Agenda item

Land Around Sherbrook House And Millway Foods, Colston Lane, Harby

	Applicant:	Croft Developments Limited
	Location:	Land around Sherbrook House and Millway Foods, Colston Lane, Harby
	Proposal:	Outline application for the erection of 50 dwellings with associated access, landscaping and infrastructure.

(a)  The Regulatory Services Manager stated that: There have been no updates following the publication of the agenda. For the record , note that the applicants have agreed to pay the developer contribution for the village hall ( page 11 of report).

 

This is an application for outline planning permission for 50 dwellings with associated infrastructure. The only matters for consideration at this stage are the principle of development and the vehicular access. A single point of access is proposed from Colston Lane .

The site is a mix of greenfield and brownfield land between the existing edge of the built area of the village and the vacant former Millway Foods site.

 

The main considerations are compliance with policy and the NPPF, sustainable development ,impact upon the character of the countryside and  highway safety .

 

The site is outside the old village envelope for Harby ,but it is situated between the village and the former Millway Foods site where outline planning permission was granted on appeal in January this year for 53 houses . Harby is a sustainable village ,with a range of facilities which can accommodate some growth .The development of the current application site is a reasonably logical proposal which would deliver housing in general and affordable housing in particular. Due to its location the impact of the development upon the character and appearance of the countryside would be limited .

 

The developer has agreed to make all of the contributions which have been requested .

 

The Highway Authority considers that the proposed access is acceptable. They have requested that the development should provide a new footway ,to link in with the existing footway on the opposite side of the road, which would help to make the site accessible.

It is recommended that permission is granted subject to a section 106 agreement to secure the developer contributions which have been requested and the conditions which are listed in this report.

 

(b)  Cllr Philip Tillyard, on behalf of Clawson, Hose and Harby Parish Council, was invited to speak and stated that:

 

·         Concerns regarding the cumulative effect on the housing proposals within the village of Harby.

·         As part of the emerging local plan Harby was allocated 98 new dwelling over a 20 year period. If this proposal is accepted we will be up to 138. Far too many now.

·         There is currently planning permission granted for 78 houses and if you add windfalls to that, it takes it to 88.

·         Cumulative effect on the local school. Officers report states 12 school places will be generated by this development. Other applications don’t appear to have been taken into consideration.

·         Currently 83 children on school role. County Council states105 capacity but practicality should be 95. No school hall. Disassemble classrooms at lunchtime.

·         Suggest deferral or refusal regarding provision for the school.

 

Cllr Rhodes noted that this was new information regarding school and he had believed the school could cope.

 

Cllr Tillyard confirmed that he had spoken to the deputy head of the school.

 

Cllr Higgins asked if Cllr Tillyard had spoken to the other school.

 

Cllr Tillyard responded that they accept the position regarding the school at Hose. In the secondary school provision it takes in to account the other developments however there is no mention of this for the primary schools.

 

Cllr Faulkner asked if there had been any discussions regarding the expected numbers in the next 5 years. Could get the figures from the birth registers.

 

Cllr Tillyard stated that when he had spoken to the deputy head they had no figures for September yet. But the numbers generally seem to go up. Presume the County Council get their figures from the birth registers.

 

(c)  Philip Goodman, on behalf of the objectors, was invited to speak and stated that:

 

·         Too large for village.

·         Harmful to the local character and appearance.

·         Too many houses at too great a density.

·         Piece meal, uncoordinated development with no regard to adjoining derelict site at Millway. Should be considered together with regards to physical cumulative impact and visual impact.

·         Combined impact on unsustainable traffic conditions, school places and the village hall.

·         Not in accordance with NPPF and emerging local plan settlement policy. To be fair that has changed as the status of Harby has changed. Note that the local plan has been delayed deliberately.

·         Premature without local plans.

·         Pedestrian links to the village and canal need improvement to provide safe access.

·         Mixed brownfield and greenfield site. Error in report as NPPF excludes agricultural buildings from the definition of brownfield land.

·         Proposed access proposal appears to offer a new footpath along the site frontage. This has already been proffered in connection with the Millway scheme. However makes no reference to the necessary improvement to the existing 1 metre wide footpath on the south side of Colston Lane. Cumulative effect on pedestrian safety.

 

(d)  Andrew Gore, agent for the applicant, was invited to speak and stated that:

 

·         Village of Harby is identified in the emerging local plan as a service centre, meaning that it has 4 of the identified essential criteria that allows the village to serve the basic day to day needs of its residents.

·         The site is draft allocated in the emerging plan for a total 50 houses. The scale of the proposal is Inline with the draft plan and policies.

·         The draft policy states that the development will be supported if it addresses: 1) The Colston lane frontage. 2) Biodiversity improvements. 3) Footpath links. 4) Northern and Western site boundaries are sensitively treated with additional landscaping.

·         Applicant will address these points: Frontage development facing on to Colston Lane. Will propose additional landscaping to Northern and Western boundaries. Significant biodiversity enhancements adjacent to the canal and Millway Foods site. A footpath link will be provided to allow the scheme to link up with the village.

·         Included within housing land supply figure.

·         Will provide policy compliant affordable housing – 18 dwellings.

·         Contribution of over £100,000 towards the new Harby village hall.

·         LEA supplied renewed figures/comments. No request for primary/secondary or further education from the LEA. They are satisfied that the school has capacity.

·         The development is sustainable and the benefits will significantly outweigh the impacts.

 

The Regulatory Services Manager addressed the issues raised: 

·         Supplementary request to ensure the education advice was based on current information. Advice is contributions are not required especially for primary school.

·         There will be an impact on village hall  but the developer has offered a contribution.

·         Highways deemed access to be acceptable. Provision of new footpath is acceptable to highways requirements.

·         Neighbourhood plan is not sufficiently advanced so little weight can be given.

·         Cumulative impact – we look at if the village can cope with drainage, infrastructure and education as set out in the report. On the assessment of those facilities the answer is yes. Harder to define – impact upon landscape and other important assets. It’s a fairly flat and reasonably well screened site between the village and a semi derelict site therefore harm to landscape would be difficult to argue.

·         Site status – only bit of the site which is potentially brownfield is the agricultural buildings at the front of the site. Majority of the site is greenfield. If the buildings were not classed as brownfield they are in the minority anyway.

 

Cllr Rhodes proposed to defer the application to gain further information regarding education contributions and clarity of school places.

 

Cllr Baguley seconded the proposal to defer.

 

A Member noted that The Regulatory Services Manager had recently checked the figures regarding education and that County  Council had stated that they were correct.

 

The Chair asked if the County Council  had taken in to account applications that had been previously granted but not completed.

 

The Regulatory Services Manager confirmed that he had asked them to check to ensure their comments took in to account all recent, relevant  decisions.

 

Members noted that there was no harm in checking again and as the authority  would not be able to seek a contribution retrospectively.

 

A vote was taken. 4 Members voted in favour of deferral. There were 6 abstentions.

 

DETERMINATION: DEFERRED to enable officers to check the capacity of local schools, in particular the primary school, to establish whether a developer contribution for education is necessary.