D R A F T
PLANNING COMMITTEE
Minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday, 1st October 2014 at Worksop Town Hall
Present:
Councillor B Barker (Chair)
Councillors H Burton, D Challinor, S Fielding, G Freeman, K H Isard, G Jones, C A Palmer, M Richardson, A K Smith and K Sutton.
Officers in attendance: B Alderton-Sambrook, K Hall, J Hamilton and M Tagg (Agenda Item No. 6(d) only).
(Meeting commenced at 6.30pm.)
(The Chairman welcomed everyone to the meeting and read out the Fire Alarm/Evacuation Procedure. Members of the public were asked if anyone wanted to film the meeting (or part thereof) in accordance with the Department for Communities and Local Government’s guidance; however, although there were numerous members of the public and a member of the press present, no-one responded.)
30. PA 14/00853/RSB – SMEATH ROAD, RETFORD
The Chairman announced that PA 14/00853/RSB had been withdrawn from the Agenda pending further legal investigation of a matter that had arisen that morning. It is the Council’s intention to present the application to the next available Committee once the legal issue has been resolved. He apologised to anyone in attendance for the application and apologised for any inconvenience caused.
31. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies for absence were received from Councillor G A N Oxby.
32. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
(a) Members
Councillor B Barker reported that all Members of the Planning Committee had received a statement from the developer of the Tiln Lane site and also an email from a member of the public.
(b) Officers
There were no declarations of interest by officers.
33. MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD 3RD SEPTEMBER 2014
RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 3rd September 2014 be approved.
34. MINUTES OF PLANNING CONSULTATION GROUP MEETINGS HELD BETWEEN 26TH AUGUST AND 15TH SEPTEMBER 2014
RESOLVED that the Minutes of the Planning Consultation Group meetings held between 26th August and 15th September 2014 be received.
35. OUTSTANDING MINUTES LIST
RESOLVED that the Outstanding Minutes List be received.
SECTION A – ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION IN PUBLIC
Key Decisions
None.
Other Decisions
36. CHANGE OF ORDER
The Chairman requested that Agenda Item No. 6(d) – Proposed Designation of Extensions to East Markham Conservation Area, be brought forward on the Agenda to accommodate the officer.
RESOLVED that Agenda Item No. 6(d) be brought forward on the Agenda.
37. REPORT(S) OF THE HEAD OF REGENERATION
(a) Public Interest Test
The Head of Regeneration had deemed that he considered all the reports on the Agenda were of a non-confidential nature.
(b) Appeal Decisions Received
Members were presented with five appeal decisions. In respect of the appeal which had been allowed by the Inspector for PA 01/11/00343 & 01/11/00344 for a development adjacent Bridgegate, Retford, the Principal Solicitor (Planning and Property) advised that the Council had considered taking further action but, upon obtaining external legal advice, the conclusion had been reached that the Inspector had taken everything into account and, therefore, further action was inappropriate.
RESOLVED that the appeal decisions be received.
(c) Proposed Designation of Extensions to East Markham Conservation Area (including land and buildings at High Street, Harold Lane and Lincoln Road) and removal of land and buildings at Beckland Hill
(The site had been the subject of a site visit prior to the meeting.)
Members’ approval was sought to designate two extensions to the East Markham Conservation Area, incorporating land and buildings at High Street, Harold Lane and Lincoln Road, in addition to removing land and buildings off Beckland Hill. A map showing the proposed boundary was appended to the report.
Approval will provide additional planning tools to enable the conservation and enhancement of the special historic and architectural interest of the defined area. Designation will provide control over the demolition of buildings and structures, and the Planning Authority will be able to exercise greater influence over the design of new buildings/structures/extensions. The designation will confer a level of protection for trees not currently protected. The new boundary will also result in the removal of the unnecessary Conservation Area controls from two modern dwellings on Beckland Hill.
RESOLVED that:
1. The designation of the proposed East Markham Conservation Area boundary, as detailed in the map appended to the report, be approved.
2. Delegated authority be conferred upon officers of the Conservation Team to implement designation.
3. Any future cost implications for employee structure be reported to Cabinet.
(d) Planning Applications and Associated Items
Application No Applicant Proposal
14/00503/OUT / Linden Limited / Outline application for the erection of up to 175 dwellings including public open space, attenuation drainage basin and associated works– land west of Tiln, Lane, Retford
The Planning Services Manager apologised to anyone who had attended the last meeting when PA 14/00503/OUT had been withdrawn from the Agenda. A page within the Committee report had been replaced due to a printing error for tonight’s meeting but this was not deemed material to the decision-making process given that the basis of information was contained in the summary elsewhere in the report.
The application had been the subject of a site visit prior to the meeting.
The application sought outline planning permission, with all matters reserved, for the erection of up to 175 dwellings, including open space, attenuation drainage basin and associated works, on a site which covers approx. 6.43 hectares to the west of Tiln Lane, Retford. The land is flat and consists of fields which are currently used for agricultural purposes and the land has been assessed as Grade 2 agricultural land. Moorgate Farm and Bolham Hall are both Grade II listed and sit adjacent the site. It was noted that this site had not been included in the Site Allocations document which favours sites in Ordsall and the North Road area. All matters are reserved, only the principle of development is to be determined.
Members were advised of the main issues to consider: the impact on the amenity of proposed and existing residents; the impact on the heritage of the area; the impact on highway safety; flooding; ecological matters; and the requirements of national and local planning policy. Members were advised that late representations had been received from local residents, copies were circulated to Members, and these were also read out by the Planning Services Manager. It was noted that all Members of the Planning Committee had received a master plan and overview of the site from the applicant’s agent.
Retford is considered to be a sustainable Core Service Centre under Policy CS3 of the Bassetlaw Local Development Framework and seeks to deliver 26% of the District’s housing growth target within the town. To achieve this growth, sustainable urban extensions will be needed for Retford.
The site is outside, but adjacent, the Development Boundary for Retford. Policy CS1 indicates that until the adoption of the Site Allocations DPD, development in the identified settlements will be restricted to the area inside defined Development Boundaries. However, there is a proviso that over the plan period, additional permissions may be granted where it is demonstrated that a development will be of benefit in addressing a shortfall in the District’s five-year housing supply. Under Paragraphs 14 and 49 of the NNPF, current housing policies should not be considered up-to-date when a full five-year supply of deliverable housing sites cannot be demonstrated. Therefore, housing applications should be determined under the presumption in favour of sustainable development unless the adverse impacts of doing so outweigh the benefits, or the land is restricted/protected from development, in accordance with the policies of the NNPF.
It is considered that a net gain of 175 dwellings would contribute to addressing the District’s shortfall. Officers feel that the benefits would outweigh the loss of Grade 2 agricultural land and have no other demonstrable detrimental impacts. There are no details of the proposed dwellings at this stage as the application is for outline permission only. Detailed matters will consider the form and type of the dwellings. A summary of the Section 106 Agreement contributions were outlined:
· 25% affordable housing on site with at least 70% being transferred to a registered housing provider
· Provision of a LEAP with five pieces of play equipment and a 12-year future maintenance payment of £12,642.40
· Provision of £70,000 towards signal improvements at three junctions
· £13,200 towards bus stop improvements to bus stop BA0134 which lies in close proximity to the site
· Up to £130,000 to fund the additional cost in public transport provision
· £3,432 for the monitoring of the approved Travel Plan
· Education contribution towards additional school places (this being £423,835 based upon the delivery of 175 dwellings)
· Contribution towards Retford’s library stock provision (this being £6775 based upon the delivery of 175 dwellings)
Mr Ilett, a local resident, having lived in Retford since 1948, spoke against the proposal on the grounds that the application is deeply flawed, should not be relied upon and, therefore, should be rejected. The Site Allocations document does not include this site. The Council has failed to deliver a five-year housing supply but there is an excess of housing supply in Retford for both sale and rent, and this development would be disproportionate to likely demand. The application should be rejected as the site extends beyond the development envelope and would swallow up Grade 2 agricultural land. It is felt for certain that a further application for even more development will be made, and this will affect the very nature of Retford itself. It will also impact on the residents of Hayton, Clarborough and Welham. The company should have a better regard to democracy, as there is a well coherent plan with preferred sites for the area. This development, if approved, will affect the people of Retford for generations to come.
Councillor A Mumby, Member for East Retford North Ward, spoke against the proposal on the grounds that the site is unsuitable, the Council could use the other preferred sites, and, if it goes ahead, the development boundary will soon be extending to Clarborough itself. There has already been one schoolchild killed outside Carr Hill School, and traffic problems will only be exacerbated. The site is good quality, agricultural land and should not be used for housing. In answer to the Government’s requirement, 750 houses have recently been approved for Worksop, and further sites have been identified in Hallcroft and Ordsall. 20% of the houses in Retford stand empty. Councillor Mumby also referred to the National Planning Guidance and the NPPF. There is a landscape character assessment in place to maintain the green space between Retford and Clarborough. If this development goes ahead, the sense of place will be lost. She asked the Committee to reject the application as it is totally unsuitable, and to listen to the people of Retford.
Mr N Smith, agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application which is for outline permission for 175 dwellings including 25% affordable housing. It has been considered by all the statutory consultees and would attract several contributions and a Section 106 Agreement. There is the outstanding issue of the five-year land supply, and also highways issues which would be resolved. Retford has been deemed to be a Core Service Centre and therefore must absorb 26% of the housing growth. The site has not been identified as a preferred site but the Council cannot give a five-year land supply, only 2½ years. There are no objections on planning grounds and would benefit the District by addressing the shortfall. The Highways Authority has requested an upgrade to the Tiln Lane/Moorgate junction, which will be accommodated within the Travel Plan; there are no objections from the Highways Authority. The proposal will bring benefits to Retford: 175 new houses, including 25% affordable homes; a highways contribution; and new jobs during construction. It is a sound and deliverable scheme.
Members asked questions/raised issues in relation to:
· Impact on highways safety and traffic management
· Axle weight limit for the bridge over the canal on Smeath Lane
· Shortage of school places
· Use of public transport
· Weighting of the Bassetlaw Transport Study
· Land ownership and future applications
· Boundary development
· Surface water drainage
· Flooding of the site
· Cycle/shared use path
In response to questions raised, the Planning Services Manager advised that:
· The weight restriction for the canal bridge is not known, this is a Highways Authority issue and not a material planning consideration relevant to this application.
· As an application for residential development, it must substantiate itself and not create or exacerbate existing problems identified in the locality.
· Traffic congestion is seen at most schools at drop off/collection times and in this respect Carr Hill is not exclusive.
· There is an education contribution towards the extra school places needed.
· There is the potential for bus service No. 23 to be diverted or alternate provision to be made which will enhance the sustainability of the proposal – monies will be secured in the S106 agreement to this effect.
· The Bassetlaw Transport Study is considered to be a desirable document but not mandatory and does not take account of this proposal.
· The development will not solve problems for Retford or the dsitrict’s housing shortage but will mitigate itself through the measures outlined.
· The traffic lights at the three junctions identified for enhancement will have a longer green light to accommodate additional queuing traffic and thereby alleviate flow issues.
· The development can only mitigate surface water on the site, not address the wider problems of the locality. The indicative layout plan shows a large drainage pond at a low point in the application area
· There is a flood risk assessment accompanying the application which details mitigation measures that are accepted by the Environment Agency.
· A cycle/shared use path is addressed within Condition 8.
· An overview of housing number delivery in the District for the last few years was reported and the evident shortage of housing supply was discussed with an overview of how the recession had contributed to the lack of take up from developers. This has placed the Authority in the position of having a 2.7 year housing land supply and thereby constrained by national policy as having an ‘out of date’ development plan. The NPPF is clear that development should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the framework.