Agenda item

The Farm Manor Road Donington Le Heath Coalville Leicestershire LE67 2FW

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report to Members.

Councillor R Johnson, Ward Member, addressed the Committee. He advised Members that he had been lobbied by both concerned residents and fleetingly by the developer, and that the application before them was no different to the previous one that had been considered a few months earlier. He stated that the developer could not be praised enough for the development as it was excellent with a great finish and most of the homes were occupied with large gardens and everyone had a garage. He informed the Committee that the proposed dwelling would be in a cramped area without a garage, it would not conform with the streetscape and would cause significant harm to conserving and enhancing the historic environment in a conservation area as set out in the NPPF paragraphs 131, 132, 134 and 137. He highlighted to Members that the future amenities of plot 14 adjoining the proposal would have a gable end at the bottom of the garden at a height of 8.25 meters blocking any sunlight that they could enjoy and that the developer had deliberately altered the garden fence line of plots 13 and 14 from the original planning permission to squeeze the dwelling in. He expressed concerns that there would be no affordable housing along with the loss of open space. He urged the Committee to be consistent and refuse the application and insist that the developer reverts back to the original planning permission.

Councillor S Palmer, on behalf of Hugglescote and Donington le Heath Parish Council, addressed the Committee. He reminded Members that they had refused a similar application only a few months previously for sound and sensible reasons and as such remained relevant for the application in front of them as none of the issues raised had been addressed. He advised Members that the application would harm the setting of an unlisted heritage asset in the conservation area even more. He urged Members to maintain a consistent approach and refuse the rehashed application.

Councillor J Legrys moved that the application be refused as the application was shoe horning an additional dwelling that did not conform with the original development of the site and the proposed dwelling would have no proper off street parking provision provided, therefore cars would be parked on the roads of the development or on the busy highway network. He stated that his main reason for refusing the application was that the original application was for a number of dwellings that meant that S106 contributions were avoided and now the development had been completed the developer was asking for one extra property that had it been considered with the original application would have required S106 contributions towards schools, play areas and so on. He stated that the grounds for refusal were retrospective planning application, it was shoe horning into a development that could not be sustained and it would have a detrimental effect on Donington Manor House. It was seconded by Councillor R Boam.

Councillor M Specht sought clarification from officers as to whether or not the fence lines for plots 13 and 14 had already been altered or were they  still to be changed as if the boundaries had already been altered had a variation been applied for and approved.

The Head of Planning and Regeneration advised Members that the proposal in front of them was to alter the fence lines and that had the fences already been moved then it had been done so in breach of the planning permission therefore, it would be passed to planning enforcement to investigate to ensure that they were building in accordance with the permission should the application be refused. However, should Members be minded to permit it would be an academic point.

Councillor M Specht stated that if it was unknown if the permission had been breached it would not be pertinent to permit the proposal before them if there was then to be planning enforcement.

The Head of Planning and Regeneration advised Members that they should consider what was in front of them. If Members were comfortable to permit the application then no investigation would be carried out.

Councillor J Bridges put it to Councillors J Legrys and R Boam that it would be preferable if the reason for refusal were the same as the one given by the Committee for application 17/00020/FUL in July. Councillors J Legrys and R Boam agreed.

RESOLVED THAT:

The application be refused on the grounds that the development would have a significant detriment to the character and appearance of the streetscape and would harm the significance of heritage assets.