Present: M.Barker (Chair), T.Daws (Vice), K.Auckland, G Harper, N Morley,

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Present: M.Barker (Chair), T.Daws (Vice), K.Auckland, G Harper, N Morley,"

Scarlett James
5 years ago
Views:

1 Minutes of the extra-ordinary meeting of Aslockton Parish Council held in the Thomas Cranmer Centre, Aslockton, Nottinghamshire on Friday 25 th April 2014 at 7.00pm. Present: M.Barker (Chair), T.Daws (Vice), K.Auckland, G Harper, N Morley, Also present: One member of the public Apologies for absence Apologies were received from Cllr M.Lowth, Cllr C.Haslam, and Clerk M.Rogers. In the absence of the Clerk, Cllr K.Auckland agreed to take the minutes. Declaration of prejudicial interests The Chair M.Barker declared an interest on the planning application 14/00480/OUT. The agenda of the meeting was to formulate objections to the above planning reference. As the Chairman declared an interest and the Vice Chairman (due to health reasons) declared himself as unfit to chair the meeting, it was proposed by M.Barker and seconded by K.Auckland that Cllr G.Harper chaired the meeting. Open session for members of the public. F.Barker expressed her wish that the Council paid particular attention to the information she had provided about misleading information contained in the planning documents. To formulate the Parish Councils objection for planning application 14/00480/OUT for up to 75 houses on land to the south of Abbey Lane After a lengthy discussion the Council agreed to the following objections: Contravening the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) on points: NPPF 17 proposed developments should be plan led, this application is development led. It completely ignores the strategic approach in the emerging Local Plan. NPPF 29, 30, 34 and 37 transport systems need to be balanced in favour of sustainable transport. Although Aslockton supports two forms of public transport, bus and train, neither provide a comprehensive timetable for the majority of commuters. For example, the last bus to Aslockton leaves Bingham at 17.55pm. In addition the extra time to walk from the development makes the question of using public transport unsustainable. As there is very little local employment in Aslockton and public transport is inadequate, the application fails to satisfy these policy points. NPPF 100 and 101 inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk and the aim of the Sequential Test to steer new development to areas with the lowest probability of flooding. The application fails on both these counts when applied to the whole of Rushcliffe not just a convenient section. An Aslockton housing survey in 2003 resulted

2 in 13 residents needing housing, by the time 6 affordable properties were built only 4 were occupied. The remaining 2 had to have the criteria adapted to find suitable tenants. A recent survey in the neighbouring villages of Whatton and Orston showed a need of only 3 per village. As there is no proven need for housing of this scale, and there are other sites at a lower risk of flooding within Rushcliffe, then the Sequential Test fails and can be considered inappropriate. The Council believes that weight can be given to policies in the 2006 Non Statutory Replacement Plan and the application contravenes this on the following points: HOU2 (a) development on unallocated sites The Council feels the size of the development will have a detrimental effect on the character of the village as there is no other development near to this size. Aslockton has a mixture of dwellings with no one development exceeding forty within the settlement. HOU2 (f) states the proposal does not fall within an area of sporadic or ribbon development outside the settlement nor is situated in open countryside The proposed site is outside the settlement, in open countryside. HOU4 new dwellings will not be permitted outside settlements unless for the purpose of agriculture. GP1 (iv) provide improved access to jobs, health, education, shops, leisure and community facilities, open space, sport and recreation, by ensuring that new development is located where everyone can access services or facilities on foot, bicycle or public transport rather than having to rely on access by car. As stated previously there is little local employment, very limited public transport and being on the edge of the village this will promote shopping by car to Bingham, not by foot to Aslockton. GP 2 (a) The proposed development will have an adverse effect upon the residential amenity of the surrounding area due to the massive increase in traffic. EN21 - Planning permission will not be granted for development involving the loss of best and most versatile agricultural land (defined as grades 1, 2 and 3a of the agricultural land classification) except where it cannot be accommodated on poorer quality land, including previously developed, or non-agricultural land, or where other sustainability considerations suggest the use of higher quality land is preferable. The Council feels as there is no need for housing in Aslockton, and do not believe that 75 additional houses are sustainable, then high grade agricultural land should not be lost. The Council is in agreement with the Rushcliffe Borough Replacement Local Plan Inspector s Report Chapter 4. Point All of these objections from the FDD stage relate to sites within and around the villages of Aslockton and Whatton. Whilst I accept the analysis of the village s facilities and transport links provided by the objectors and their agents it is a location that is well down the priority list in Policy 2 of RSS8. The Panel Report into the JSP EiP (CD/LG/03, para 3.16) makes it clear that development..physically unrelated to the larger urban areas is almost always unsustainable unless it is for purely local needs. Point The combined population of Aslockton and Whatton amount to well under 2000 and their location some 4 miles from Bingham and about 10 from the Principal Urban area of Nottingham, is that of relative rural

3 isolation Point Aslockton and Whatton are not sustainable locations for general housing allocations. Rushcliffe Borough Council responded to the above on 16 th March 2006 stating that it had accepted the Inspector s recommendation without modification. The Council also wish to comment on the some of the information in the accompanying documents supplied by the developers. EWE Associates Flood Risk Report, sections Past Flooding History and SFRA Flooding History report no record of flooding of the area. The Drainage Strategy Report, item states since the construction of a piped drain there has been no recorded on site flooding of the area. This is incorrect, the land has flooded we can provide photographs to prove this. The Design and Access Statement makes several references to urban development and urban environment The Council feels that this is misleading. Aslockton is a small village with a small village feel and character. Over the past five years a total of eleven additional infill properties have been already added. To increase the size of the village by a further development of 75 dwellings would have an undoubted detrimental effect on the character of the village. The Transport Assessment, section Base Traffic Flows and Highways Impact are flawed. The traffic count undertaken was only one way (westward, out of the village). The Council feel that information based on this limited survey is misleading. Jan Witko (Principal Development Control Officer of Highways Development Control) reports the need for a full two week survey. The Outline Planning Statement, section 5.15 does not provide an accurate picture of the current situation. The school is under subscribed but some local children go to Orston School. The population of children is transitory and should not be a factor. It could be argued that Toot Hill School in Bingham is oversubscribed, so where will they go when they reach 11? Section 4 of the Transport Assessment, and the application in general, puts great emphasis on the ease to walk/cycle to the village. But the pavement at Main Street end of Abbey Lane is narrow, and towards the end is only on one side. Jan Witko states the visibility of Main Street junction is zero. At school times this end of Abbey Lane is totally congested. It is to quote a resident an accident waiting to happen. The accident history reported in the Transport Assessment Document is deemed to be misleading. Point 2.22 Table 1 the number of accidents over a 5 year period are divided into slight, serious and fatal. This refers to personal injury, NOT the number of accidents and is therefore misleading. The junction of the A52 onto New Lane is known to have had numerous accidents. The Framework Travel Plan, item 3.15 refers to public transport bus links. The Council wish to point out that the Newark bus only runs twice a week and should not be considered when referring to public transport for commuting to work.

4 The Council questions the assumption of the diversion of the public footpath referred to in the Design and Access Statement Part 6 Movement and Connectivity. It is our understanding that public footpath diversions have to approved by NCC following a period of local consultation. In the Drainage Strategic Report is states a pluvial compensation area in relation to Crawfords Meadow is supposed to be located within the development area and the site owner is unaware of any works having been carried out. This is incorrect. Degradation of an equal area of land was carried out as well as a ditch being dug around the perimeter. The Council wishes to make the following observations The proposed site has been regularly reviewed by the Rushcliffe Planning Policy Team under the Strategic Land Availability Assessment (Site Ref 1) and it has always been deemed as unsuitable for development at present for various stated reasons. Under the consultation for the proposed Core Strategy, the Parish Council stated that it would only wish to see infill development. The emerging Spatial Policy of the Core Strategy only allows for limited infilling within rural settlements. Over the last five years there have been a number of occasions when the main sewer on Abbey Lane has blocked due to the failure of the Noble Lane pumping station. As the new development proposes to pump the foul water from the site to the existing gravity sewer in Abbey Lane (Drainage Strategy Report 3.4.7), this will have a massive impact on the pumping station at Noble Lane. The Council agrees with Bingham Town Council when they state that the development will impact on the Health, Education and Traffic facilities at Bingham that are already at a point of saturation. Following a public meeting about the proposal with the residents of Aslockton, the Council wish to raise the following points: This proposal provides too much growth for the existing community. As part of the Parish of Aslockton includes houses at the prison some distance away from the village, it could be argued that within the settlement of Aslockton, 75 houses would be nearly a 25% increase. An increase of this magnitude would have far reaching consequences on virtually every aspect of the village and existing village facilities would not be able to cope. Although not technical experts, several residents were concerned over the proposed drainage systems. The proposed lake is on higher ground than the surrounding land and although it may cover the site, the existing flood plain provides for the area generally. Were the development to proceed as proposed it was felt that the flooding issue would simply be pushed elsewhere.

5 The proposed access is near the bend on Abbey Lane. As the traffic count did not monitor cars coming into the village it has not been shown to be without danger at this location. Residents in the surrounding area already have problems getting house insurance because of the perceived risk of flooding. As quotes are based on post codes, it was questioned, would the new houses be able to get insurance? The adjoining 6 properties at Crawford s Meadow were affordable houses built on an exception site. This site was part of the field that is now applying for 75 houses. Why is it no longer an exception site? With the exception of one interested party who was in favour of the proposal, the overwhelming majority voted to oppose it. Meeting closed at 8.30pm Date of next meeting: Monday 12th May at 7pm.

Review of the Plaistow and Ifold Site Options and Assessment Report Issued by AECOM in August 2016.

Review of the Plaistow and Ifold Site Options and Assessment Report Issued by AECOM in August 2016. Our ref: CHI/16/01 Prepared by Colin Smith Planning Ltd September 2016 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Colin Smith