Agenda item

Church View 59 The Moor Coleorton Coalville Leicestershire LE67 8GB

The Planning Officer presented the report to Members.

Ms C Collier, applicant, addressed the Committee. She advised Members that the dwelling would be self-build to allow her to stop in the village that she had had lived in for 25 years. She informed Members that during a pre-application meeting at the beginning of October 2017 she had been informed that the application would be within the Limits to Development and an architect was employed, and the plans were submitted at the beginning of November. She stated that after the submission she received notification that the Local Plan was to be adopted on the 21^st November and as such her development would fall outside the Limits of Development. She highlighted that the NPPF encourages the take up of pre-application advice so that time and money were not wasted and that the application had been submitted before the Local Plan adoption date. She informed the Committee that the village had many services that would allow the development to remain sustainable and that the dwelling would be built in the garden of an existing private residential property. She urged the Committee to support the application.

Councillor M B Wyatt moved that the application be permitted as it met a local need. The motion was seconded by Councillor R Boam.

In response to a question from Councillor J Bridges, the Planning Officer advised the Committee that a pre-application meeting had been held at the start of October and as it stood development on the site would be sustainable, however he had made it clear that because the Local Plan was due to be adopted later in the year, at the time the application was acceptable, and that the application needed to be submitted very quickly. He stated that the application was received on the 10^th November and that the 21 day consultation period pushed the earliest determination of the application past 21^st November.

Councillor J Bridges stated that even though he did not doubt the officer’s advice, on that basis alone and subject to a condition in relation to a mining survey he would be voting against the officer’s recommendation as he felt that a refusal would not stand up at appeal.

The Head of Planning and Regeneration confirmed to Members that the application had been submitted before the Local Plan had been adopted however determination of the application by the Planning Officer was to be in line with the adopted Plan.

Councillor D Harrison expressed concerns over how initial contact happened with prospective applicants on the application in front of the Committee and all applications in general. He felt that there had been no malice or deliberately misleading advice given but if officers were aware that policies and framework were going to change then every effort should have been made to ensure that any dates that would affect the application are made clear to the applicants. He stated that he could see no issue with the site or the development and supported the motion to permit.

The Head of Planning and Regeneration stated that pre-application advice is carefully caveated that it was not always guaranteed that applications would be permitted, and stated that it is open to applicants to take a second view. He accepted that officers could be clearer on any changes that were looming. In relation to the application he advised Members that in line with the adopted Local Plan the site was Greenfield and therefore should be refused.

Councillor V Richichi stated that he was aware of members of the public who had submitted applications and felt strongly that officers were advising that applications appeared to be acceptable, only for them to be subsequently refused. He stated that officers were aware of the lack of services in the village when the application was submitted.

Councillor J Legrys expressed concerns that since the adoption of the Local Plan the authority had moved away from the recommendation particularly surrounding affordable housing and his main concern was the mining survey which by a condition could be addressed. He stated that he would be supporting approval of the application.

Councillor M Specht stated that no comments had been made from the Parish Council as when consulted the application was inside the Limits to Development. He questioned how an area could be sustainable one day and then not the next. He stated that he would be supporting the motion to permit, and expressed his opinion that the Local Plan needed to be reviewed to allow for proposals such as this.

RESOLVED THAT:

The application be permitted on the grounds that it would meet local need and the imposition of conditions delegated to the Head of Planning and Regeneration.