Agenda item

Outline planning application for up to 50 residential dwellings with access.

Late items received after preparation of agenda:

Consultations:-

Following the publication of the report it comments were received from  Witherley Parish Council, please see the comments below;

1.         The site is not included within WPC NDP site allocations (currently at Regulation 19)

2.         The site was recently excluded from HBBC local plan site allocations.

3.         There would be a significant impact on the Kennel Lane / A5 junction. Therefore without more substantial junction/road improvement works the safety of the junction will be compromised on what is a primary junction on a major road.

4.         The current application has seriously underestimated the traffic impact that a 50 house development would have on Kennel lane. The number of vehicles entering the village from the A5 in November 2022 was 38878, the impact of a further 50 dwellings would have an adverse impact upon the general safety of Kennel Lane.

5.         Policy 12 of the core strategy supports new housing within the Witherley settlement boundary to improve the mix of housing types and tenure to meet the identified need of the settlement. This site lies outside of the settlement boundary for the rural village. The location of the proposed housing scheme would therefore be contrary to policy 12 of the core strategy.

6.         The proposed development would cause demonstrable harm to the character and appearance of the countryside and landscape. This would be contrary to policies DM4 and DM10 of the SADMP which seek to protect countryside by safeguarding the countryside from development.

7.         Spatial objective 13 (transport and need to travel) of the core strategy is to reduce the high reliance on car travel in the Borough. The proposed development is not located where the need to travel will be minimised and the use of sustainable transport modes can be maximised, and is therefore contrary to policy DM4.

8.         The proposed development would result in the loss of Greenfield, agricultural land and contrary to paragraph 8C of the NPPF (July 2018) which seeks to contribute to protecting and enhancing our natural, build and historic environment.

9.         The proposed development would destroy the natural eastern vistas of the village which have been identified and included in the emerging NDP, see Fig 15 #12 important view.

10.      The proposal would fail to compliment or enhance the intrinsic value, beauty, undeveloped rural character of the countryside and the rural setting of the village. Therefore contrary to Policy DM4.

11.      The combined drainage system usage will be affected to a detrimental degree. The system is not able to cope with the existing level of water and sewerage due to the village being located at the natural basin of two rivers (Anker and Sence) converging with Witherley Brook. The ancient pipework of pitch-fibre is collapsing by the day, regular blockages due to collapsing pipes are constantly reported to Severn Trent, which has also agreed the pumping station is completely inadequate and unable to cope when it rains. Purposely adding 50 dwellings to the mix is not sustainable and will further exacerbate the flooding. The EA has modelled for the recent proposed development of 14 houses on Chapel Lane stating that number of properties is unsustainable. 10 times that amount is laughable.

12.      Applications for planning permission are determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The framework is an important material consideration and contains a presumption in favour of sustainable development. The proposed development would not be fully sustainable, the village does not have shops, doctors, senior school, industrial enterprise or adequate public transport - therefore it would only encourage further travel journeys to outside of the village.

13.      The policies of the framework as a whole constitute the Governments view of what is sustainable development. There are 3 objectives in sustainable development – environmental, social, and economic.  This proposal seeks to eliminate Greenfield/agricultural land, and the spend on material and jobs would be short lived.

14.      The proposed development includes an additional access onto Kennel lane, the proposal lies on a blind bend close to two T junctions and falls close to a school exit, thus increasing safety concerns.

Since the publication of the report the below comments several comments have been received from Witherley Atterton Neighbours Association (WANA):

“Development in this location does not represent sustainable development because access and egress from the proposed development site to the wider network is unsafe.  

Development in this location would have an inevitable negative impact upon safety for existing residents and network users and have negative impact upon the rural lanes network.  Conditions proposed by the planning officer to mitigate are ill thought out.  They are unsafe and most likely unachievable.  Residents of Witherley and Atterton strongly recommend a visit by Planning Committee Members to the Kennel Lane junction in order for Councillors to be able to understand safety concerns about impacts on the existing road network and safety of existing users.   

Only by visiting and using this junction can members of the Planning Committee begin to understand why the conditions proposed aimed at providing safe access to the wider network are inadequate, i.e. to widen Kennel Lane and provide a footway to connect to the A5 are:

·                    Unsafe

·                    Unachievable (due to the constraints of the designated Roman Monument) about this.   We have very good reason to believe HSL have been aware of this some time.

·                    Where is evidence that considerations for alterations to the road network have been made in consultation with Heritage England?

·                    More work and investigation is necessary by the developer before the Planning Committee can even agree in principle that this is sustainable development.

·                    In November 2022 National Highways (previously Highways England) provided a response at the Regulation 16 consultation for the NDP.  They stated ‘…we have already identified capacity issues with the A5/Kennel Lane junction. Our stance has been not to encourage developments that will increase traffic volume using the junction without more substantial improvements works to be done’ they went on to state ‘ there is currently no committed improvement work to the concerned junction, we anticipate to work with the Council and stakeholders on improvement schemes in the future which would enable the growth in the area’. This is significant since no improvement works have been made.

Furthermore, we are confronted with recent proposals for the network which concern development along the A5 including the MIRA development and recent proposals to alleviate danger at the junctions at Woodford Lane and Drayton Lane.

These developments have potential to simply move the danger points further along the network and will inevitably increase existing ‘rat run’ traffic (including heavy goods traffic) through the village and through the narrow Mythe Lane and narrow Atterton Lane and the wider rural lanes network.

When meeting papers are released, we find evidence Planning Officers have ignored safety concerns submitted by the main users of the network, i.e. us the residents, and have ignored the many pages of comments submitted by Witherley Parish Council on our residents' behalf and comments made by WPC.   

WANA on behalf of residents of Witherley and Atterton urge a site visit by members of the planning committee - it is essential to understand the problems and unwise to proceed without.  There must also be consultation with Heritage England about what can be achieved.

Without appropriate access and egress major development is unsustainable in this location and the application should be denied.

The development proposal cannot be judged to conform with policy because in this location the proposal does not  address requirement for sustainable and active transport provision and will not reduce necessity to travel on the strategic network.

It is proposed to condition 3 measures put forward by the applicant, which have been agreed by National Highways as sufficient, to reduce travel on the strategic network. 

Measure 2, requires the developer to provide a financial contribution to upgrade the Public Rights of Way between Riverside Road (Atherstone) and Mill Lane (Witherley).  (The amount of contribution is unspecified).

We wish to submit evidence that this proposal would not provide users with an accessible route to reduce travel on the strategic network because:

·                         There is no legal Public Right of Way

·                         The route is frequently under flood water and impassable

A contribution to provide cycle parking at Atherstone train station is a proposed condition agreed by National Highways but does not take account that there are no safe cycle routes out of the proposed housing development to reach the train station.

Improvements to PRoW T28 and T27 are proposed to provide a footway between Witherley and Fenny Drayton.  Fenny Drayton is a hamlet having no shops or key services and few employment opportunities.  Upon arrival in Fenny Drayton, there are no access points for pedestrians or cyclists to be able to reach a wider network. 

Accident data for 2022 has not been a consideration in assessments of road safety. 

A Witherley Resident requested WANA share this photograph to illustrate dangers at Kennel Lane Junction.  The Sweet family’s accident occurred there in October 2022. 

Please find a link to a presentation filmed on Thursday, 7 December which illustrates both the constraints and the dangers of the junction at Kennel Lane Witherley.The dangers are exacerbated by continual problems with flooding on Mythe Lane in particular and Atterton Lane.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KgHqHAwhd_8RTZSpNTLdiA9ee15wGUMG/view

Outline application for up to 50 residential dwellinghouses with access.

Councillor Cook, having declared an interest in this application, left the meeting at this juncture.

Two objectors and the applicant spoke on this item.

It was moved by Councillor Bools, seconded by Councillor Lynch and

RESOLVED –

(i)            Permission be granted subject to:

a.    The conditions outlined in the officer’s report;

b.    A section 106 agreement to secure:

·         Health contribution - £24,153.60

·         Waste (Barwell RHWS) - £2,476.50

·         Libraries (Market Bosworth library) - £1,509.88

·         Primary education (Witherley Church of England Primary School) - £220,272.00

·         Secondary education (11-16) (The Market Bosworth School) - £149,264.60

·         Post 16 education (The Hinckley School) - £31,889.55

·         40% affordable housing provision – up to 20 homes comprising five first homes, 11 for affordable rent and four for shared ownership (with local connection criteria)

·         Travel pack provision of £52.85 per dwelling - £2,642.50 (subject to final dwelling numbers)

·         Highway contribution for the improvements to the surrounding rights of way network (T27 and T28) - £9,500

·         Financial contribution to cycle parking at Atherstone Station

·         Financial contribution to upgrade of the public right of way between Riverside Road (Atherstone) and Mill Lane (Witherley) (this is separate to the improvements to rights of way T27 and T28 above)

·         Off-site outdoor sports contribution - £17,376

·         Off-site outdoor sports maintenance contribution - £8,256

·         On-site equipped children’s play space contribution - £32,747.40

·         On-site equipped children’s play space maintenance contribution - £31,608

·         On-site casual / informal play spaces maintenance contribution - £9,072

·         On-site natural green space maintenance contribution - £28,400

·         On-site open space to be managed by a management company

·         S106 legal and monitoring fees.

(ii)          The Head of Planning be granted delegated authority to determine the final detail of the conditions.

Councillor Cook returned to the meeting.