DRAFT MINUTES – for pdf version click here – 2022 May Planning – Chapel Lane
ENSTONE PARISH COUNCIL
Planning Meeting Held in the School Hall on Monday, 23rd May 2022 at 7pm
Land at Chapel Lane (22/00838/OUT)
PRESENT: Parish Councillors N Knott (Chair), R Parker, A Ward, D Robottom,
M Baggaley, DC A Beaney, Mr J Tait and 39 residents.
MINUTES: Cllr C Glendinning
APOLOGIES: Mrs Beth Sinclair, Parish Clerk; Cllr P Shaw
Cllr N Knott welcomed everyone to the meeting and asked Mr J Tait to give a summary of the application.
Mr Tait explained this outline application is now out for consultation. It is proposed to build eight dwellings. The parameters are to balance the area of the site with housing and green spaces. There are to be no more than eight dwellings; two points for access; there will not be a through road; part of the site will have open spaces.
No further building on the site will be allowed in the future; there will be a small area of parking for general use; there will be pedestrian access across the green area.
It is proposed a range of houses, some small as well a family homes. Two will be discounted by 30% for first time buyers.
Various ways of selling the plots are being considered at this stage. A construction plan will be set up to minimise activity on the site.
Questions from the PC:-
Many concerns were raised about the lack of parking on the site. Two spaces per house. A four bedroomed property is quite likely to have up to three or more vehicles.
There is no parking for visitors.
There should be more parking spaces and parking for visitors.
Delivery trucks will create more traffic, as they drive from one property to another and will need to drive around Chapel lane and this is a very difficult negotiate if going from one house to another.
If plots are sold separately and for self-build there is the chance that a self-build will run out of money at some stage and the plot remains an eyesore for years.
Questions from residents:-
When reversing out of the site drivers will not be able to see, they would have to reverse in to a parking space in order to exit safely.
The northern access visibility splay is poor because Chapel Lane is very narrow.
If the plots are sold separately how will the construction traffic be managed.
The traffic survey was taken in May 2021 partly during a period of lockdown.
How is the development traffic to be managed when the 29 houses, on the land south of Oxford Road, are causing so much disruption?
It is recommended that Chapel Lane should be resurfaced in tarmac and the one way system to the village shop put in place.
Many new houses are purchased by week-enders.
How does this development benefit the village.
Currently the existing residents enjoy undisturbed views through the site.
Who will be responsible for the maintenance of the drystone walls and green space.
Has consideration been taken regarding the drainage and sewage and what will be done to deal with storm water.
How do you guard against mission creep? How do you stop someone from buying a plot and then wanting to build two houses on it?
This feels like a betrayal. It was a major selling point for buying a house looking out onto a green space.
This land is too fertile for a wildlife meadow having had dairy cows and more recently sheep grazing on it. It supports many species of wildflowers and grasses, which attract pollinators and in turn provide food for other species on the site.
This area has been designated a habitat for the greater crested newts. This is a protected species.
The proposed site acts as a wildlife corridor for species that are passing to the river Glyme and are channeled by existing urban developments and the A44. Hedgehogs, a red list species, are a good example that are seen frequently passing through the proposed site and house sparrows, also on the red list, nest on the site.
Will the neighbours be consulted about the planting on the boundaries?
It was noted that the ecological survey was undertaken when the field had just been cut.
What is the biodiversity gain? What has been assessed from what is already there.
It was stated that this was a monoculture by Mr Tait, which it clearly is not.
Response from Mr J Tait
The two properties will be discounted by 30% of the open market value. They would be covenanted that they have to be sold on with the 30% discount in perpetuity.
The key issue is that there are only a few houses and large open spaces.
There will be a legal obligation imposed not to build ‘in perpetuity’.
Have noted the public parking issue for the design stage. The County Council have a standard for
parking spaces and this is compliant.
Could look at increasing parking for the shop. The alternative is to create a through route but this could become a rat-run.
The parking spaces have been moved back in the site and the dry stone wall will be moved back to allow visibility at the entrance.
Highways have no objection to the plan.
The survey was relating to traffic speeds; 85% of traffic was found to be travelling around 15mph. This is the recognised method for measuring speed. Visibility splay is measured at driver height.
A construction management plan will deal with traffic during the building phase. The builders have a responsibility to adhere to the management plan.
Many local builders have expressed an interest.
Traffic will park on the site and it can be arranged that there is no movement of traffic during school times, etc.
The wider open spaces will be managed and a management fee charged. The two discounted properties will be immune from the management fee.
The development would deal with surface water drainage either taken off site or held in a soak-away as part of the management. There was going to be a surface water pond now that is not suitable the pond could be more an ecology pond. The pond could be removed from the plans.
It is intended to be an informal area. Consultation with the neighbours regarding planting on the boundary will be done at the reserved matters stage.
The ecology report undertaken on the site has not found evidence of the greater crested newt.
No one wants to destroy habitats. There is nothing that we have prohibited from the ecology report, and there is a chance to enhance this. All these species will have greater opportunity when the site is developed.
These open spaces give character and this is the right place for a development. Eight dwellings is not a large development for this village.
This is an opportunist development and as such as this will require robust justification.
No benefits to the village have been shown?
It is a green field surrounded by houses.
It was a surprise that Mr Tait had not looked at previous applications, which have been thrown out. It was questioned why this application will succeed?
The Chair recalled that years ago the site has been a dairy farm and more recently had sheep grazing. Many villagers will recall ‘Atwells Fair’ that used to visit the site each year.
If this goes ahead the site should be sold to one developer so that one builder does all the work.
Summary by the PC – We would ask that another ecology report is undertaken.
We should ask that the one way system should be in place before any development takes place.
The car parking spaces are addressed;
The PC will be sending in their report with these recommendations to WODC.
A Show of Hands from residents – In favour Nil
Parish Council – against 6
The meeting closed at 8.40pm