Decision details

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

Mr P Oakden, in support, addressed the Committee. He stated that he had lived near Measham for 40 years and through the Ashby Canal Trust had promoted the restoration of the canal. He advised that the project had both Local Authority and Government approval, and that the length under construction would open up opportunities to open the rest of the canal. He stated that the canal would bring benefits to the area such as business opportunities and installing pride in the community. He also advised that the developers had worked with the trust for many years and that they hoped to bring positive effects to the area.

Mr P Leaver, agent, addressed the Committee. He reminded the Committee that at the October meeting they had granted permission and that the work to the canal remained the main focus, and that if the developer was to make contributions to the usual recipients, then that would take the money away from the canal. He advised that they would support a partially compliant scheme and urged Members to approve recommendation B.

Councillor T Neilson expressed concerns over the problems that had arisen. He stated that lots of comments were made back in October over the canal, but he now had concerns that it was a large development and that both the schools and medical centre were full. He advised that he would like to see the canal and that it would benefit Measham. He stated that it would not be a satisfactory conclusion if recommendation A was proposed.

Councillor J Bridges advised that he agreed with Councillor T Neilson, as the reinstatement of the canal would open the area up to the rest of the country and that it would be unique to the area. He stated that the leisure and tourism brought in a large portion of the business to the area. He went on to advise the Committee that they must depart from the norm and he would be going against his normal thoughts and moved recommendation B. It was seconded by Councillor V Richichi.

Councillor J Legrys stated that he was torn between all three options and was aware of the time that officers had put into the application. He felt that if option B was approved it would give partial policy compliance, but could lead the authority to a judicial review with no S106 contributions and that schools and health would not benefit from the option. He expressed his sadness that the parties could not get together to resolve the issue.

Councillor G Jones supported recommendation B and stated that the Council should be in the driving seat for tourism and leisure, and the canal would bring benefits to the district as a whole.

Councillor D J Stevenson stated that the trust had fought hard to get the link, but felt, with a heavy heart that there was now only one recommendation to consider and that was recommendation C as the application could now not give what was promised.

Councillor T Neilson stated that he felt recommendation B was too rash. He advised that the section of canal would not connect to any other section at the present time, and as nice as it would be to see the canal, without other contributions, there would be no benefit to the residents of Meaham. 

Councillor G A Allman supported Councillor J Bridges’ comments, adding that the reinstatement of the canal would benefit the whole district, but only if the Committee provided it by supporting recommendation B.

The motion to permit officer’s recommendation B was put to the vote and was LOST.

The officer’s recommendation C was moved by Councillor T Neilson, seconded by Councillor R Woodward and

RESOLVED THAT:

The application be refused on the grounds that the developer is not agreeable to the S106 requirements and therefore, the proposal does not represent sustainable development.