Agenda item

Application for residential development up to 49 dwellings (Outline – all matters reserved).

 

Late items:

 

Introduction:-

 

Further consultation responses have been received.

 

Further assessment of the principle of development of residential development is considered below.

 

Consultations:-

 

Environment Agency – object to the application as submitted because the applicant has not supplied adequate information to demonstrate that the risks of pollution posed to surface water quality can be safely managed.

 

Leicestershire County Council (Highways) – The Applicant has failed to demonstrate the impact of the proposed development, such that if it were permitted could result in the unsafe and unsatisfactory operation of the surrounding highway network.

 

Leicestershire County Council (Ecology) – Whilst some of the site has been developed, the development may impact on areas of grassland and hedgerow and are within close proximity to a pond and watercourse. Surveys should be submitted to ensure no adverse impact on features of nature conservation.

 

Some consultation responses are outstanding with the consultation period due to expire on 19 October 2017.

 

Appraisal:-

 

Impact upon highway safety

 

Leicestershire County Council (Highways) (LHA) has provided written confirmation of their objection to the proposed development commenting that: The LHA is aware that the site has previous planning history and that the site has extant planning approval for 20 caravan pitches which shall not be occupied by persons other than gypsies and travellers as defined in Annex 1: Glossary to the ‘Planning policy for travellers sites’, published by the Department for Communities and Local Government. In the absence of any supporting technical documentation, the LHA does not accept that this extant planning permission sufficiently demonstrates that in the future, vehicle movements associated with a 49 dwelling development will not impact on the safe operation of the highway. Therefore, the principle of a 49 dwelling residential development being acceptable in highway terms in this location has not been adequately demonstrated.

 

The proposal is considered to be contrary to Policy DM17 of the SADMP. The potential adverse impact on the safe operation of the highway should be reflected in an updated reason for refusal.

 

Ecology

 

Leicestershire County Council (Ecology) has commented that although some of the site has been developed there is potential to impact further on grassland and hedgerows which may be used for habitats and foraging for badgers and bats. Additionally, the site is within close proximity to a pond and watercourse which may be habitats for great crested newts, otters, water vole and white-clawed crayfish.

 

No ecological surveys were undertaken and submitted for the previous applications on the site. A large proportion of the site has been hard surfaced and therefore the impact on grassland is limited. The development may impact on some hedgerows although the majority could be retained which would be subject to detailed consideration at the reserved matters stage.

 

The development would not directly impact on water features and therefore consideration relates primarily to exclusion during construction and future phases which could be adequately dealt with through mitigation measures.

 

As this application is for outline planning permission without layout for consideration and no specific number of dwellings, any features of natural and ecological importance could be retained which would be for consideration at reserved matters stage and ecological reports could be secured through planning conditions.

 

In this instance, it is considered that the proposed development would not have an adverse impact on features of nature and ecological conservation. Subject to conditions, the proposed development would accord with Policy DM6 of the SADMP.

 

Foul drainage

 

The Environment Agency has objected to the development because the applicant has not supplied adequate information to demonstrate the means of disposal of foul sewage which may pose and unacceptable risk of causing a detrimental impact to surface water quality. The EA has identified that the previous application for this site referred to a sewage treatment plant but no permit has been sought and there has been a pollution incident report which identifies no proper drainage is on-site.

 

The existing use of the site is unrelated to the proposed development and therefore the existing pollution incident report cannot be considered to impact on the assessment of this application. As this application is for outline planning permission without layout for consideration and no specific number of dwellings, the siting of dwellings and appropriate drainage could be achieved through consideration at the reserved matters stage. It is considered that the lack of information with regards to foul sewage disposal at this stage would not justify a reason for refusal.

 

Flood risk

 

Policy DM7 of the SADMP seeks to ensure that the development doesn’t create or exacerbate flooding by being located away from areas of flood risk unless adequately mitigated against in line with National Policy. Paragraph 101 of the NPPF states that the aim of the Sequential Test is to steer new development to areas with the lowest probability of flooding. Development should not be allocated or permitted if there are reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed development in areas with a lower probability of flooding. A sequential approach should be used in areas known to be at risk from any form of flooding.

 

The Environment Agency has raised no objection to the proposal with regards to flood risk as the indicative plan identifies the dwellings as being located outside flood zones 2 and 3 and subject to a condition that the ground levels are not raised which would reduce the capacity of the flood plain. The EA has commented that a small proportion of the application site lies in Flood Zones 2 and 3 and that the Local Planning Authority should therefore be satisfied that the site is sequentially preferable from a flood risk perspective. Leicestershire County Council (Drainage) as the Lead Local Flood Authority has not provided comments on the revised flood risk assessment.

 

In this instance, the submitted flood risk assessment confirms that areas of the site are within flood zones 2 and 3. The indicative plan identifies that the dwellings would be primarily sited within flood zone 1 although layout is a reserved matter and therefore not for consideration at this stage. Notwithstanding the indicative plan, as part of the site falls within flood zones 2 and 3, a sequential test must be undertaken. Additionally the access to the site is not identified, however it is clear where it would be to serve the development and a large element of this would be within flood zones 2 and 3.

 

The Planning Practice Guidance states that for individual planning applications where there has been no sequential testing of the allocations in the development plan, or where the use of the site being proposed is not in accordance with the development plan, the area to apply the Sequential Test across will be defined by local circumstances relating to the catchment area for the type of development proposed. When applying the Sequential Test, a pragmatic approach on the availability of alternatives should be taken.

 

In this instance, the sequential test for available alternative sites should be focused around the sub-regional centre, including the settlements of Hinckley, Barwell, Earl Shilton and Burbage, as this is where residential development to meet the need of the Borough is primarily focused. Additionally, given the scale of the proposal for up to 49 dwellings, the sub-regional centre is the most capable of accommodating this scale of development.

 

The Council are able to demonstrate a five year land supply of deliverable housing sites. There are several alternative sites, including allocations, within and surrounding the sub-regional centre with planning permission and allocated for development within flood zone 1 which will deliver residential development of a comparable scale to the proposed development. Given the availability of alternative sites which are suitable for residential development, the proposed development fails to pass the sequential test. The proposed development is therefore contrary to Paragraph 101 of the NPPF and Policy DM7 of the SADMP which should constitute an additional reason for refusal.

 

Established principle of residential development

 

Further to the details set out in paragraphs 8.9 to 8.12 of the case officer’s committee report with regards to the established principle of residential development and the relationship to the proposed development, it is important to note that the case officer’s committee report (application ref: 13/00395/COU) for the change of use of the site to a gypsy and traveller site concluded that:

 

‘Based on the identified shortfall in pitch provision and need for the site, which has been confirmed by the County Councils Gypsy Liaison Officer and the requirement to provide Gypsy & Traveller Sites as identified within Policy 18 of the Core Strategy and national planning policy for Traveller sites, the 'need' for the site and therefore the principle of development is considered to be acceptable. Further, the criteria listed within the national guidance and Policy 18 is considered to have been met. The site is considered to be a reasonable distance from local services and infrastructure, will be compatible with the scale of the nearest service centres, will result in no adverse impacts in terms of highway safety or residential amenity, will sympathetically assimilate into the surroundings, and will provide a safe and healthy environment to residents. Accordingly the proposal is considered acceptable and will be recommended for approval subject to conditions.’

 

It is evident from the previous committee report that when establishing the suitability of the site for a gypsy and traveller use, the case officer gave significant weight to the social benefits of fulfilling the identified need for sites. It is considered that the approved use as a gypsy and traveller site is not comparable to the current scheme being determined and is not a material consideration which outweighs the harm caused by the proposed scheme as detailed below.

 

Planning balance

 

The NPPF is a material consideration in determining applications. Paragraph 12 of the NPPF states that it does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision making. Proposed development that accords with an up-to-date Local Plan should be approved and proposed development that conflicts should be refused unless other material considerations indicate otherwise.

 

Policy DM1 – Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD (SADMP) states that planning applications that accord with the policies in the Local Plan will be approved without delay, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

 

Paragraph 7 of the NPPF identifies that there are three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. These roles are mutually dependant and therefore to achieve sustainable development they should be considered together.  The assessment of the three dimensions relative to this proposal is as follows:

 

Economic – The construction of up to 49 dwellings would provide some benefits to the local economy through the creation of jobs and demand for services and materials for the construction of the development itself and from the future occupation of the development supporting businesses in the wider area.

 

Social – The scheme would provide a contribution to the overall housing supply within the Borough. The Council are able to demonstrate a five year housing land supply of deliverable sites within settlement boundaries and allocations which have been identified as the most sustainable locations for development through the local plan process. Therefore, less weight should be given to the benefits of sites such as the proposed which are less sustainable with regards to access to facilities and services.

 

Environmental – The current proposal for 49 residential dwellings will be clearly visible from all aspects of the site and would introduce an urbanising form to this area of the countryside. The settlement boundary is 0.5 miles away and therefore the development would not be read against the existing settlement and would be clearly independent and separate to Earl Shilton. It is considered that the impact of the built form on the intrinsic open nature of the countryside in this location would have significant adverse environmental impacts.

 

Having regard to the above, it is considered that there are limited benefits to the development which would not outweigh the identified harm. The development would cause harm by way of contradicting the spatial strategy and vision for development as set out in the Core Strategy and SADMP and would cause harm to the character of the open countryside. The scheme for residential development has different impacts to that of a gypsy and traveller site and therefore an individual assessment must be undertaken for the proposed development notwithstanding the extant permission for the use of the site for gypsy and traveller pitches.

 

It is therefore concluded that the development is not considered to be sustainable development and is contrary to Policy DM1 of the SAMDP.

 

Consultation

 

An additional consultation period was undertaken following the submission of a flood risk assessment. The consultation period expires on 19.10.2017 and the majority of responses have been received although some are outstanding. Provided that no new material planning considerations are raised in the outstanding consultation responses due by 19^th, the application should be determined in accordance with the resolution of the planning committee.

 

Recommendation:-  Refuse planning permission for the following reasons, subject to no new material planning considerations being raised in the outstanding consultation responses by the 19 October 2017:

 

1.    The proposal would result in residential development in the designated countryside outside the settlement boundary of Earl Shilton. The proposal would fail to complement or enhance the intrinsic value, beauty, undeveloped rural character of the countryside and the rural setting. The proposal is therefore contrary Policies DM4 and DM10 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD (2016).

2. The proposed development is located within flood zones 2 and 3 as defined by the Environment Agency. The sequential test has been undertaken which has confirmed that there are other reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed development in areas with a lower probability of flooding. The proposed development is contrary to Policy DM7 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD (2016) and Paragraph 101 of the National Planning Policy Framework
3. Insufficient information has been submitted to enable the impact of the development on the road network to be assessed and demonstrate that the development would not result in any significant impacts upon the highways and transportation network and any necessary mitigation measures. In the absence of such information the application is contrary to Policy DM17 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD (2016).

Application for residential development up to 49 dwellings (outline – all matters reserved).

 

It was moved by Councillor Taylor, seconded by Councillor Crooks and

 

RESOLVED – planning permission be refused for the reasons outlined in the officer’s report and late items, subject to no new material planning considerations being raised during the remaining consultation response period to the 19 October 2017.

 

Councillor Allen left the meeting at this juncture.