Agenda item

Application for erection of 60 dwellings including engineering infill operation and

associated works.

Late items:

Introduction:-

Additional consultation response has been received.

Additional information is provided on the long term maintenance of the reinstated watercourse and the compensatory flood storage area.

Consultations:-

Leicestershire County Council (Developer Contributions) – concern has been raised that contributions requested by the county council are not being sought. Clarity is requested as to how a contribution can be sought for off-site sports provision and maintenance but not education and how each of the infrastructure requirements was prioritised for a contribution.

Appraisal:-

Developer contributions and viability

Paragraph 8.63 of the officer’s committee report identifies that in order to be compliant with Policy 19 of the Core Strategy, a contribution of £62,115.94 should be sought. In the subsequent section of the report, it is clarified at paragraph 8.83 that the proposed development would fail to provide the off-site infrastructure contributions sought; this is inclusive of the off-site sports provision. As the scheme is unviable and there would be no off-site S106 contributions, there has been no need for the prioritising of contributions sought by the requesting parties.

The officer’s committee report at paragraph 8.64 identifies that the significant public benefit of the delivery of 60 affordable outweighs the harm caused by not providing contributions towards the requested infrastructure requirements. This assessment and conclusion is still considered accurate and therefore there is no change to the recommendation.

Maintenance of the drainage system

Following the committee site visit, clarity is sought on the long term maintenance of the reinstated watercourse and compensatory flood storage area. It is not possible for the Borough Council to calculate an accurate contribution towards the long term maintenance of the sustainable urban drainage features on-site which would allow them to request a right to adopt the space following the works. Therefore, the Borough Council will not seek to adopt the feature and an associated maintenance contribution is not sought. In addition condition 20 of the officer’s committee report requires the submission of details in relation to the long term maintenance of the sustainable surface water drainage system. The submitted details would need to be approved by the local planning authority and implemented in perpetuity by a management company appointed, and paid for, by the applicants/owners. However, to enable easier enforcement of the approved maintenance scheme, it is considered reasonable and necessary to secure the maintenance scheme through a S106 agreement.

Recommendation:- Grant planning permission subject to

•       The prior completion of a S106 agreement to secure the following obligations:

·         100% affordable housing

·         Play and open space plan and maintenance scheme

·         Sustainable surface water drainage system maintenance scheme

•       Planning conditions outlined at the end of the officer’s committee report.

Application for erection of 60 dwellings including engineering infill operation and associated works.

Members raised a number of concerns about the potential impact of the site. These included loss of open space, its non-viability, overdevelopment, loss of amenity, noise/vibration, unsustainability and several members indicated that they would propose refusal of the application.

In response, officers emphasised the following:

·         That the site had an extant outline planning permission for residential development together with the infilling of the pit which had been granted on appeal in December 2014 and which was a significant material planning consideration which established the loss of the open space, along with the filling of the pit and redevelopment of the site for residential

·         That Leicestershire County Council had refused the appealed application in 2014 and had had costs awarded against it for not pursuing one of the reasons for refusal in relation to flood risk

·         That the main considerations relating to the development of the site, namely drainage and flooding, highway safety and traffic movement, nature conservation interests and amenity (as a result of the proposed engineering works) had been taken into account by the Inspector at the 2014 appeal who considered that, subject to appropriate safeguards and mitigation measures which would be secured by conditions, the development would not unacceptably worsen the living conditions of neighbours or future residents and it would not adversely affect nature conservation interests

·         That these same considerations applied in relation to the current application and the same conditions imposed by the Inspector would be re-imposed leading to the same conclusion on the impact of the development

·         That, specifically and significantly, no objections to the current proposal had been received (subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions) from the following statutory and other consultees:

o   Environment Agency

o   Leicestershire County Council (drainage)

o   Leicestershire County Council (highways)

o   Leicestershire County Council (Ecology)

o   HBBC Environmental Health (pollution)

o   HBBC Environmental Health (drainage)

·         That the proposal was for the provision of 100% affordable housing which itself was a significant policy consideration for the committee

·         That there were no substantive and material planning grounds for refusing the application and that a refusal would be likely to be lost on appeal with a consequent award of costs against the council.

Notwithstanding this advice from officers, refusal of the application was proposed by Councillor Kirby and seconded by Councillor Hodgkins. The committee was advised that, in accordance with paragraph 2.12 of the Planning Committee procedure rules, any such motion shall be deemed to be a motion of “minded to refuse” and that consideration of the application would be deferred to the next meeting of the committee.

Councillor Witherford, along with two other councillors, requested that voting on this motion be recorded.

The vote was taken as follows:

Councillors Boothby, Bray, Cook, Cope, Crooks, Hodgkins, Hollick, Kirby, Roberts, Smith, Witherford and Wright voted FOR the motion (12);

Councillors Ladkin, Surtees, Sutton and Ward voted AGAINST the motion (4).

The motion was therefore declared CARRIED and it was

RESOLVED – the committee be minded to refuse permission in accordance with paragraph 2.12 of the procedure rules.

Councillor Bray left the meeting at 7.55pm.