had an innovative design which wouldn’t overshadow other properties and would bring a pleasant aspect to the area

·         It was noted that that there could not be a condition to prevent a mobile home on the site as the condition regulations did not cover such future development, also within permitted development rights during the construction of the property, a mobile home could be positioned on the site

·         There was a concern as to the potential for surface water on the bridleway in the winter months

·         A Member felt the application could not be approved until all the residents’ concerns had been addressed

·         A point of clarification was made that when making their judgment Members referred to professional advice and relevant authorities who had assessed the application. Residents’ concerns were reviewed in relation to planning considerations.

 

Councillor Posnett proposed to approve the application. Councillor Steadman seconded to include access via Riverside Road only.

 

RESOLVED

 

That application 19/00707/FUL be APPROVED subject to the conditions set out at Appendix B of the report and an additional condition limiting access by Riverside Road only.

 

(8 in favour, 3 against)

 

(Councillors Faulkner and Holmes requested that their vote against the preceding decision be recorded.)

 

REASONS

The proposal would represent a sustainable form of small scale residential development that would be considered acceptable under the provisions of Policies SS1 and SS2 of the Melton Local Plan.

 

The proposal as revised would result in a form of development that would be sympathetic to the character of the locality by virtue of its appearance, design, layout and scale and would not compromise residential amenity or be prejudicial to highway safety. The development would also raise no significant, adverse impact on ecology or archaeology grounds that would warrant refusal.  For these reasons, the proposal is considered to comply with the relevant policies of the Melton Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework, and no harm is considered to arise following the giving of  special attention to avoiding harm to heritage assets required by s66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.