Decision details

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report to Members.

Mr C Miles, Parish Councillor, addressed the Committee. He informed the Committee that this was an unprecedented development on a greenfield site. He advised Members that it would be a 15% increase in the number of homes in the village, leading to 150 people, at least 80 cars, putting pressure on full schools and doctors, and very little job opportunities in the area. He stated that there were more suitable recommended sites within the boundary of the village for development, and felt that the application was opportunist and it flew against common sense. He felt that if the application was approved it would be an open the door for other applications and urged the Committee to refuse.

Ms S Ball, objector, addressed the Committee. She stated that residents in the area understood the need for growth, but felt that there were more suitable, individual sites in the centre of the village. She expressed concerns that both the applications that were being considered would add over 70 properties to the village, which would be out of scale for the area and alter the character. She advised that it was at least a 10 minute walk to the centre of the village and urged members to refuse the application on the grounds that the development was too big for the site, it was 1.5 miles away from the nearest school and it would result in the loss of the countryside.

Mr S Clarke, agent, addressed the Committee. He stated that the applicants had carefully considered the application and following discussions had improved a number of issues to make the development as successful as possible. He highlighted that the site would include twelve affordable housing units, improve highway links and that there would be a financial contribution towards the existing playground in the village. He advised that the applicant had listened to concerns over the listed building and tree planting, had removed the footpath links onto Spring Road and was in agreement with the negotiated S106 contributions.

Councillor T Neilson stated that as there was no local plan to consider the application against it would be very difficult to refuse and moved the officer’s recommendation. The proposal was not seconded.

Councillor V Richichi stated that he had come into the meeting with an open mind and having listened to officers and speakers, he expressed concerns over the speed of traffic along Spring Lane, that the local school was already at capacity, that the development was outside the limits to development and on the wrong side of the village, and the increased risk to flooding that the development could bring. He moved that the application be refused on the grounds of highways and flooding. It was seconded by Councillor G A Allman.

Councillor J Legrys expressed concerns over the access to the site and the local road networks that were already very busy. He stated that with the withdrawal of school bus services and the nearest senior school being in Ashby, there appeared to be no well lit footpath for school age children to use from the site. He also expressed concerns over the possible flooding impact and supported the refusal of the application.

The Head of Regeneration and Planning reminded Members that there had been no objections from either the Highways Authority or the Environment Agency.

The motion to refuse the application was put to the vote and LOST.

Councillor M Specht seconded Councillor T Neilson’s proposition to move the officer’s recommendation.

Councillor R Woodward raised concerns that, should the application be permitted, how the site area would be protected from any future development. The Head of Regeneration and Planning advised him that as it was for an outline application for 42 dwellings any proposal to amend the application would need to be reported back to Committee.

Councillor G Jones raised concerns that Packington would not benefit enough from the S106 contributions and the lack of education provision within the village, which would therefore require children to travel to the next available school.

The Head of Regeneration and Planning advised Members that they could request a note to be added to the permission suggesting detailed negotiations between the applicant and contribution receivers on how the S106 money would be spent.

Councillor J Bridges stated that the Committee was entitled to request detailed lists on how the S106 money was to be spent on future applications allowing Members to have the necessary information to make decisions.

The motion to permit the application in accordance with the officer’s recommendation was put to the vote and

RESOLVED THAT:

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