Agenda item

9 Grange Close Ashby De La Zouch Leicestershire LE65 2PQ 

The Planning and Development Team Manager presented the report to members. 

Mr J Kenny, objector, addressed the meeting.  He stated that the proposals were out of character with the surrounding dwellings, the proposed dwelling was narrower than neighbouring dwellings and views would be altered by the scale and massing of the proposal due to its proximity to the junction.  He added that the front garden of number 9 would be used for car parking, the proposals would significantly affect the privacy of the neighbouring dwelling and were contrary to policy H7 of the adopted local plan. 

Mr T Mastin, agent, addressed the meeting. He stated that the application comprised much revised proposals taking into account the concerns raised by the planning authority and would provide useful additional housing for Ashby de la Zouch, benefitting Grange Close.  He highlighted the reduction in the eastern elevation, improving the outlook, the smaller footprint which was now relative to the site and the retention of the large garden.  He stated that much of site would remain in use as a residential garden space.  He added that the original features of Grange Close would be matched.  He stated that the design accorded with Leicestershire County Council’s 6CS design guidance however, he acknowledged the remaining concerns in respect of highways safety.  He advised that he had met Councillor G Jones on site, who had agreed that the removal of the existing mature hedge would improve highway safety by increasing visibility. 

Councillor M Specht commended the inspector’s report on the previous application for 2 flats on the site.  He moved that the application be refused on the grounds that the proposals were contrary to Policies E1, E3 and E4 of the submitted local plan as the proposals were detrimental to the amenities of nearby dwellings, did not respect the character of its surroundings and would spoil the open nature of the of the estate.  He added that the inspector had made particular reference to corner plots and retaining the open character of the estate. 

The motion was seconded by Councillor G Jones.  He made reference to the increase in density of a busy corner plot and the amount of elderly people on the estate. 

Councillor N Smith referred to the concerns raised in the update sheet relating to the underpinning of neighbouring dwellings.  The Planning and Development Team Manager confirmed that construction related issues were subject to other legislation such as building regulations and, as such, the concerns raised were not material planning considerations. 

Councillor J G Coxon stated that he did not support development on the corner plot and the proposals were not in keeping with the estate. He felt that the builders would have put a house on the corner originally, had that been what was intended.

Councillor D Everitt felt that the site was not large enough to accommodate the proposals, and houses were too small. 

Councillor J Hoult felt that the proposals represented overdevelopment of the site. He confirmed that a new house had been granted planning permission between numbers 11 and 15. He considered that the area was dense development.

Councillor J Legrys felt that it would be difficult to insert a dwelling on the site whilst retaining neighbour amenities and the existing street scene.  He believed the existing building line should be maintained and that proposals represented over intensification of the site. He stated that he could not support the proposals, as it was a bog standard application for a garden build. 

The motion to refuse the application was put to the vote and it was

RESOLVED THAT:

The application be refused on the grounds that the proposals were contrary to Policies E1, E3 and E4 of the submitted Local Plan. 

Councillor M B Wyatt left the meeting at 5.33pm.