Agenda item

To consider a Planning Application for the erection of 111 houses, 6 bungalows and 8 apartments with associated roads, car parking, landscaping, infrastructure and access on land off Beetham Road, Milnthorpe (copy enclosed)

 

Members considered a Planning Application for the erection of 111 houses, 6 bungalows and 8 apartments with associated roads, car parking, landscaping, infrastructure and access from Beetham Road, Land off Beetham Road, Milnthorpe.

 

The Development Control Manager gave members a detailed presentation and tabled an update report, which informed them that officers had now received an updated Tree Survey Report, which included at Appendix E a Tree Protection Method Statement.

The Council’s arboriculturist had confirmed that provided development proceeded in accordance with this Statement the retained trees and hedges on the site should be suitably protected from development activity. Therefore, it was recommended that condition 9 be updated accordingly to read as follows:

Condition (9):    No development other than approved works to retained trees and hedges shall commence until tree and hedge protection measures have been installed in accordance with the provisions of Appendix E of the submitted Tree Survey Report prepared by PDP Associates, updated January 2024. Development in this context includes the introduction of any machinery or material to site. Thereafter, the installed measures must be retained for the duration of the construction phase of the development.

Reason:             To protect existing trees in accordance with policy DM4 (Green and Blue Infrastructure, Open Space, Trees and Landscaping) of the South Lakeland Development Management Policies Development Plan Document.

 

The Development Control Manager presentation was detailed and covered:-

 

·           Principles of Development

·           Impact on the character and appearance of the area

·           Impact on biodiversity, and

·           Access and flooding

·           Impact on neighbouring residents

 

The Development Control Manager then discussed the representations and the objections made to this application.

 

There had been a total of 66 representations since this application was first registered, 48 explicitly badged (or taken to be) objections and 18 explicitly badged (or taken to be) observations. Some individuals had written in several times in response to the various iterations of the proposals.

 

The Development Manager outlined the main areas of concerns raised.

 

The application site did deviate from the allocation boundary in places, excluding high ground in the north-east and including a compensatory area in the south-east, which was contrary to the development strategy of the development plan, but having assessed the changes against relevant policies and other material considerations, the impacts were considered to be negligible and the proposal was judged to be in accordance with the development plan as a whole.

 

However, given that the excluded part of the allocation still enjoyed a presumption in favour of development, it was considered necessary to negate this via a planning obligation in order to fully justify the breach of the development boundary proposed in this case.

 

The application contributed less than 35% affordable housing, but the applicants had submitted a viability assessment to justify their position. This had been independently scrutinised and found to be sound. Therefore, a lower contribution of affordable housing was considered acceptable in this case.

 

Consultation responses demonstrated that existing infrastructure either had adequate capacity to deal with the demands of the development, or, as in the case of health care provision, could be made so by drawing upon the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). United Utilities had stated that it had “no concerns in relation to the impact of the development on the wastewater treatment works”. A scheme for dealing with surface water had been agreed in principle with the lead local flood authority.

 

A new road junction would be created onto the A6, which would include a right-hand turn lane and an extension of the 30mph speed limit. Two additional emergency vehicle accesses were also proposed, which could also function as additional pedestrian/cycle connections. These measures could be controlled by  conditions and the local highway authority considered the proposal acceptable.

 

The Planning Officer was recommending that planning permission be approved subject to conditions and a Section 106 agreement as set out in the report..

 

The Chair opened the meeting to public participation, and Mr Sherrington was invited to speak.

 

He addressed the planning committee as a supporter of the development, but wished to bring to the attention of the Committee the potential of improving traffic and road safety for new and current occupants of Milnthorpe.  Specifically:

 

·           The chance to improve street lighting, pedestrian safety and traffic calming measures.

The Chair thanked Mr Sherrington for his presentation.

 

He then invited Mr Steve Hurst, Chairman of Milnthorpe Parish Council to speak.  He raised three concerns with this proposal:

 

·           To make sure there is enough accommodation for young and old alike (Milnthorpe residents).

·           ALL houses and accommodation to be in keeping with the rest of the village.

·           The development CANNOT become a rat run from the A6 through to the church area and Main Street.

 

Next to speak was Mr Graham Love on behalf of the applicant.  He was speaking in support of the application and wanted to address the committee on the following matters:

 

·           Heritage

·           Affordable housing

·           Traffic and transport

·           Drainage

·           Infrastructure

·           Design

The Chair then invited Craig Allen to speak on behalf of the residents. He raised the issue of sewage and surface water generated by the proposed development.  Specifically:-

·           The capacity of the United Utilities water treatment plant at Milnthorpe to process the extra volume of sewage generated by this development without increasing the number and volume of discharges from the storm drains into the River Bela.

·           The appropriateness of directing excess exceedance water from the north and central sections of the site into the streets of the adjacent established properties.

The final speaker was one of the local ward councillors.  The Chair invited Cllr Chaffey to address the committee.

 

Cllr Chaffey wanted the opportunity to make her own observations  in relation to the various concerns raised by residents.  The issues raised by Cllr Chaffey included:

 

·           Proposed housing mix in relation to local housing needs

·           Proposed management and control of sewage and surface water

·           Proposed traffic management and where the 30 mph starts

·           Infrastructure concerns, in particular the surgery

 

The meeting adjourned at 11.55am and reconvened at 12.05pm.

 

The Chair then opened the meeting up to debate.

 

Members had a long debate about this application in which some concerns were raised.  At the end of the debate it was proposed from the floor that this application be deferred to allow for further consideration of the following:

 

• The invasive views of some of properties in particular:-

 

Plot 1 and Sunny Brae

Plot 13 and Lane Edge

Plots affecting Hartland House

Plots 87-89 and 19 Firs Close

Plot 101 and 17 Firs Close

 

• Sewage and Surface Water – members asked for more information and reassurances from United Utilities that the drainage and sewage systems would be able to cope with the increased demand, as the local feedback/knowledge was that the water quality in the River Bela was already poor and that the proposal could lead to increased risk of flooding.

 

• Housing Mix – Members felt that the housing mix should be reviewed.

 

• Affordable Housing – members wanted the provision of affordable homes looked at again as they did not think 19 was sufficient given the number of properties planned. 

 

• Proposals for access to highways – Members requested that an elliptical arrangement be considered for the access to the site.

 

The proposal from the floor to defer the application for reconsideration of the above matters was then put to a vote, which was unanimous.

 

RESOLVED,     that the application be deferred.

 

The meeting then adjourned at 12.40pm and reconvened at 12.45pm.