Agenda item

Overbrook, 2 Mill Lane, Long Clawson

Reference:	20/00219/FUL
Location:	Overbrook, 2 Mill Lane, Long Clawson
Proposal:	2 Mill Lane - Demolition of existing bungalow and small storage buildings, replacement of existing vehicle bridge over brook, construction of new driveway, construction of 3 no. new single storey dwellings, construction of new carpark area for surgery parking only, new flood compensation area adjacent to brook. Land between 9-11 Mill Lane - Removal of carpark area, construction of 1no. new dwelling. Hybrid application Full planning - replacement of vehicle bridge, new driveway and new dwelling on plot 1. Outline planning - residential plots 2, 3 & 4, new carpark area, new flood compensation area. Matters of layout to be considered.

 

(Councillor Steadman declared her intention to speak as Ward Councillor on this application and here left the Committee and moved into the public speaking gallery.)

 

The Assistant Director for Planning and Delivery addressed the Committee and provided a summary as follows:

 

·         This application comprised two sites on Mill Lane in Long Clawson.

·         A number of amended plans and documents had been received during the course of the application to address concerns raised regarding the overdevelopment of land between 9-11 Mill Lane, the siting and layout of the dwellings on 2 Mill Lane and the impact upon flooding/drainage.

·         As a result, the number of dwellings on the eastern part of the site had been reduced by 1, Plot 1 had been sited further away from the boundary with neighbouring property to the north and the carport for plot 3 had been removed from the plans.

·         The parking area was already sited within the conservation area of which the identified harm (less than substantial) would need to be weighed against the benefit of providing a much needed dedicated parking area for the nearby medical practice

·         It was not considered that the development would result in adverse impacts upon residential amenity or highway safety/parking, subject to detailed design at reserved matters stage.

·         The application had been supported by a Flood Risk Assessment and Surface Water Drainage Strategy which proposed betterment to the existing situation and provided an increase in the flood plain storage area. Even though the flood compensation area was increasing the flood plain storage area, there was scope to increase this area further should Members consider this was required

·         Concerns had been raised regarding the connection to the sewer however lengthy discussions had been undertaken with Severn Trent Water regarding this part of the site and they subsequently did not raise any objections with the proposals put forward. The final connection point to this sewer would be secured at the S106 approval stage with Severn Trent Water (STW) which would not form part of the planning process. The STW consent regime allowed them to exert control over sewer capacity issues and was not a matter that should be duplicated through planning powers

·         Overall given the proposed drainage scheme put forward and the improvements to the existing situation, it was not considered reasonable to refuse on drainage grounds

·         He hoped Members had visited the site

·         The Ministry of Defence was considering whether to call in the application and was awaiting the Committee’s decision

 

Mr Worley responded as follows to queries raised by Members:

 

·         The car park drainage had been factored into the drainage plan and for flood risk

·         The distance between the car park and the surgery was approximately 30 yards and the car park would be for staff use not for patients

·         With regard to concern at the recent flooding of The Sands which was felt to be due to the culvert being blocked and had been estimated as a 50 percent blockage, page 27 of the pack referred to flooding details and the LLFA report was not yet available. The development would result in betterment in relation to drainage matters

 

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:

 

·         Peter Briggs

 

In response to a Member question, Mr Briggs considered that drainage from the site would run towards his home.

 

·         Richard Cooper, HSSP

 

In response to Member questions, Mr Cooper responded

 

·         The car park would be for staff use and become a permanent arrangement rather than the current informal position

·         At the request of the Highway Authority, the bridge would be widened and would run into the LCC owned verge which would require permission and this was outlined in the officer’s report

·         With regard to a guarantee that that the silt would not accumulate over winter and cause flooding, Mr Cooper responded that the underground attenuation would be enclosed and be made up of a series of cellular crates that would not to take in ground water but take water from hard paved surfaces that was clean water. There was also a planning condition which set out that the flood risk assessment had a maintenance recommendation which was included in the conditions.

 

·         Councillor Mel Steadman, Ward Councillor

 

Concern was raised at the detriment to local views as a result of the development. It was noted that the Neighbourhood Plan identified a number of important views in the Parish and stated that ‘proposals which would have an unacceptably detrimental impact on these views and vistas will not be supported.’ Mr Worley advised that Members would need to form a judgement on whether there was an unacceptable detrimental impact in this case.

 

With regard to the extent of the floodplain, Mr Cooper advised this was 9 cubic metres and could be larger if the Committee felt this was required.

 

It was asked why the report stated the existing building was unsympathetic to the street scene and Mr Worley referred to an example of a 1950s bungalow.

 

On the STW position and the capability of the existing sewers, it was noted that they would assess the capacity once planning was given but not before and it was within their control. There were several drainage conditions attached to the application as well as a management plan therefore there was no need for any further conditions to be applied of this type.

 

Members were concerned that this assessment was not done in advance of development. It was reported that this had been mentioned to STW several times.

 

During discussion the following points were noted:

 

·         There was concern at recommending this application for approval when the Council already had 11.6 land supply

·         There was concern at how the site could be made safe against flooding and the Committee should not take the risk in approving this development

·         The application should not be determined until STW had provided a response on the capability of the sewer system

·         The flood risk could impact on local healthcare should the surgery be flooded

·         Members felt the application was in conflict with Neighbourhood Plan policies ENV8, C9, EN1, EN6, H7d, H4c and Local Plan policies EN1 and EN6 and EN11

·         It was noted that professional evidence was needed to prove flooding was an issue on the site and this was not available. Therefore to refuse the application on flooding grounds would make the Council at risk at appeal

·         Members felt they knew there would be flooding in the village but could not prove that it would be made worse by the development. Therefore it would be prudent to not include flooding policies in the reasons for refusal

·         It was considered the Leicestershire County Council report made it clear that it was a high risk area and that flooding should remain in the refusal decision

·         Some Members felt strongly that flooding policies should not be included as there was no evidential basis and the other policies would make for a more sound refusal

·         There was some support for the housing but it was felt the surroundings and impact needed to be prioritised

·         The Assistant Director felt more comfortable without the reference to flooding

 

Councillor Holmes proposed to refuse the application on the grounds of being in conflict with  EN1, EN6 and C9 of the Adopted Melton Local Plan 2018 and ENV 8 and H7(b) of the Clawson, Hose and Harby Neighbourhood Plan 2018. Councillor Evans seconded the motion.

 

RESOLVED

 

That application 20/00219/FUL be REFUSED, contrary to the Officer recommendation set out in the report, for the following reasons:

 

The proposed car park would be in a prominent location and would be unattractive and inconveniently located. It would have an unacceptably detrimental impact on 'view 16' as identified in the Clawson, Hose and Harby Neighbourhood Plan 2018 which makes an important contribution to the local distinctiveness of the landscape and the character of the settlement.

 

The proposal would therefore be contrary to policies EN1, EN6 and C9 of the Adopted Melton Local Plan 2018 and ENV 8 and H7(d) of the Clawson, Hose and Harby Neighbourhood Plan 2018.

 

(9 for, 1 abstention)

 

(Councillor Steadman here re-joined the meeting.)