Agenda item

Application for erection of a two storey four bedroom dwelling.

‘Late items:’

Introduction:-

Amended plans were submitted which reduced the application site area, relocated the dwelling to the western boundary of the site and attached the garage to the dwelling. These plans have already been considered in the original report to committee. However, the public consultation period for submission of comments on these plans extended beyond the deadline for the preparation of the committee report. Since the publication of the committee report, additional responses have been received.

Consultations:-

Five additional neighbour letters of objection have been received raising the following issues:

1)         The settlement boundary should be respected and residential development in this location is an unwelcome precedent for other applications located outside the settlement boundary;

2)         Residential development on this site would be contrary to paragraph 4.25 of the SADMP which requires that the open landscape of Burbage should be protected and preserved;

3)         The countryside should be conserved in this area as the Rail Freight Interchange would occupy large swathes of open countryside within a short distance of the site;

4)         The Borough has a 5 year housing land supply. There is no evidence that another 4-bedroomed house in Burbage as there are currently more than 150 4 and 4+ bedroomed houses for sale in the LE10 area;

5)         Burbage has been subject to massive over-development over recent years and the draft Neighbourhood Plan seeks to recognise this so that there is no additional development up to 2031;

6)         Burbage has already exceeded its residual housing requirement of 295 by 2026 by 242 units and there is still some 8 years to go;

7)         The site is not needed to meet the Council’s housing needs in the plan to 2026;

8)         The Core Strategy also has a commitment to protect and preserve the open landscape to the east of Burbage which provides an important setting for the village and seek to enhance the landscape structure which separates the village from the M69 corridor as supported by the Hinckley and Bosworth Landscape Character Assessment.

9)         The Development Plan for the area takes precedence over the NPPF in decision making;

10)       Questions are raised about the appeal decision at Land East of the Common, Barwell as to which policies the Inspector considers are out-of-date and why they are out-of-date simply because the annual housing target figure has been revised. There is no mention in the revised NPPF that revisions to housing figures can render a Local Plan as being out-of-date;

11)       The Core Strategy policy on the need to protect and preserve the open landscape to the east of Burbage is not a housing land supply policy and is not out-of-date;

12)       The tilted balance as referred to in paragraph 11 of the NPPF only applies when a Council cannot demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply

15 additional neighbour letters of support have been received raising the following items:

1)         The property is well-designed and is a high quality bespoke home which will complement the area;

2)         There are no issues with regards to access or loss of amenity;

3)         The site should be included in the settlement boundary which should finish at Aston Flamville Road in line with the houses on the opposite side of the road, the village sign and the speed restriction changes;

4)         The site is restricted on each boundary being hemmed in on all sides and could not represent encroachment into the open countryside;

5)         The Council has recently approved other small residential sites on the edge of settlement boundaries where there is no harm to the open countryside;

6)         This is a vacant piece of land which would benefit from a self-build home;

7)         This is a highly sustainable location with a pedestrian footpath outside and a bus stop just metres away;

8)         This property would be a nice gateway into our village;

9)         The applicants originate from Burbage and they will be taking part in the care of their extended family would also live in Burbage;

Burbage Parish Council and the Chair of the Parish Council have made additional comments and advise that the amended layout and information do not mitigate previous objections on the development being located outside of the parish settlement boundary.

A further letter has been received from the applicant’s agent raising the following items:

1)         The site is extremely well-related to the village providing strong connectivity to public transport and facilities, and is located immediately adjacent to the settlement boundary;

2)         The housing supply policies are out-of-date and so paragraph 11 of the NPPF is triggered;

3)         The land does not constitute open countryside and is enclosed on all sides;

4)         With regards to precedent then the proposal should be judged on its own merits and not on any future applications;

5)         There is strong local support for the proposal from those that will be directly affected.

Appraisal:-

The most up-to-date objective assessment of housing need (OAN) is provided within the Leicester and Leicestershire Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment (HEDNA) (2017). This identifies a housing need for the Borough of 471 dwellings per annum between 2011 and 2031. This figure has been accepted by the Council and is being used when calculating the 5 year housing land supply position. The Council can currently demonstrate a 5 year supply of deliverable housing land using the most recent OAN figures.

This is weighed in the balance of the merits of the application, Paragraph 8.29-8.34 of the officers report sets out how this has been done in reaching the conclusions of the application.

Application for erection of a two storey, four bedroom, dwelling.

Notwithstanding the officer’s recommendation that permission be granted subject to conditions, some members felt that the development should not be permitted as it was outside of the settlement boundary and would cause harm to the character and appearance of the countryside. It was moved by Councillor Hall and seconded by Councillor Lynch that the committee be minded to refuse permission. Upon being put to the vote, the motion was CARRIED and it was

RESOLVED – members be minded to refuse permission and the application be brought back to a future meeting.

Councillor Ladkin left the meeting at 9.12pm.