PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING
7 January 2016
MINUTES
Public Questions /- An enquiry as to when the meeting agenda had been published on the website? Thursday 31 January 2015.
- It was reported that an appeal has been lodged against the refusal of the Station Field planning application 14/01750/OUT.
Present / Cllrs J. Hills, (Chair) K. Plummer, P. Drew, L. Edwards, R. Adams, P. Balbirnie and R. Taylor.
Also in attendance were ECC Cllr Goggin, TDC Cllr McWilliams and in the region of30 members of public.
12.15.124Apologies for absence;were received from CllrsG. Wright and B. Herbert.
12.15.125Declarations of interest:Cllr Hillsnoted that his company has usedthe consultant FPCR used by one of the applicants. The landowner of application 15/0180/OUT is his next door neighbour.
12.15.126Minutes of last meeting: The minutes of the meeting on 3 December 2015 proposed by Cllr Drew, seconded by Cllr Adams and agreed as a true record of proceedings.
12.15.127Planning Applications: To consider planning applications set out in the table below.
Planning Reference / Application Details / Address/Location / Resolution
a) / 15/01820/OUT / Erection of up to 50 dwellings / Land west of Heckfords Road, GB / Cllr Drew was invited to read out a prepared statement. After some discussion this was amended and she put it forward as a motion (attached as an Appendix). Cllr Adams seconded the motion and it was unanimously agreed to object to the application. Cllr Hillsabstained from the vote.
b) / 15/01895/TCA / Removal of one small tree and minor pruning / Stepping Stones, The Green, Gt Bentley / No objection subject to the view of the Council’s Tree Representative.
c) / 15/01879/TCA / 1 x Lime – 30% reduction / Peacehaven, Forge Lane, Gt Bentley / No objection subject to the view of the Council’s Tree Representative.
The applications below were received after the agenda was circulated on 26 November 2015. These applications were published on the website on 30 November 2015 and the Chairman asked the Council to consider them at this meeting.
d) / 15/01906/FUL / Conversion of farm buildings to form 2 x residential dwellings (retrospective) / St Mary’s Hall, St Mary’s Road, Gt Bentley / It was proposed by Cllr Edwards, seconded by Cllr Balbirnie andResolved; Toobject on the same grounds of the TDC prior approval decision e.g. pollution concerns in terms of ground conditions. In addition, the site appears to be inappropriate in terms of noise and/or smells being in close proximity to livestock shed(s).e) / 15/01929/FUL / Proposed storage building / Land at rear of The Hawthorns, Station Rd, Gt Bentley / Cllr Adams proposed, Cllr Drew seconded and it was Resolved: To defer consideration of this application until the next meeting. The Clerk was asked to seek an extension of the consultation deadline.
12.15.128Correspondence: None to report.
a)Mrs Ruffell’s objection to planning application 15/01820/OUT was noted.
b)Mr Dufford’s complaint about the Admiral’s Farm applicant’s behaviour was noted. The Clerk was asked to respond advising of the upcoming DoI training for council members.
12.15.129Planning matters for report: Nothing to report.
a)Appeal Decision for Builders Yard & Land, R/o The Royal Fusilier Public House, Aingers Green. Noted.
b)Appeal Decision for Hill View, Thorrington Road, Gt Bentley. Noted.
Public Questions /- The Chair confirmed that it is unlikely that there will be a meeting with Welbeck.
- TDC Cllr McWilliams advised that efforts are being made by TDC officers to convene a meeting with Welbeck to discuss its planning application in order to clarify highway issues.
APPENDIX
Heckfords Road West Development – Proposal to refuse
As a Parish we have responded to the applications put before us so far and we have demonstrated that we do not have to choose where we want mass development to go. The Parish has asked that we do not support these developments and through the efforts of many people, TDC Planning Committee have recognised that Great Bentley does not have the infrastructure to cope with them and has refused each one so far for this reason.
In addition to this, for each application we have drawn out and highlighted reasons to refuse which are unique to the sites.
We now have an armory of reasons which we know the Planning Committee respond to, and on each occasion I have spoken in front of the Committee I have drawn out how important the perception of their consistency is, especially at this time when the district has no Local Plan.
My proposal is that we draw on the detailed reasons given by the Planning Committee for refusing both Plough Road and Admirals Farm and use these in our refusal for this development, along with concerns specific to this site.
This will include:
- Development Boundary
As was the case for both Plough Road and Admirals Farm, this application is not on a site allocated for development in either the Council's adopted Local Plan or the emerging Local Plan and also falls outside of the settlement development boundaries as defined in both plans.
- School & Doctors
As was the case for both Plough Road and Admirals Farm, in respect of both the primary school and the doctors surgery, the adverse social impact caused by the development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh any social, economic or environmental benefits of the proposal. The development would fail against the social role set out in Paragraph 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework and would not therefore constitute sustainable development.
- Travel Choice
According to the NPPF, all new development proposals should be located and designed to avoid reliance on the use of the private car and promote travel choice other than in exceptional circumstances. Permission will not be granted for development if it is not accessible by a choice of means of transport. As recognised by the Committee in respect of Plough Road, Great Bentley’s frequency of bus and rail services is limited and they do not therefore provide a viable alternative to the private car for everyday travel.
- Pedestrian Safety
In common with the Admirals Farm application, this site requires pedestrians to walk to the village facilities and public transport links via a particularly dangerous corner on Heckfords Road. This footpath will create an unacceptable ‘pinch point’ which we believe endangers the safety of residents. As local residents we are familiar with this corner and the danger it poses and cannot support development which would put people at risk in this way. Furthermore, the ongoing route in to the village comprises large sections which are subject to surface water (along The Path) and unlit (across the central Green). This development would not therefore meet TDC policy requirements of providing convenient, safe and direct routes for walking and would further encourage use of the private car.
- Urbanisation
TDC Policy requires that new development does not have an urbanising effect on the rural character of the village(s) concerned. This development would have a considerable urbanising impact on the Northern entrance to the village and conservation area. It would extend development in to what is currently an area of uncontained open countryside to the North, posing considerable risk of further add-on developments in the future. This development would contradict Policy SD2 of the emerging Local Plan which identifies urban settlements as being the focus for the majority of the district's growth.
- Conservation Area
The Great Bentley conservation area will suffer significant detriment in respect of the long view impact from its Northern edge, an area specifically mentioned in 2006 TDC Conservation area review as requiring protecting.
- Traffic impact
The applicant comments that there were no specific transport or highway comments from the Parish. The Parish Council believes that there are considerable issues in respect of the traffic impact from this development on the surrounding rural roads and the village itself, and that these points were raised at the ‘consultation’.