Agenda item

Application 20/01135/REM

Canal Lane, Hose

Minutes:

Reference:

20/01135/REM

Location:

Field OS 6260, Canal Lane, Hose

Proposal:

Application for the approval of reserved matters for layout of 34 dwellings and appearance and scale of 5 dwellings in relation to outline consent 19/00859/OUT

 

The Senior Planning Officer (AC) addressed the Committee and provided a summary of the application and summarised that the recommendation was for approval.

 

Members raised the following and officers responded :

 

·         The housing mix and high number of 3 bed plus homes and the low number of affordable homes.

Response: The housing mix was in line with the policy and Neighbourhood Plan. Should the balance be tilted with further applications on the site, the percentage of smaller sized homes would then change.

 

·         Concern at the Severn Trent Water condition not being required as detailed in the report.

Response: This was already included in the outline consent and to include it again would be a duplication.

 

·         The water supply and pressure to villages in the Vale was already poor yet Severn Trent Water had raised no concerns to this development. It was felt this was due to commercial benefit rather than assessing the water supply.

Response: This matter had been raised with Severn Trent Water and the company were partners in producing the local plan so were aware of the housing need. Discussions were ongoing with Severn Trent Water to address this concern at a strategic level as it is a recurring issue.

 

·         In terms of the s106 agreement, when building larger houses, did this increase the viability meaning communities could receive more from larger sized housing. 

Response: Contributions were related to needs and infrastructure that was agreed on the principle of development not on housing type. However it was noted that all parties had been satisfied to receive what they had requested on this development.

 

It was mentioned that the housing mix would also be addressed for future applications on the site.

 

There were no public speakers registered for this application.

 

During discussion the following points were noted:

 

·         The Ward Councillor and Parish Council supported the proposal

·         The bungalows, architecture and design of the development was acceptable

·         The applicant should note that the next phase needed 3 bed housing and affordables not bungalows

·         It was mentioned that youth provision was needed for villages with significant new development for family homes such as this

·         It was requested that the Parish Council be involved in allocating affordable homes and it was noted that a cascade plan was already in place and would be applied which included consultation with the Parish and Ward Councillors

·         There was concern at the Severn Trent Water provision

·         It was mentioned that due to more people working from home, 4 bed homes would become more desirable to accommodate home office space

 

Councillor Higgins proposed that the application be approved. Councillor Posnett seconded the motion.

 

(Councillor Hewson entered the meeting at 18.19 and took no part in the debate nor the vote on this application.)

 

RESOLVED

 

That application 20/01135/REM be APPROVED subject to conditions set out at Appendix C.

 

(Unanimous)

 

REASONS

 

The application site is allocated for housing in both the Melton Local Plan and the Neighbourhood Plan and outline planning permission for the development has been granted. The principle of the access and the number of units proposed were approved at outline stage.

 

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 and scale of 5 of the dwellings and the layout of all 34 dwellings.

 

The development would not unduly compromise residential amenity, or be harmful to highway safety. The scheme is considered to be respectful to the character of the area and would not cause substantial harm to the significance of designated and non-designated heritage assets.

Supporting documents: