Transcript

Thank you. >> Thank you. Welcome to those following the meeting via the Zoom Webcast. Just a word of warning. I have had internet issues today. So if it does drop out, I apologise for the meeting. We will continue. As always, please can those speaking, ensure their microphones are switched on for the benefit of those listed online. And to members of the public for you to observe, we will speak to a particular answer item. Please feel free to leave as well. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Please feel free to leave the meeting once the item is concluded. Onto the agenda proper. Firstly, apologies, David. Do we have any? Apologies for them, Councillors. It's an eligible campaign this evening. But look, in the accounts of them, they would count into eight. Vote into eight, sorry. Vote into eight, thank you. Agenda item two, minutes from the 27th of February 2024, and the 19th of March 2024. Do we take these together? Separate. Separate. Any comments about the 27th of February? If not, please, can I have a proposal and a seconder, proposed by Andrew Brown, seconded by Giles. All those in favour? I see your numbers. Thank you, Chair. I'll stand. I'll stand. I'll stand. Yeah, thank you. Thank you. And again, for the minutes, for the 19th of March. For a proposal, Councillor Ray Payne and a seconder, Councillor Tim Smith. All those in favour? I see your numbers. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Agenda item three, decorated of interest in accordance with the regulations, members who desire to declare any discloseable interest under the Code of Conduct and the nature of those interest in respect of items on this agenda and/or indicative section 106 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 applies to them. Do we have any declarations of interest? There are none. Additions, deputations and questions. There have been no deputations received just for members classification regarding application 230820UT. As it had deferred at the previous meeting and part heard, there is no scope for speakers this time round. This is in line with the public speaking scheme within the constitution. We now move on to agenda item five, planning applications. Item five is report number 2324, detailing two applications for consideration. 5A202308220UT. Secretary of State for Defence, Officers Mess, 16 Regiment Royal Artillery, St George's Barrowt, Well and Road, Edith Western. Demolition and site clearance and redevelopment of the site for residential use and 168 square metres of use. Class E force plate open spaces, access, landscape and infrastructure associated works. Outline application with all matters reserved for the main points of access. I pass over to Mr Threller who will present the report. Thank you, Chairman. I will just briefly run through sort of the slides that were put at the previous meeting. There are some new slides on the end to address the deferred matters. The application site, as you said, is the Officer's Mess. It's separate to the main St George's Barrowt's by Edith Western. It's located to the south side of Manton Road in the corner there with, I think, the west side of Edith Western Road. The area photograph of the site shows its relationship to the rest of the village. This is an illustrative plan that was provided by the applicant to show how the proposed 85 units could be accommodated on the site. The main point of access is on the north side of the development here. There is a secondary private access to serve these properties. No more than six properties there. At the south-east corner of the site, one of the deferred matters, this particular access is currently proposed as emergency vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists only. Just quickly go through some photographs showing where the site is located. These are taken from the direction of North Lufflin. Looking back across the agricultural fields towards the land. The photograph here shows the existing access at the south- east corner of the site. The photograph on the left is taken from the island at the north-east corner of the site and then looking back towards west along the northern boundary with Manton Road. Looking inside the site is taken from the northwest corner, looking back along the northern frontage and then down the western boundary. This is the southwestern corner of the site where there is an existing tennis court. You can see the views that look out over the valley beyond. Some photographs are taken within the site showing some of the existing trees, the natives being retained and the photograph on the right shows the front of the existing offices mass building. Similar photographs within the site. The left hand photograph shows the southwestern end of one of the buildings on site and the other is looking back east along the southern frontage of the buildings back towards that secondary access point. Further examples of the trees within the site looking to be retained as part of the scheme and then a frontage of the existing offices mass building, the main sort of building on the side of the site itself. We then got some of the garages along the northern elevation and you can just make out the old schoolhouse beyond that solicited building that lies outside the site. And then the photograph on the right hand side is taken from Manton Road looking east into the site. These being the accommodation block within the site. And finally from directly opposite the site and Manton Road, you can see the existing situation. The mature trees that form the northern boundary of the site. The fencing, the security fencing that surrounds the whole of the site and then the existing buildings beyond. Planning policies were as listed in the main report. On to the deferred matters from the previous meeting. The first of these was to investigate the provision of a controlled crossing on Manton Road, facilitating pedestrian crossing from the site to the north side of the road in particular, realating to access to the primary school. The second point was to investigate the provision of a second access point at the southeast corner for general vehicular access. And then the third was to request that the applicant reduced the number of proposed dwellings within the site from up to 85 as submitted. There is an addendum item for this before you this evening. And obviously the update report that was provided addresses these matters. Essentially, in conclusion with regard to the controlled crossing, there is no technical justification considered to require such a controlled crossing on Manton Road. There is still a requirement for a zebra crossing within the conditions but there's no justification for anything more than that zebra crossing. Point two with regard to the secondary access. There isn't a highways justification for requiring the provision of a second general access to the site. There are some impediments to the provision of an access at that location anyway with a mature tree that is located outside the site and outside the highway boundary. And therefore, as a result, there's no guarantee that that issue could be resolved. Obviously, it would be within the remit of the owner of that tree whether or not to agree to its removal, but we can't guarantee that at this point. And as noted in any case, there isn't a highways technical need for a secondary access to serve a site of this scale. Finally, then, in relation to the reduction of the number of dwellings proposed on the site, the applicant has confirmed following the request that they would seek committee to make determination on the number of dwellings as originally proposed being up to 85. In sort of assessment of that again, obviously the main report does consider some of that and there are some further comments in the addendum report. Office's conclusions is that development density proposed on the site is proportional to that within the remainder of the village. The proposal does include a high proportion of smaller properties which inevitably increases the overall number of dwellings but not necessarily results in a sort of a cramped feeling of development. And in conclusion, therefore, office is considered that there isn't justification for refusal of the scheme on the basis of the number of dwellings proposed within the site. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you. We're now going to general debate. Can I just remind members that as a deferred matter, we're only discussing those items that we're deferred and we're not here to debate the whole proposal again. Members, questions? Councillor Smith. Would it be possible just to have some clarification on what we're actually deciding this evening? Because I noted in the Office of Valoration, the application is made in our time with only matters of access for approval at this stage. So what does the access mean? Does it mean the two accesses we've been talking about or access to the site in general? You're going to clarify that. No? So access to the site is essentially the points and the design of the detailed accesses. That being this point here, the private access there. And at that point, insofar as it relates to pedestrian cyclists and emergency vehicles. Yeah, that's right. I want to clarify. You're the point I want to clarify. It's an outline application. So it indicates the proposed number of units that could be accommodated within the site. So we're not deciding today the number of properties that could be built on the site. So what is proposed before you this evening is for up to 85 and the 168 square metres of class E floor space. The reserve matters that would follow an application should it be approved this evening would then need to specify the layout and the detail of those properties. So it may be that a reserve matters that follows this would come in for fewer properties. There's nothing to prevent that. What there is is the hard limit on the upper limit, if you like, of numbers to 85 as a result. Thank you. That's what I want to notice. It's the upper limit that it clarifies. Thank you. Councillor West. Sorry. A point of classification as a novice. At the moment, the neighbourhood plan isn't made. And at the moment, the local plan isn't accepted. If this comes back at a later stage when the neighbourhood plan is made, does the neighbourhood plan then carry more weight than it does now? So the weight to be given to policy documents increases as they progress through the adoption stage. I think it's set out in the main report that at present the emerging draft local plan carries no weight. The emerging neighbourhood plan carries limited weight due to again the stage of preparation that they are at. As they progress through those stages, then they will gain more substantial weight and according to how far along the process they are. Next, sorry. I think what Councillor I'll try to say is when this comes back as a reserve matters, can we give more weight to the plan as they are at that point or if it's decided as they are now? No. So the reserve matters would be considered under the policies that are relevant at the time in the weight of those documents that they gain at that stage in the process. Thank you. Councillor will be. Thank you, Chair. It's not a question really, it's just an observation I have and I thought long and hard about this at about four o'clock this morning. In the original scheme of things a few years ago, there was a vision for St. George's Barracks and that was quite a big vision and the officers' mess site was an also ran which might have been there, might have been a hotel, it might have been anything else, but to help the whole vision, there was 29.4 million pounds, I think, provided by the government to make sure that the infrastructure, electricity, roads, works, and all the other things were done. Now, I'm not throwing any. Councillor, does this relate to this application? Yes, it does. I think it's a general observation on this application here, if I may, because I would just like to hope that our officers have got the time to make sure, and they're not being pressured from above, to make sure that all the infrastructure things that go along with the whole of this and the number of houses that could come are quite considerable. We know we have got problems with electricity coming in, IT coming in, sewage, water, all those sort of things. Whilst I can't negate the proposal, all I would say was I really hope that we are making sure that the considerations are being done in the back. Thank you, Councillor Wilby. I'm not sure that's relevant. Sorry, Justin. Sorry, Chairman. Just to point out, obviously, with regards to infrastructure for the development, the Council's a civil charging authority, so we will be taking a civil contributions that will then be able to mitigate the impacts of the development. With regard to the, I think, the wider scheme that was eventually withdrawn, for 29 million, I think that was in part due to a viability issue with the wider scheme that didn't relate to this site, particularly it was more the other side of the road, and that there was a contribution from government to aid towards viability, but it's not relevant to this. Thank you, Justin. Just to be clear, that is not relevant tonight. We're looking at this application, the standalone application, as we do with all planning applications. Any further questions, please? Councillor Brown, you were slightly ahead of, Councillor Colby. Thank you, Chairman. It seems to me we're in the same situation as we were at the end of the last meeting, and I can't see that there are any grounds to refuse this application, as there's nothing that we can depend or defend at an appeal, which would be inevitable if we were to refuse it. Thank you, Councillor Colby. Yeah, I've just, a couple of things really. The Pelican crossing. On what basis is there no justification for a full Pelican crossing, and how do we sort this out? That road, I know it's a massive speeding issue. It's a straight road, and I just wondered how we, you know, the difference between looking at the Zebra crossing and the Pelican crossing, and given, I know that road very, very well, it concerns me that, you know, kid is potentially crossing the road on a Zebra crossing against a Pelican crossing. So why has the Pelican crossing been dismissed at this point? Basically, it's the amount of football that would be generated by that development, combined with the level of traffic, and it has to be quite a high football for it to warrant a pedestrian signalised crossing. Does that balance the safety implications I'm thinking of with children? And the reason for that is also the calculations. Is that assumed traffic is going at 30 miles per hour? Traffic is going 50 miles an hour. I just, again, just want to understand a little bit more of what you were going to make. So as this will progress through, the Zebra crossing design will have to go through a road safety audit process, and speeds are a factor that's taken into account on that as, or will be taken into account on that as well. So if I am aware, there is concerns about the speed of traffic. So it might be that they need to incorporate other measures, perhaps narrowings, perhaps give ways, slowing the vehicles coming down into a long mountain road towards the development, maybe giving the vehicles going out priority over the others coming in. So it might be that there's some other factors that need to be taken into account, but because we're not at the detailed design stage yet, or the developer isn't rather, we can't really fully consider that yet. But it will be at that time. Is it something we can condition? I don't think it's something that we would necessarily need to consider, need to condition, because there would be a condition on that the, I think we have a condition on about the detailed design of the Zebra crossing. So effectively that would deal with it because it would have to go through, as Julie said, the road safety audit and that would then form part of the submission, not only for the planning condition, but also for the works within the highway as well. So there's two sets of sort of legislation and design that would sign it off. And it would have control over that. Just to sort of confirm that, condition 18 relates to the provision of the Zebra crossing and requires not just the detailed plan shown in the Zebra crossing, but also fully iterative stage one safety audit and designer's response for the approval of the LPA. So that's because I asked for one question of clarity for the office first. Can I just ask whether or not the upgrade to Pelican crossing was has been denied due to the highways issues or has the developer said they will not contribute towards it? Would the applicant be willing to upgrade? Has that question been asked? I think we have had the discussion with the applicant, but I think they concluded, and that's as our highways team, that it's not justified. So that was a response that they don't believe it's justified. Our internal highways team was confirmed that it's not justified either. Thank you. Councillor PAIN. Thank you, Chair. I don't want to rehash the arguments. And a lot of what I was going to say was being covered by members of this committee. I do have a feeling that we're in danger of missing a very good opportunity here. To me, we're not getting this particular development integrated with the existing village at all. It's just sort of sitting there on its own. We're discussing things like crossings and ways that the development can go into the village. I'm aware that there was going to be a shop and there is already a shop in the village. These are things that we seem to be missing in terms of the whole thing. Now, I know we're in a process and we haven't finished that process yet, but I just feel that there are lots of potential mishaps that we could be falling into. Councillor PAIN, tonight we can only discuss the elements that have been deferred. And as an outrun application, when the reserve matters come to us, some things such as detail and layouts and potentially shops that we discussed at that point. I appreciate that, Chair. It's one I shall say no more. Thank you. It might just be worth having, Chair, for me, just to remind members that the Class E floor space doesn't necessarily mean that the shop will come forward. It will be any uses within Class E. Thank you. Councillor SMITH. I'd like to speak as board member, Chair. Of course. I think the first point I'd like to make is that although it is outside the planning limits of development, the US Western neighbourhood plan accepts that the site is suitable for development. And as we know it, the neighbourhood plan is at Reg 1816. And he does have policies on the opposite of the next site. If you look at them, they are well thought out and they were thought very acceptable to the applicant and planning authority. In the capacity housing report that was in the neighbourhood, each Western neighbourhood plan, it pointed out that a conflict sees the upper figure for growth of 51 dwellings. And that is the number of houses that each Western neighbourhood plan would recommend for the office's mess site. I would point out that in various applications, significant note has been made on neighbourhood plans. For example, in the recent appeal against decision to turn down eight dwellings in Cottismore, the inspector particularly pointed out the neighbourhood plan as a reason for turning that down. And again, although the point has been made that at this stage, it only has some influence. Councillor WISE has made the point, I was going to make it, that when the full application comes through, that neighbourhood plan will be made, and I guess at that stage will have significant influence. The other issue I'd like to bring up is the question of displays, except I'm not a higher engineer. But I passed that access point regularly. It's pretty well every day. And I have stopped on a number of occasions because I need to get my phone to work. And I thought coming today, I pulled in and had a lot, like set, looking south. The tree is there. But it's a 30 mile hour limit, and you can see perfectly well down road. I accept that props as ever crossing is sufficient. I regret also that the question of the officer's mess has been overturned, basically, as it was not listed. But basically in conclusion, I think it's regrettable. There appears to be no room for compromise. The idea to western neighbourhood planning agrees that the site should be developed, which is a bit unusual. Most people who are outside the planets of New England can get turned down those grounds, or try and get it turned down those grounds. It's well thought out policies. For example, on the views, et cetera. And I think the compromise could be on access and on the number of houses. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Do you want to come back on that, Justin? So if I can just come back on a couple of points. So the visibility space from the access at the bottom here, and we talk about the tree. I think that we mentioned the tree, as really an additional item, that there is an issue from a technical point of view on that. But that isn't the main reason for it not being needed. The key point is that from a highways technical point of view, there is no need and no requirement and justification for this site to have two accesses. So in terms of if members were to refuse an application on that ground, I do not believe that we could defend that at appeal. If we could, you know, if I thought we could defend it, then, you know, we would be insisting on it from the applicant. The fact is, I do not think we can. There are far bigger sites than this. Over 100 dwellings would be quite capable of being served off a single access point. So that is not an argument that we can defend at appeal. The other point that I take about the housing numbers, the housing numbers are a requirement, but they're a minimum. They're not a maximum in terms of what is required. In terms of the national planning policy framework, that one of the requirements is that we make the best use of land. Because if we don't make the best use of land, the houses are going to be built on other potentially less desirable and greenfield sites. Now, in this particular case, the Council's adopted policy is for 30 dwellings to the hectare. And I think the developers taking into account the densities of the village and coming up with a scheme that would, you know, be in character with that. I think the current proposals for this are around 22 dwellings to that. So it's already reduced below what our policy would require on the basis that it's taken into account that, yes, there are lower densities in the area, and that would be appropriate. So the developers have taken that on board. I appreciate that it might not be to the extent that local residents would want it to do. But it is in terms of, you know, from an officer's point of view, we believe a reasonable density. And in addition to that, it's an indicative one at this time. It is a reserve matter. So when the reserve matters come in, we will obviously have the opportunity to consider the design, the space around the dwellings, the density to make sure that it is fully in compliance. So we do still have control over that. But a target, a maximum of 85 dwellings were based on the information that we've had. Be reasonable. Council-wise. I think it's—I hear what my colleague is saying, but I think it's fair to say, and I think they say it very well in the neighbourhood plan, that their suggested density of housing is related to the facilities that are available in that village, the bus service, the medical services, the size of the school, and a number of other things. And I think they make that very clear in the neighbourhood plan from my memory of it. So I think it's a little bit—I accept that at this stage it's outlined planning permission, and I don't think that at the moment is grounds for us to turn this down. But I might possibly, if I may, suggest that a developer might like to think about that, because the neighbourhood plan will be made when they come back for the reserved matters. Thank you. Members, any further questions? No further questions? In that case, we move to the recommendation to approval. Please cast proposal. Councillor Andrew Brown and a seconder. Councillor Colby, all those in favour? That's unanimous, Chair. Thank you. That's carried. We now move on to item 5B, 0223, 1255, FUL. Oliver Hemsley, land-adjusted to Mitzley Lodge, Burley Road, and Langham. 12 for 12 unheated storage units. Recommendation of approval subject to conditions. Mr. Mitzley, I believe you're going to present the report. Thank you. So members may recall last committee were at Mitzley Lodge before. That was for the dwelling which is next door to this. This relates to the industrial buildings to the left. So that was last month's application to extend, and then this time it's to erect 12 storage units at the back. The rectangle building at the front, that's nine existing units which were originally poultry units, then got converted into B8. That's the Google Earth view. The site is here. This is the access road, and this is Langham. And that's the site in more detail. So the public footpath runs at the side of the dwelling. There's the dwelling, the existing units, and then to the north. That's where the 12 units are proposed. Just run through the photos. That is looking at the back of part of the unit. So that's the hard standing where the proposed units would be. That's the external storage at the moment. That's looking towards the house. There is a condition actually that no external storage will be allowed on the new one. So the unit is running along here, and then the house is there. This is the existing fence which I think will be relocated slightly to the north. That's looking along the back of the existing building. So you see the field at the back and the tree lined boundary further up. Again, that's just looking back towards the house. So the block plan shows the vehicular access which runs along here. That's the existing building, and then the numbered plan. That's there, the 12 units with the parking and turning in between. That's the elevations, the front and the back, and then the side elevations. And then that's the internal layout plan for them. Policy-wise, they're discussed in detail in the report. But the key ones are SP7, which supports the principle of the development in the countryside, as long as it aligns with national and local policies. So the principle is deemed to be acceptable being the expansion of an existing rural enterprise. Visually, it's considered to be acceptable. It's to the rear of the existing units. So when viewed from the south, the view would be blocked from the north. It would have the backdrop of the existing units. And it's quite a well-contained site set back from the highway, and it's not prominent. It's also set well off the footpath, so it wouldn't be unduly visible from there. In terms of residential amenity, the only nearby neighbour is Mckley Lodge. We consulted public protection. They didn't have any objections. And with it being small-scale units, it is pretty small operations that used the units. In terms of highway safety, the traffic generator is deemed to be acceptable. And the calculation was based on the actual traffic generation of the existing nine units, and then extrapolated to cover the 12. So no objections raised by the highway authority. So in conclusion, it's considered acceptable in principle. It's acceptable visually, and in terms of residential amenity. And no objection is raised on highway safety grounds. Conditions are recommended to include restriction the hours of use, the days of use, and the V8 use that's proposed. Thank you. Thank you, Joe. Members, any questions, please? No questions? Just some puzzled looks. A question. I'm a bit confused. It seems so innocuous. I'm wondering why it's here. Because it is an application by Councillor Hensley. Oh, is the upset someone? I see. I see. So the members application, it has to come to committee for transparency. If there's no questions, the recommendation is for approval. Can ask for a proposal. Councillor Wilby. A seconder. Councillor Payne. All those in favour? See you now, Mr. Health Carried. Thank you. We now move on to the appeals report just then to present. Thank you, Chairman. The bottom of page 73 and over on to 74. There are a number of new appeals that have come in there. I don't intend to go through those. We're in the process of responding to the appeals and we'll provide statements on those cases. On page 75, though, there are two decisions that have recently come in. The first one is 19 Main Road Bali Thorp Open which was to increase the roof height of a dwelling and some extensions to it. This was one where there had been appeals in the past that we had successfully defended. Unfortunately on this occasion, the inspector concluded that the overall increase in ridge height would not have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the area. The properties are set back. It is sandwiched between a couple of properties, but the inspector concluded that the increase, which was I think 300mm, something like that, now was acceptable. I mean, we had concerns about the design of it as well because it resulted in a flat roof, whereas all of the others have a pitched roof going predominantly. But I think the inspector felt that given it was set so far back from the road, we were happy with it and it was no higher or not significantly higher than the neighboring one. We do not lose many. We will take on board the learning from that one and we will bear that in mind with future decisions. The next application was an appeal that was dismissed by the planning inspector. This was at Land to the Easter, Normanton Road, Edith Weston for 62 dwelling. We had refused it. The appeal inspector dismissed the appeal, but the applicant legally challenged the Secretary of State's decision and the appeal decision was quashed. That was on the grounds that the secretary of state held up their hands that the inspector's decision did not address a number of key points sufficiently and so it will now have to be redetermined by the secretary of state. The main reasons for that quashing, the main grounds that the secretary of state accepted where their inspector had failed was policy CS9 had been. The inspector concluded that was a policy that could be used for development management purposes, whereas there have been, I think, other appeal decisions that argued that it shouldn't be used. It wasn't a development management policy and it was more a policy that was relevant to the allocation of sites through the local plan and I think we didn't have an issue with that approach, I think. More fundamentally, the inspector's justification for discounting a previous appeal inspector's decision on the Braunston Road appeal and why they gave less weight to that and more weight to the appeal decision for the, to dismiss a site at Bali Thorpe. Again, it was concluded that the inspector's justification wasn't sufficient for why they'd given one greater weight to one and not the other so it will go back and hopefully the appeal inspector this time will review that and sufficiently address the criticisms that have been made and bought. We have responded, we've been asked to comment on some points, we have responded and we're now waiting for the appeal inspector to decide how that will be reconsidered, whether it will be just through written reps or whether it will be a hearing or public enquiring. So we're aware of the view that it can just be done by written reps but I think the applicants are possibly arguing for a hearing or I think that's the case so we'll wait and see what the outcome of that is. Thank you. Thank you Justin. Any questions for Justin on the appeals? If that is the case and there's no urgent business that I've been made aware of, data next meeting is Tuesday the 18th of June which is provisional. That concludes the meeting. Thank you all for your attendance and I declare the meeting closed at 742. Thank you. [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] You