Agenda item

Easthorpe Lodge, Manor Road, Easthorpe

Reference:	20/00295/FUL
Location:	Easthorpe Lodge, Manor Road, Easthorpe
Proposal:	Proposed residential development comprising 36 houses and associated access, infrastructure and landscaping

 

The Assistant Director for Planning and Delivery addressed the Committee and provided a summary of the application and summarised that the recommendation was for approval. He reported that there had been many requests for community benefits to be included in the s106 agreement.

 

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:

 

·         Councillor Bob Bayman, Bottesford Parish Council

Councillor Bayman responded to Member questions as follows:

·      His preference for the s106 agreement would be access from the site into the village, widening the path and putting in a cycle path and to exclude bus passes as there were no buses to Easthorpe

·      There was not enough supply to the area in terms of Severn Trent Water and he understood this was not a flood zone.

 

·         Joe Taylor, Gusto Group, Agent

Mr Taylor responded to Member questions as follows:

·      It was confirmed as part of the workshop consultation with Councillors that affordable homes were not required on the site and this was also confirmed with the Housing Officer

·      The same principle on affordable housing applied at their Lincoln site

·      A late response had been received from the LFA and the developers’ engineers were looking at the discharge of the water course to the south

·      They had looked into the discount model and shared ownership until they received the view from the Ward Councillor that due to provision in other areas, affordable housing was not needed for this development 

·      Workshop meetings with Planning Officers and Councillors had been set up by the Planning Officers

·      They had liaised with the Housing Officer and Planning Officers regarding affordable homes and due to the balance and provision in the local area, Officers had accepted their proposal

·      They supported working with the Parish Council and the Highway Authority on traffic issues but nothing in the responses led them to a requirement for the widening of the footpath but they were prepared to work with and help wherever possible although much of the land in question was outside their ownership and they would need to work with third parties on these matters  

 

·         Councillor Don Pritchett, Ward Councillor

 

The Assistant Director for Planning and Delivery commented as follows:

 

·         On affordable housing, the report did not state there was no demand, it said there was good supply in the pipeline

·         The workshops referred to were started in 2019 and had been an integral part of major schemes and had been so successful that they formed part of the planning review requested by Members. They were frequently held and were helpful to all parties. Members expressed support for the workshops

·         Easthorpe was considered sustainable enough to attract housing development such that it attracted housing allocations in the Local Plan

·         There was a list of desirables for the s106 and a list of adverse effects of the development however weighting could be applied in favour of the eco credentials but it was for Members to make a judgement

 

During discussion the following points were noted:

 

·           There was concern at the ongoing water pressure issues in the Vale and particular in Bottesford, Muston and Easthorpe and that it felt irresponsible to approve more development when these infrastructure issues had not been resolved

·           There was concern at potential flooding which the report did not address

·           There would be an increase in cars and traffic movements for the small hamlet

·           Bottesford was in need of affordable homes and that this had not been included was a serious omission

·           The design of the homes was not strong, the medieval settlement had been ignored and it was felt the report did not cover all matters

·           It was felt the developer had been wrongly advised on affordable housing as this was desperately needed in this area and if not on this development then the cashflow contribution would support affordable housing in other parts of the Borough

·           It was considered the application did not meet several policies and Members were minded to refuse the application

·           It was felt that the eco credentials of the development were of value and a revised application would be welcomed which addressed all of the issues raised

 

Councillor Steadman proposed that the application be refused, on the grounds of being in conflict with policies EN4, EN6, EN13, D1 and C2 of the Local Plan and relevant paragraphs of the NPPF relating to heritage assets and policies 8, 18 and 19 of the Neighbourhood Plan.  Councillor Holmes seconded the motion.

 

RESOLVED

 

That application 20/00295/FUL be REFUSED, contrary to the Officer

recommendation, on the grounds of being in conflict with policies EN4, EN6, EN13, D1 and C2 of the Local Plan and relevant paragraphs of the NPPF relating to heritage assets and policies 8, 18 and 19 of the Neighbourhood Plan. 

 

(Unanimous)