Agenda item

Land adjacent to Crompton Road, Asfordby Hill

Reference:	20/00470/OUT
Location:	Land adjacent Crompton Road, Asfordby Hill
Proposal:	Outline planning application for the erection of up to 100 dwellings with all matters reserved other than means of access

 

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 with the conditions listed at Appendix A. He displayed a plan showing the access points and the issues that were raised at the last meeting and reported that the buffer had been reduced by 10 per cent to improve amenity on the site. The plans showed there was a turning area and access for emergency vehicles was sufficient.

 

There was concern at the width of the roads on the site and the Assistant Director responded that the roads within the new development would be wider than the existing road structure.

 

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:

 

·                Dr David Unwin

Dr Unwin responded to Member questions as follows:

·         The Assistant Director queried Dr Unwin’s claim that the traffic would be twice that that the applicant had stated. Dr Unwin explained that there was an expectation for at least 2 cars per household which increased the current position of 1.76 cars per household. Then there was family growth and he considered each household would eventually have 3 or 4 cars which would be more than double the number given in the application

·         2 way flow of traffic was currently impossible and there were already issues when passing anything larger than a car such as delivery vans and waste collection vehicles

 

·                Sam Silcocks of Harris Lamb

Mr Silcocks responded to Member questions as follows:

·           The Parish Council had been consulted on the application and had been involved in the workshops but had not made a formal submission

·           A statement including the impact on heritage assets had been submitted with the application

·           The highways consultant had checked vehicle movements and it was noted that car ownership was a different form of data

·           This was an allocated site for development and the highway impact had been accepted as environmentally sound as had access to facilities

·           With regard to the increase in vehicle ownership in growing families, this was a nationally accepted form of data taken into account in all planning applications

 

·                Councillor de Burle, Ward Councillor

Councillor de Burle responded to Member questions as follows:

·           The applicant had engaged since the last meeting but had not listened to the issues raised at the meeting

·           The people who lived there now would be most affected by the amount of new vehicles coming to the development

·           He represented the Parish Council’s view and both Ward Councillors were concerned and he could not offer an alternative or solution to the problems raised by the proposed development

·           The school was very busy and most families travelled to and from school by car

·           The Local Plan was not contested as people did not consider that there could be building on that site due to the access restrictions

 

The Assistant Director confirmed that the Housing Policy Officer would have checked waiting lists and demand when coming to a conclusion on the affordable housing position. There were currently no bungalows planned for the site but Members could influence the housing mix at that meeting.

 

During discussion the following points were noted:

 

·         Concern at the impact on the already busy junction onto Asfordby Road

·         Concern at the impact on the neighbouring village, Kirby Bellars, and its heritage assets

·         It was felt that Asfordby Hill was a gateway to Melton and the historic views and landscape should be preserved

·         Consideration was given for refusal under paragraph 200 of the NPPF and under policies EN4 EN6, EN13 and C1a

·         Concern at the use of the existing access roads into the site which would degrade the conditions for existing residents

·         The LCC Highways approach was not supported and Members were surprised and concerned that no issues had been raised

·         Members were mindful of future bypass development and the potential for a shortcut to the Mine Road and how this could impact on traffic in that area

·         It was felt that more houses on the site would spoil the access and views to local heritage assets

·         With regard to impact around the school, there was concern for highway safety and potential danger to children coming and going from the school

·         It was felt that the 1960s roads could not accommodate any more vehicle movements

·         The Assistant Director advised that a refusal on the grounds of highways would be unlikely to be upheld due to the extensive assessment and detailed traffic analysis and the professional advice received from the Highway Authority

·         Members did not agree with the Highways report and some felt that this should still be contested

·         It was mentioned that cars were seen parked on the verges on a Sunday morning

·         It was felt that the 30-40 houses on the site in addition to that allocated in the Local Plan would have a detrimental impact

·         It was noted that there was a conflict with the Local Plan having allocated the site for development

·         It was suggested that the housing mix could be changed to add in some bungalows as these were needed in the area

·         It was mentioned that if the number of units were reduced, it was likely the developer would come back with a request for a smaller number of larger homes

 

Councillor Steadman proposed that the application be refused due to being in conflict with Local Plan policies EN1, EN4, EN6, EN13, C1A and paragraph 200 of the NPPF 2021 arising from its impact on the landscape (including ‘Area of Separation’) and the setting of identified Heritage Assets that the above policies seek to protect. Councillor Browne seconded the motion.

 

RESOLVED

 

That application 20/00470/OUT be REFUSED, contrary to the Officer recommendation, due to being in conflict with Local Plan policies EN1, EN4, EN6, EN13, C1A and paragraph 200 of the NPPF 2021 arising from its impact on the landscape (including ‘Area of Separation’) and the setting of identified Heritage Assets that the above policies seek to protect.

 

(Unanimous)

 

(There was a short adjournment following the decision of the foregoing application.)