Agenda item

Application for residential development of up to five dwellings including new car park to serve the Fenny Drayton community and demolition of existing bungalow and agricultural buildings (outline – access, appearance, layout and scale to be considered).

Late items received after preparation of the main agenda:

Consultations:-

A further objection has been received since the agenda was published. The objection raises the below points:

1.)       Consultation responses are outdated to the changes in the development

2.)       Applicant is not correctly identified

3.)      The very beginning of this proposal was the redevelopment of redundant farm buildings      only approved under planning rules for permitted development. Otherwise it was a non-starter being development into green belt land; The application before you is for development into green belt land and should be refused.

·                     Petition received on Friday 23^rd September including signatures from 154 residents of Fenny Drayton together with three further electronic confirmation of signing from abroad.

·                     Further representation received from resident raising the following:

·                     A revised tree constraints plan submitted on 31 August, once more, fails to respect six of the veteran yew trees, located in the adjacent churchyard, with an area of root protection in accordance with government standing advice.  It is possible an error has occurred with application of the calculation of 15 x tree diameter.  It appears to have been applied incorrectly to diameter rather than radius of the RPA area.  This is measured from the bark of the tree.  At any rate the RPA indicated on the drawing falls short of requirement. 

·                     I concur with Mr Julian Simpson’s estimate of diameter for Tree 24*.  Once the correct calculation is applied for this tree it is apparent underground services (a SuDs drainage system, including sewers, tank and pump) have been located within the protected root area of Tree 24.  There are many other aspects of the development design which also do not respect the required RPAs.   A tree constraints plan is a mandatory requirement, and this revised submission once more fails to give accurate detail to properly take into account impacts of the design.

·                     These magnificent veteran yew trees, form a rare circle around the church building, adding to its setting and the setting of nearby Grade II listed buildings. These trees are of value for heritage, amenity and biodiversity and are irreplaceable habitat.  Development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, should be refused unless there are wholly exceptional reasons. NPPF Para 180 (c). 

·                     Further comments received from Julian Simpson, HBBC Tree Officer:

·                     Whilst the tree canopies are shown to be uniform, in reality they aren’t but the overhang measurements shown in red are accurate.

·                     RPA’s shown by red circle also appear to accurately represent 15x stem diameter. I do not though have a scale drawing.

·                     Parking bays are shown to be of “no-dig” construction. With an appropriate level drawing and construction specification this should be workable, especially given that the boundary wall is likely to have restricted root development.

·                     The lay-by parking is in an area of existing hard standing and therefore should not be harmful.

The tree constraints drawing does therefore appear to accurately represent the constraints caused by churchyard trees.

Application for residential development of up to five dwellings including new car park to serve the Fenny Drayton community and demolition of existing bungalow and agricultural buildings (outline – access, appearance. Layout and scale to be considered).

An objector, the agent and the ward councillor spoke on this application.

Some councillors expressed concern about highway safety at the junction with Drayton Lane. Councillor Roberts, seconded by Councillor R Allen, proposed that the item be deferred for further discussion with Leicestershire County Council as highways authority. Following further discussion, this motion was withdrawn.

Councillor Bray, seconded by Councillor Roberts, proposed that approval be delegated to the Planning Manager following further discussion with the highways authority. Upon being put to the vote, the motion was CARRIED and it was

RESOLVED –

(i)            The Planning Manager be requested to re-consult Leicestershire County Council in relation to highway safety;

(ii)          Should there be no change in recommendation from Leicestershire County Council following the aforementioned consultation, authority be delegated to the Planning Manager to grant permission subject to the conditions contained in the officer’s report;

(iii)         Should Leicestershire County Council amend their recommendation, the application be brought back to a future meeting.