Bradenham : Hale Road : Proposed Residential Development for Clayland Estates : Reference : 3PL/2010/1333/F
- Meeting of Planning Committee, Monday, 7th March, 2011 9.30 am (Item 63.)
- View the declarations of interest for item 63.
Report of the Deputy Chief Executive.
Cllr Bowes declared a personal interest as she was acquainted with the applicant. Cllr Labouchere declared a personal interest by virtue of knowing the Chair of the Parish Council.
The report concerned a planning application for the development of 11 dwellings on land off Hale Road, Bradenham and was considered by the Committee on 14 February 2011, when it was resolved to defer the application to enable further local consultation on revised footpath proposals to take place.
Two alternative schemes had been submitted for consideration, and the Applicant had provided up to date details on the four Path Consultation Options which were distributed to all Members. The Principal Planning Officer (Major Projects) went through them. Drawings produced were indicative.
Option 1 – roadside connection to crossing point and extending to village green, complete hedge removal, large amount of bank removed.
Option 2 – internal site path connecting to crossing point and extending to village green, minor hedge and bank removal for splays and entrances.
Option 3 – relocated eastern access. Internal path to roadside path connecting to existing crossing point. Substantial hedge retention, existing crossing point enhanced, path extending to village green.
Option 4 – roadside/internal path. Substantial hedge removal, connecting to crossing point and extending to village green.
Local residents and the Parish Council had been re-consulted. Very little local representation had been received apart from concerns with regard to the possible loss of the hedge.
The Highways preference was for Option 1 and on the basis of that, they would withdraw their previous objection. They confirmed their view that they considered the pedestrian crossing to be inappropriate due to the location of the site.
Option 4 provided a compromise and deserved most scrutiny in that it provided some retention of the existing hedge. Highways had indicated that the footway would not be used, and the footway adjacent to the road would be more convenient but the issue was the loss of hedge.
Mr Worsfold, NCC Highways, reiterated that Options 2-4 did not provide benefits to the wider community as the footway was to the rear of the hedge and would likely be used by residents of the development only. Option 1 provided benefits to the entire community. The hedge was very close to the carriageway edge and in order to provide visibility splays there would have to be significant re-grading of the bank and would require removal of a significant amount of hedge. He was asked if anymore of the hedge would need to be removed, to which he replied that more hedge would have to be taken out than was shown on the plans.
The Principal Planning Officer (Major Projects) reminded the Committee that the amount of hedge had been subject to previous discussions and the Applicant had been asked to provide further drawings, which were the ones submitted to Members at the meeting. There were always elements of uncertainties with regard to the effect of ground works on hedges. It was felt more appropriate to consider the amount of hedge to be retained.
Mr. Alhusen, Parish Council, stated that an open meeting held on 22 February 2011, residents had been largely in agreement with the Parish Council on supporting Option 1, the Highways preference. Residents felt that the footway inside the site would not get used by other residents, and that the pavement would be of much greater benefit. Widening of the road would be welcome, along with 2 road calming signs, concerns remained with regard to rainwater and sewerage. He reiterated that if the shared ownership houses could not be sold, that they be changed to lettings instead. Access had been discussed and he asked if the site could have one entrance, and there had been concerns with regard to fuel tankers.
Mr Tilley, Applicant, advised that Breckland Council, Bradenham and residents of the adjacent properties had been consulted. Option 4 would be best in their opinion, and the isolated section of path should be omitted as it provided very little benefit. The scheme was ready to be delivered. 350m of footpath would link the main village areas, there would be road widening, a crossing point, speed restriction signs, and he felt that the 6 open market homes could provide no more benefits than those proposed.
The hedge had been assessed for the purposes of the planning application. Norfolk Police had no specific view on the options, but their advice was that it should be open to as much casual surveillance as possible.
A Member of the Committee felt that Options 3 and 4 should be looked at to protect the hedge.
The Chairman questioned Mr Alhusen from the Parish Council that it was Option 1 that members of the public now thought was the best option. He replied that although the hedge would have to come out, the longer term had been taken into account with regard to replanting a new hedge and to have a pathway.
The Chairman proposed Option 1, as she wanted to take into account the views of the Parish Council and the local people; the proposal was seconded.
RESOLVED that the application be deferred and the Officers authorised to grant approval subject to conditions on the basis of Option 1 on completion of the legal agreement.