Agenda item

Land south of Cleves Close, Melton Mowbray

Reference:	19/01130/OUT
Location:	Land south of Cleves Close, Melton Mowbray
Proposal:	Outline application for the erection of 10 dwellings of different house types and access only

 

(Councillor Posnett here left the meeting due to her personal and pecuniary interest declared at Minute PL89.)

 

The Planning Officer (KT) addressed the Committee and provided a summary of the application and summarised that the recommendation was for approval subject to the following updates:

 

·         Environment Agency was to be added to the Plans list

·         Due to the current use of the site and the building materials stored there, a new condition could be included relating to keeping a watching brief on contamination issues

·         The application be delegated to the Assistant Director for Planning and Delivery to enable a s106 agreement to be completed

 

The Planning Officer responded to the following Member questions:

 

·         There was an indication that a footpath would be included at the access but if not could be added at the reserved matters stage

·         The site currently had agricultural use

·         Cleves Close was not adopted

·         The applicant had a right of access including services to the site

·         Planning permission did not override private rights and this needed to be by negotiation with relevant parties

·         Management arrangements with existing residents needed to be discussed with those residents

 

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:

 

·         Damian Ferguson

 

·         Nick Cooper, HSSP

 

In response to a Member question, Mr Cooper advised that the applicant had consulted their solicitor and they had right of access to the site and to access services.

 

In response to Member questions, the Planning Officer responded :

 

·         She was comfortable that an appropriately sized access could be achieved

·         The applicant owned the land up to the edge of the blocked paving

·         It was usual for existing service points such as the water hydrant around the gate to be relocated as required

·         There was currently no certainty as to where the development would start on the site

·         Adoption of the new access roadway into the site would be dealt with at reserved matters. The existing Cleves Close was not adopted

 

During discussion the following points were noted:

 

·         The S106 Agreement that the development would trigger would benefit the wider community and provide significant sums towards the bypass, education and a second doctors’ surgery

·         Ownership of the site was not a planning matter

·         The houses were not in the flood area

·         The development would open up the view to the river for the rest of the community

·         It was helpful to include a watching brief condition on contamination due to the building materials on the site

·         The houses would be positioned higher than the river

 

A point of order was raised as to whether the Cabinet Member for Growth and Prosperity had an interest in the application given his support for the benefits of a S106 Agreement. The Legal Advisor confirmed that developer contributions to be gained from any application were in the general public interest and so would not create a specific interest in these circumstances.

 

·         Several Members felt it was a flood plain and there was only a metre from the flood area and flood zones changed with time

·         There was concern at building houses next to an ecological site as lighting, cars, people, domestic animals such as cats and dogs being so close would wipe out that enhancement

·         It was felt the development did not accord with the climate emergency and the houses would be at risk of flood

·         It was suggested that a full application would have been preferable so that Members could fully understand how the site would work. To approve at outline could store problems for the future that could not be undone

·         It was pointed out that there was a tide mark from the most recent flooding and that was the area where the houses would be built

·         Some Members were minded to refuse on flooding and ecological reasons, being policies EN1, EN2 and EN3. 

·         Policy EN8 relating to climate change was also considered as a reason  however this was felt to need evidence on flooding and to not have evidence would make the Council weaker at appeal, therefore this policy was not included in the reasons for refusal

·         There was a concern that the applicant may choose to build only one house but it was noted that the application was for 10 houses therefore the applicant could not build less than 10

·         A condition on the houses being built on floodzone 1 had been drafted by the Environment Agency

 

Councillor Higgins proposed the recommendations in the report to include a watching brief condition on the contamination issue. Councillor Faulkner seconded the motion. On being put the vote the motion was lost.

(3 for, 7 against)

 

Councillor Steadman proposed that the application be refused due to being in  conflict with policies EN1, EN2 and EN3. Councillor Wood seconded the motion.

 

RESOLVED

 

That application 19/01130/OUT be REFUSED, contrary to the Officer recommendations set out in the report, for the following reasons:

 

The application was in conflict with policies EN1, EN2 and EN3 as a result of its impact on the distinctive local natural environment including the setting of the River Eye and the proposed provisions for wildlife.

 

(7 for, 1 against, 2 abstentions)

 

(Councillor Higgins requested that his vote against the resolution to refuse the application be recorded.)

 

(Councillor Posnett here re-joined the meeting.)