Agenda item

Land At Worthington Lane Breedon On The Hill Derby

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report to Members.

Mr R Morris, on behalf of Breedon Parish Council, addressed the Committee.  He advised that the comments that he would make were unanimous from the Parish Council. He stated that the Parish Council always supported any application that would enhance the village and the application before them would not. He expressed concerns that the proposed development would increase pressure on the local water treatment works and following the flooding that Breedon had experienced in June many residents had still been unable to return to their homes. He informed Members that storm water from the proposed development would run off into the only water course in the village that was unable to cope. He highlighted that the village had a wonderful heritage asset from which the application site would be visible, asserted that harm is subjective, but opined that if there were any harm at all the presumption should be in favour of refusal. He highlighted to Members that the site was outside the village boundary, was on Greenfield land, the authority had a five year housing land supply without this site, pedestrian access was across land not owned by the developer and that the affordable homes may not be accessible to residents of the village. He suggested a legal challenge would be forthcoming, on the basis of flooding and pedestrian safety, if the Committee were minded to grant permission, and urged Members to refuse the application.

Ms S Hollis representing Mr P Spencer and Ms K Knight, in objection, addressed the Committee. She advised Members that there were several points on which the application should be refused which were that the site was outside the Limits to Development as set out in the publication Local Plan, and live flooding issues. She stated that the officer’s recommendation was the opposite of what was stated in the publication Local Plan and therefore put the Council in the position of setting a dangerous precedent should they permit the application as it was outside the village boundary. She expressed concerns over the deliverability of the footpath as it was not in the ownership of the developer so should be secured  by Grampian condition, and asserted that it was premature to allow the development in light of the recent flooding in the area. She urged Members to refuse the application.

Mr A Large, supporter, addressed the Committee. He highlighted to Members that it was the first time that he had known the housing officer to support an application and as an agent he had seen first-hand that the 30% affordable housing agreed in applications was not always delivered and the housing officer knew that it would be in the application before them by way of a legal agreement. He advised Members that a landscape architect had been employed to address the concerns in relation to the visual impact and that houses on three sides of the development would not be overlooked. He informed Members that the developer was in discussions with the lead local flood authority, which agreed that the attenuation pond would mitigate and reduce the runoff from the site. . He stated that the highways authority had no objections, the village offered a range of services and urged Members to support the application.

Mr J Blunt, applicant, addressed the Committee.  He informed Members that it was the family’s aspiration to develop the site and provide housing in the area and that big houses in the village were desirable. He advised Members that the site was close to the village, the issue over the pedestrian access route was before the solicitor and that the site had long and deep family connections after the estate was able to provide shelter on the land to a returning World War 2 Soldier. He urged Members to permit the application to allow a development that both his family and the district could be proud of.

The motion to refuse the application on the grounds that it was outside the Limits to Development as defined in the Local Plan, the site was Greenfield, and highway concerns was moved by Councillor R Ashman and seconded by Councillor J Legrys.

Councillor J Legrys expressed concerns over the access to the site despite no objections from the highways authority. He was not satisfied with the visibility splay and that he could not see an agreed extension of the 30 mph speed limit. He added that he had concerns with the planning conditions as there were a number of conditions that related to flooding which would require agreement to implement In relation to SuDs, he expressed concerns over whom would be responsible in perpetuity, adding that the condition worded  “with agreement” did not mean agreement with just the developer but with the wider community as well as it was evident that the area flooded, and in the past Members had been assured that sites would not flood and they had. He highlighted that the community were concerned over flooding and did not want the development, and that the Committee had responsibility to protect the community. He said that the site had been proven to flood, and that the so-called experts were wrong. As such he would be supporting refusal of the application.

Councillor R Canny stated that she was still undecided on the application. She felt that the application was pleasing, looked nice and would fit in nicely and benefit the village, however it was outside the Limits to Development. She stated that now the Local Plan had been submitted and if the application was permitted the authority would risk undermining the plan in the future given that the authority had its five year housing supply. She expressed concerns about flooding risks and the assurances that with the balancing pond the water would flow away however she had seen first-hand the damage that had been caused by the flooding in June. She highlighted that the application was for outline permission with various conditions and assurances attached but felt it would be better to refuse at the early stage rather than at reserved matters.

Councillor D Everitt stated that the site was like a bowl with three sides built on and that by building on the land no more water would be absorbed. He highlighted that there would be a balancing pond at the bottom which would collect all the water but questioned how it would cope with floods and rain water and where it would all go.

Councillor V Richichi stated that there were no objections from Highways and Severn Trent and therefore he was minded to vote in favour of the application.

Councillor D Harrison complimented the applicant on the reasons behind the application but expressed concern over the site and how the development would proceed. He sought clarification from officers on how many units already had planning permission but not yet completed.

The Head of Planning and Regeneration stated that there were 10 units with permission in Breedon that had not been built and that there were other applications in the pipeline but there was no guarantee that they would be built.

Councillor D Harrison expressed concerns over the access and the large gradient of the site given the additional flood risks that could arise. He reminded Members that they had a responsibility to look after the people of the district. He stated that the development was a good proposal but that the location and time was not right. He highlighted that neither the Parish Council or villagers wanted the development and therefore he would be voting to refuse the application.

Councillor J Clarke raised concerns over the speed of traffic along the road that the site was outside the Limits to Development, the rights over the footpath and drainage issues. He supported the motion to refuse.

Councillor R Ashman sought clarification as to whether the already permitted development was inside the Limits to Development and if not were the sites more sustainable.

The Head of Planning and Regeneration stated that the already permitted development in the village was across various sites but reminded Members that they could only consider the application that was before them.

Councillor D J Stevenson stated that he had lived in the area for 70 years and that he had seen many accidents including fatal accidents on the stretch of road, that the access was very dangerous and that the site was outside the Limits to Development. He acknowledged that there were no objections from Highways, but felt that he would not want to leave the site using the access. He supported the motion to refuse

RESOLVED THAT:

The application be refused on the grounds that it is outside the Limits to Development, a Greenfield site, and highways concerns