Agenda item

Land Adjacent To Highwinds Lower Moor Road Coleorton Coalville Leicestershire LE67 8FN

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report to members.  He highlighted that following the publication of the update sheet, further representations had been received from Worthington Parish Council setting out their objections to the application. These being  that the site was outside the limits to development, breaches the Local Plan and national planning policy documents and highways concerns relating to the entrance and exit to the site being on to a busy road.  An additional third party representation had also been received objecting to the application which sought to refute points made in the design and access statement. 

Mrs A Stafford, objector, addressed the meeting.  She stated that the site was outside the limits to development and there was no longer any reason to develop greenfield land.  She added that there was no proof of any need for retirement homes in the area, services were not within the required distance and there would be a detrimental impact upon the amenity of residents.  She stated that contacts from outside the community had been encouraged to write in support of the application.  She felt that this needed to be investigated as it distorted the views of local resident and it could not be ethical to call upon a group of people to support an application who had no interest in it.   She felt that the applicant was hoping to set a precedent and commented that the submitted Local Plan empowered the Planning Committee to reject such spurious applications.  She urged members to refuse the application in accordance with the recommendation.

Mr A Large, applicant’s agent, addressed the meeting.  He stated that he had been approached numerous times over the last six months by people looking for retirement homes in Coleorton.  He added that the applicants had local connections and did not wish to move away from the village, and he believed this was why there was a petition in support of the proposals.  He acknowledged that there were objections to the scheme and a fear of a precedent being set in terms of further speculative developments, however he emphasised that each application had to be assessed on its own merits.  He stated that there was existing development on three sides of the site, which was within easy walking distance from services in the village.  He believed there was a strong argument for the need for retirement homes in Coleorton.  He felt that whether the application was assessed under the current or submitted Local Plan, there was a presumption in favour of sustainable development. 

Councillor G Jones expressed support for the scheme and felt there was a need for retirement homes in the village.   

In response to questions from Councillor M Specht, the Senior Planning Officer clarified that the original application was for dormer bungalows. 

Councillor M Specht commented that  there would be no need for people to walk to the school from retirement dwellings.  He expressed concerns in respect of the suggestions that elderly people could not walk down the hill to the post office and back.  He also felt it was difficult to understand what constituted a retirement dwelling. He added that restricting bungalows to 2 bedrooms was not acceptable, as elderly people may need separate bedrooms, or have children and grandchildren to stay.

Councillor J Legrys said he was aggrieved that the application had been altered and that it was not right that members of the Planning Committee and the objectors found out about the amendments on the update sheet now.  He commented that ribbon development had always been prevalent in Coleorton but it had to stop here.  He added that the council could now demonstrate a five year housing land supply. 

Councillor D Everitt expressed concerns that the attractiveness of the village of Coleorton was being diminished and he expressed disappointment that this application had been brought before the Planning Committee.  He also expressed concerns in respect of a group of people submitting a view on an application which they had no interest in.  He supported the officer’s recommendation. 

Councillor R Adams stated that he would not be supporting the proposals as the site was outside the limits to development.

Councillor M B Wyatt commented that members had not had sight of the petition and did not know who had signed it.  As such he felt that this should not be taken into account. 

The Head of Planning and Regeneration explained that the signatories of the petition had given no address and the petition did not provide any planning reasons to support the application, and as such there was nothing to give regard to.  He confirmed that the site was outside the limits to development, was contrary to policies in the development plan and was therefore harmful by definition.  He added that there was no empirical evidence to support the need for any kind of retirement housing in the village, and the dwellings may or may not have such restrictions imposed upon them. 

Following a question from Councillor D J Stevenson, the Head of Planning and Regeneration confirmed the position in respect of the submitted Local Plan.  He advised that the submitted Local Plan was now at an advanced stage and officers were currently in the process of agreeing a schedule of modifications with the inspector.  It was intended that, with a fair wind, the Council would be asked to adopt the Local Plan in September if the hoped for report from the Inspector were to be received in June.  He clarified that at present, the submitted Local Plan carried considerable weight, but not full weight. 

Councillor D J Stevenson felt that the proposals were for 3 houses in the middle of nowhere, and did not offer any planning gain.  

It was moved by Councillor R Adams, seconded by Councillor J Legrys and

RESOLVED THAT:

The application be refused in accordance with the recommendation of the Head of Planning and Regeneration.