Agenda item

11 Rempstone Road Belton Loughborough Leicestershire LE12 9XA

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report to members.

Mr P Crichton, applicant, addressed the meeting.  He highlighted that there was no negative feedback and no objections from the parish council, local residents or the Highways Authority and all village services were within the prescribed distance.  He made reference to the improvement agreed with the Highways Authority to modify visibility at the bend in the road and widen the footpath to a safer distance, which would be a significant benefit for many people who lived on Rempstone Road.  He added that the road was busy and walking along the footpath at the bend could be quite intimidating and dangerous.  He felt that the site was not isolated and the proposals were effectively infill development between mature homes which would follow the existing building line and remain consistent with the street scape. 

Councillor D J Stevenson reminded the committee that this application had been refused under delegated powers late last year, and that he had invited the applicant to put it back in. He had then asked for the application to be called to committee. He commented that there was a big difference between a dwelling in an open field and one in someone’s yard.  He felt that there was a large planning gain and that there were no objections to the proposals.  He moved that the application be permitted on the grounds that the proposals would provide a planning gain by reducing the bend in the road and widening the footpath. 

The motion was seconded by Councillor J Hoult.

Councillor D Everitt questioned whether the planning gain had been created by the situation with the hedge extending considerably over the wall. He suggested that the visibility could have been improved with hedge trimmers, without the need for this application.

Councillor J Legrys felt that the situation could easily be resolved by way of an enforcement notice to have the hedge clipped back.  He added that the site was outside the limits to development. He observed that the speed limit of the road was 40 mph, but said that actual traffic speeds were higher.

Councillor M Specht agreed with the comments made in respect of the hedge being cut back and emphasised the need to protect sustainability as enshrined in the NPPF.  He stated that he would be supporting the officer’s recommendation.

Councillor G Jones said that he felt the planning gain mentioned outweighed any other negative impact of the proposals.

Councillor D Harrison commented that widening the footpath by 2.5 feet was more than could be achieved by trimming a hedge and he could see the gain from the proposals.  He added that he would sooner vote for safety than for policy and would support the proposals.

Councillor J Hoult supported the comments that had been made by Councillor D Harrison.

Further to a question from Councillor R Johnson, it was clarified that the highways improvement referred to in the report was the widening of the footway.

The motion to permit the application was then put to the vote and declared CARRIED. It was therefore

RESOLVED THAT:

a)    The application be permitted on the grounds that the proposals would provide a planning gain by reducing the bend in the road and widening the footpath.

The imposition of conditions be delegated to the Head of Planning and Regeneration.