Agenda item

Fields OS 2713 and 2100, Longcliff Hill, Old Dalby

Reference:	20/00593/VAC
Location:	Field OS 2713 and 2100, Longcliff Hill, Old Dalby
Proposal:	Variation of conditions 2 (plans), 7 (footpath) and 13 (obscure glazing) of planning permission 18/01111/FUL for residential development on land off Longcliff Hill, Old Dalby that currently benefits from 3 outline planning approvals - 16/00911/OUT, 16/00184/OUT and 17/00743/OUT and the submission of additional details relating to (conditions 4 & 6) surface water drainage, (5) surface water management, (10) archaeology, (11) foul and surface drainage, (14) materials, (15) landscaping and(17) ridge heights of 2.5 storey dwellings.

 

(Councillors Browne and Higgins here left the meeting due to their personal and non-pecuniary interests declared at Minute PL81 above.)

 

The Planning Development Manager addressed the Committee and provided a summary of the application and summarised that the recommendation was for refusal.

 

Since despatch of the agenda the following the LLFA consultation response for additional information had been received with no objections and 3 conditions. Members had received the comments in full prior to the meeting and therefore the recommendation could be amended accordingly.

 

Also since despatch of the agenda, the agent had confirmed :

 

·         None of the 5 bed dwellings had been constructed on the site

·         The condition ensuring 2.5 storey dwellings did not exceed 9.2 metres in height would be adhered to on site as it could be ensured during construction that the dwellings did not exceed that height

·         The ditch in the south-east corner of the site served as land drainage to the field and to the old farm road. This had been broken out and was now part of the highway entrance and subsequently went into the new drainage system. The ditch could be filled as it now served no purpose to the new drainage although a 225 mm diameter pipe to serve the gulleys had been inserted before the new system was installed

·         The LLFA had given consent for the filling of the redundant ditch

·         Adjacent to plot 28 on the path there was a 4.1 metre to the centre hedge on the tightest point and 3.9 m to the outside of the hedge therefore a 900mm instead of a 1 metre space. The advice being that the hedge could be trimmed further if needed

·         With regard to the removal of the east west hedge there remained a standing objection with LCC ecological on its removal, with this in mind it was proposed to add a further condition to retain the existing hedge

 

It was noted that 13 conditions would need to be changed to reflect these amendments.

 

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:

 

·         Kim Lee, Nether Broughton and Old Dalby Parish Council

 

In response to a Member question, there was confirmation that the Parish Council’s preference was for retention for the condition relating to the ridge height. The Planning Development Manager confirmed that this would be 9.2 metres as indicated in the agent’s update listed above.

 

·         James Botterill, Agent, HSSP Architects

 

In response to a Member question, there was confirmation that in terms of maintenance, the hedge was part of the management plan.

 

The Assistant Director for Planning and Delivery explained that the application constituted a series of amendments. Some were initiated by the developer and the report addressed these as to their alignment with planning policies. He added that departing from the plan was not a reason for amendment and each one had been assessed as to its affect and powers were to be applied in the usual discretional manner.

 

With regard to the recommendation, this was as drafted plus the response from the LLFA, retention of the hedgerow and retention of the 2.5 storey ridge height as confirmed by the agent.

 

Members expressed concern that the dyke had been culverted and that this was not so easy to maintain and keep the water flowing. It was asked whether its maintenance was within the management plan.

 

The Planning Development Manager advised that drainage had been part of the application and there had been technical sign off from the Leicestershire County Council and the LLFA had agreed with the details. The land ownership was responsible for any flooding issues. It was noted that the ditch was now redundant and water was diverted to the drainage system.

 

With regard to a query on the ridge height and the boundary hedge, Mr Worley advised that these matters had been confirmed in the agent’s update as explained earlier, ie. the 2.5 storey houses would have a 9.2 metres ridge height and the footpath would be 3.9 metres in width therefore the requirement had almost been achieved.

 

During discussion the following points were noted:

 

·         It was important that the footpath met the requirement in the conditions

·         It was noted that the hedge would be maintained as it was part of the management plan and this would ensure the footpath remained at the required width

·         Concern at the urban style of the dwellings especially the roof windows

·         The ridge height of 9.2 metres must be retained

·         Concern at the ditch being made into a culvert as these notoriously caused flooding

·         There was a proposal to refuse condition 7 and  reinstate the ditch at condition 17 for the reasons of protecting newts overwinter, to minimise flood risk and in line with environmental policies 4 and 9

 

The Legal Advisor explained that should none of the amended conditions be accepted then the application should be refused. The application referred to the amended conditions presented and the original conditions were not available for amendment. Although it was noted that the culvert could be reinstated as a ditch as part of this application.

 

Councillor Steadman proposed the recommendations in the report with refusal of condition 7 and retention of condition 17 being that the culvert be reinstated as a ditch. Councillor Posnett seconded the motion.

 

RESOLVED that

 

Authority be granted to the Assistant Director for Planning and Delivery to approve the application subject to :

 

(a)  refusal of the proposed amended condition 7 and the hedge be retained;

(b)  retention of condition 17 and the culvert be reinstated as a ditch;

(c) conditions as set out in Appendix A;

(d) the conditions and response received from the LLFA;

 

(8 for, 1 abstention)

 

REASONS:

 

The site already has the benefit of an extant approval for residential development, infrastructure and landscaping and this application seeks to vary the conditions attached to that approval and to provide additional information in relation to conditions imposed on 18/01111/FUL. The principal of development remains acceptable and the changes sought and additional information are acceptable.

 

(Councillor Higgins here re-entered the meeting.)