Agenda item

Land At Swepstone Road Heather Coalville Leicestershire LE67 2RF

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report to members.

Mrs A Wright, Parish Councillor, addressed the meeting.  She stated that this was a greenfield site outside the limits to development and a stand-alone site which could in no way be considered to be an integral part of the village.  She added that the proposals were not compliant with policy S2.  She highlighted the village had no access to public transport, new residents would be reliant upon cars and this would add to congestion on Main Street.  She added that the site was liable to flooding.  She referred to the objection from Leicestershire County Council and the complaints in respect of Dawson’s Yard adjacent to the site.  She asked members to give due regard to the heritage aspects of the proposal.  She stated that the development was not necessary to meet the needs of local people and the housing land supply had been provided.  She asked members to refuse the application.

Mr R Marshall, supporter, addressed the meeting.  He stated that Heather was classed as a sustainable village and therefore would have to accept some development.  He expressed support for the application as the entrance and exit provided good visibility along Swepstone Road in both directions and the proposed footpath would provide access to the play area without the need to cross the road.  He added that the plot was definitive and could not be extended, and the application would not erode the character of the village and the visible countryside.  He commented that the response from village residents had been quite small which suggested that there was not too much opposition to the proposals.  He stated that the land had been wild scrubland for decades and provided no agricultural benefit. He stated that if the application was wrongly refused, there was no doubt in his mind of the likelihood of the application being permitted at appeal. 

Mr A Large, agent, addressed the meeting.  He stated that members needed to judge whether the conflicts with the Local Plan could be outweighed by the presumption in favour of sustainable development.  He reminded members of a similar scheme in the previous year which had been recommended for approval on that basis.  He made reference to the noise survey and expressed disappointment that there was no reference in the report of the significant built form to the east of the site.  He added that the site was not prime agricultural land and the topography created a plateau.  He stated that the proposals would not appear incongruous with the surroundings, most residents accepted that additional housing was required and there were no technical objections to the scheme.  He asked members to permit the application.

Councillor M B Wyatt moved that the application be refused in accordance with the officer’s recommendation.  The motion was seconded by Councillor R Adams.

Councillor N Smith stated that he could see no problem whatsoever with developing this site.  He commented that the yard next door was an eyesore, the proposals would cause no environmental harm, the site was a contained area and could not be expanded, the site was behind a layby and the hall could not be seen from the site.  He felt that this was the type of housing that was needed in the village.  He made reference to the previous application opposite this site which was an open field.

Councillor J Bridges expressed concerns in respect of the yard adjacent to the site and the possibility of this expanding into the site at some point.  He felt that officers would be unable to refuse such an application. 

Councillor J Legrys stated that the site was outside the limits to development in both the current and emerging local plan.  He made reference to the desire of residents to ensure that development remained within the limits.  He highlighted that there were other applications in the Heather area which had been refused for this reason and he supported the officer’s recommendation. 

Councillor G Jones expressed support for the application.  He stated that the site was wild scrubland rather than a greenfield site.  He felt that the yard adjacent was causing harm to the application and the topography of the site would make for a very desirable development. 

Councillor J Clarke stated that the application found him between a rock and a hard place and he had been lobbied by both sides.  He added that previous experience showed that objectors were far more likely to submit representations than those who were in support of the application and this had not been the case in respect of this application.  He made reference to the fact that there was no bus service in the village, the site was outside the limits to development and was neither a greenfield nor brownfield site.  He questioned what would become of the site if it was not utilised for housing and felt the wishes of locals who would like the site to be developed should be listened to, whilst ensuring consistency. 

As Councillor J Clarke had read from a prepared speech, the Legal Advisor recommended that he remove himself from the meeting during consideration of this item due to the appearance of pre-determination.

Councillor J Clarke left the meeting and took no further part in the consideration or voting on this item.

Councillor R Adams stated that the site was outside the limits to development and he could not support the application. 

Councillor J Legrys requested a recorded vote.

Councillor M Specht stated that he had listened to the speakers and he welcomed the self-build aspect of the proposals and the affordable housing contributions.  He felt that the proposals would not cause significant harm to the environment, however Dawson’s Yard did cause harm.  He felt that reliance upon motor vehicles was not a concern and added that none of the main consultees objected to the proposals.    He expressed support for the proposals.

Councillor R Canny stated that this was a fairly evenly balanced argument, however at this moment in time she felt members ought to be guided by the local plan and added that this document needed to be respected in order to withstand unwanted development in future. 

Councillor D Everitt commented that Dawson’s Yard was muddying the waters however it would still be there regardless of the outcome of the application.  He stated that he supported the officer’s recommendation. 

Councillor M B Wyatt commented that wild scrubland was good for the environment and did not have to be developed. 

The Head of Planning and Regeneration stated that Dawson’s Yard was already in existence.  He reminded members that the site was outside the limits to development in both the submitted and existing local plan, the Council had demonstrated a five year housing land supply and as such there was no reason to release this site.  With regards to whether Dawson’s Yard could expand into the site at a later date, he advised that this would also require planning permission.  He explained that the application was compliant with policy in respect of the promotion of self-builds and affordable housing contributions, and refusal was not recommended on those grounds.  He felt that the benefits did not outweigh the harm in that the proposals were contrary to the local plan in principle. 

The Chairman then put the motion to refuse the application to the vote.

A recorded vote having been requested, the voting was as follows:

For the motion:

Councillors R Adams, R Boam, R Canny, J G Coxon, D Everitt, R Johnson, J Legrys, P Purver, D J Stevenson and M B Wyatt (10).

Against the motion:

Councillors J Bridges, J Cotterill, J Hoult, G Jones, N Smith and M Specht (6).

Abstentions:

None (0). 

It was therefore

RESOLVED THAT:

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

Councillor J Clarke returned to the meeting.