Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors G A Allman, N Smith, D J Stevenson and M B Wyatt.

Under the Code of Conduct members are reminded that in declaring disclosable interests you should make clear the nature of that interest and whether it is pecuniary or non-pecuniary.

In accordance with the Code of Conduct, Members declared the following interests:

Councillor J G Coxon declared a non-pecuniary interest in item A2, application number 13/00780/OUTM, as a Member of Leicestershire County Council.

Councillor J G Coxon declared a non-pecuniary interest in item A4, application number 13/00694/OUTM, as a Member of Ashby Town Council and its Planning Committee.  He also declared that he had been lobbied without influence in respect of this application.

Councillor J Hoult declared a non-pecuniary interest in item A4, application number 13/00694/OUTM, as a Member of Ashby Town Council and as Chairman of its Planning Committee.

Councillors R Adams, J Cotterill, D Everitt, J Hoult, J Legrys, T Neilson and R Woodward declared that they had been lobbied without influence in respect of item A1, application number 13/00603/FULM.

Councillors R Adams, J Cotterill, D Everitt, J Legrys and T Neilson declared that they had been lobbied without influence in respect of item A2, application number 13/00780/OUTM.

Councillors R Adams, J Cotterill, D Everitt, J Legrys and T Neilson declared that they had been lobbied without influence in respect of item A3, application number 13/00626/OUTM.

Councillors R Adams, J Cotterill, D Everitt, R Johnson, G Jones, J Legrys, T Neilson and R Woodward declared that they had been lobbied without influence in respect of item A4, application number 13/00694/OUTM.

Councillors J Cotterill, D Everitt, T Gillard, J Legrys and R Woodward declared that they had been lobbied without influence in respect of item A5, application number 13/00060/FUL.

To confirm and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 3 December 2013.

Consideration was given to the minutes of the meeting held on 3 December 2013.

Councillor M Specht referred to the recorded vote in respect of item A3, application number 13/00818/OUTM.  He sought clarification as to whether the minutes were an accurate reflection of proceedings as this appeared to show that some Members voted in one manner on the motion to refuse the application, and then voted in the opposite manner on the motion to approve the application.

The Chairman clarified that this was an accurate record of the proceedings.

It was moved by Councillor J Legrys, seconded by Councillor G Jones and

RESOLVED THAT:

The minutes of the meeting held on 3 December 2013 be approved and signed as a correct record.

Report of the Head of Regeneration and Planning.

Consideration was given to the report of the Head of Regeneration and Planning, as amended by the update sheet circulated at the meeting.

Residential development for 27 dwellings including demolition/conversion of former school

Land Off Church Lane Ravenstone Coalville

Residential development for 27 dwellings including demolition/conversion of former school

Land Off Church Lane Ravenstone Coalville

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report to Members.  Further to the update sheet, he advised that Leicestershire County Council’s position was that without the full developer contributions, especially in relation to education, they would not have the funds available to make up the shortfall.

Mrs S Lunn, representing the Parish Council, addressed the Committee.  She referred to the density of the application and stated that the proposals were inappropriate for the environment.  She added that the amenity the land provided as a wide open space had been ignored.  She highlighted that the developer contribution of £55,000 represented 10.7% of what was required for sustainable development, and asked how this could be justified.  She also asked if this would set a dangerous precedent of putting the burden on the taxpayer to subsidise development.  She stated that the old school was a recognised heritage asset and the proposed landscaping did not mitigate the loss of the gardens.  She added that the proposals were more reminiscent of suburbia than a rural landscape.  She referred to the traffic and parking issues and stated that the traffic assessment had been completed based on an out of date Google map.  She felt that the benefits of the scheme did not outweigh the harm and asked who would meet the shortfall of £450,000.  She concluded that the proposals did not constitute sustainable development on account of their inability to meet the cost to the public purse.

Mrs M Danaher, objector, addressed the Committee.  She relayed the background of the Lombardy Poplar trees which had been planted to commemorate those who had served in World War I.  She added that the footpath through the middle of the site was widely known as memorial walk and should be preserved as many relatives of those who died in World War I still lived in the locality.  She stated that the school was the only recognisable Victorian building in the village and if this was demolished it would have lost its historic character.  She added that the boundary wall which had been retained in previous developments would be lost.  She referred to the current parking issues and stated that elderly residents at the Almshouses would be put at risk.  She added that the introduction of double yellow lines would increase congestion.  She concluded that heritage was very precious and should be retained.

Dr M Wellstood-Eason, supporter, addressed the meeting.  He stated that the development solved a number of problems for Ravenstone and the old school was an eyesore which would benefit from having the recent additions removed.  He added that the land was currently unused and the footpath was muddy and overgrown.  He felt that the concerns in respect of increased traffic would pale into insignificance taking into consideration the benefits of the scheme and compared to the traffic chaos that used to occur when the school was previously open.  He added  ...  view the full minutes text for item 35.

Residential development of up to 50 dwellings, with new vehicular access, landscaping, public open space, balancing pond, national forest planting and creation of new allotments. (Outline - all matters other than part access reserved)

Land Off Heather Lane, Ravenstone

Residential development of up to 50 dwellings, with new vehicular access, landscaping, public open space, balancing pond, national forest planting and creation of new allotments. (Outline - all matters other than part access reserved)

Land Off Heather Lane, Ravenstone 

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report to Members.

Mr R White, on behalf of the Parish Council, addressed the Committee.  He stated that the proposal was outside the limits to development and approval would be contrary to Policy S3.  He referred to the Localism Act which enshrined in law the need for public consultation, however the developers had not attended.  He felt that Ravenstone had inadequate infrastructure and local facilities to accommodate this development.  He stated that the narrow roads could not cope with the existing traffic.  He added that Woodstone School was at capacity and there were no doctors or dentists within walking distance.  He stated that there were serious problems with flooding to the south of the site.  He expressed concern that no ecological field study appeared to have been undertaken, however Ravenstone had a historic background, with Mesolithic, Neolithic and Bronze Age flints and arrow heads having recently been found.  He concluded that the development would be the death warrant for Ravenstone as the village identity would be lost.

Mr D Lunn, objector, addressed the Committee.  He stated that the development was too large and in the wrong location, being outside the limits to development.  He added that the proposals would scar the approach to the development land and Woodstone School, which was at capacity, would lose its rural setting.  He stated that Heather Lane was a section of the national cycle network and this road would be busier than ever with no footpaths.  He urged Members to refuse the application.

Mrs M Duffy, the applicant’s agent, addressed the Committee.  She stated that Ravenstone was a sustainable location for development, being well related to Coalville and the range of opportunities it provided.  She added that the issue in respect of cumulative impact had been assessed and deemed acceptable, and Leicestershire County Council had no objections in respect of highway safety.  She highlighted that 20% of the site would be given over for National Forest planting which would enhance the landscaping and provide a buffer for existing residents.  She added that a new footpath would provide a link for residents walking to and from the school.  She referred to the positive social and economic benefits provided by the Section 106 package and the provision of affordable housing.  She urged Members to permit the application.

Councillor J Legrys outlined the similarities of the application to the Moira Road site in Ashby which had been lost at appeal.  He stated that if Members were minded to approve the application, he would have particular concerns in respect of the contribution towards education.  He highlighted that there was currently a deficit of 12 places at Woodstone School.  He added that although Heather Primary School currently had a surplus of 10 places,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 36.

Residential development of up to 65 dwellings along with a new access, amenity space and associated works (Outline - All matters other than part access reserved)

Land At Ibstock Road, Ravenstone, Coalville, Leicestershire 

Residential development of up to 65 dwellings along with a new access, amenity space and associated works (Outline - All matters other than part access reserved)

Land At Ibstock Road, Ravenstone, Coalville, Leicestershire 

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report to Members. 

Mr P Tubb, representing the Parish Council, addressed the Committee.  He stated that there were problems that would render the development unsustainable.  He pointed out that the development was clearly aimed at families, however it was not within walking distance of a bus route.  He added that two thirds of the bus stops in Ravenstone were not serviced, and the number of services was being reduced.  He referred to the deficit in school places and remarked that the one class per year system would be lost.  He added that cyclists would be at increased risk with no proposed reduction in speed limit.  He stated that there were not enough services to accommodate a 24% increase in housing.  He felt that the village identity would be lost and the conservation area would be negatively impacted.  He added that traffic issues would worsen.

Mr A Soeder, objector, addressed the meeting.  He stated that the residents of Ibstock Road were living on a dangerous road, the transport situation being the main issue, and the measures proposed were insufficient.  He added that the transport assessments undertaken in 2008 and 2011 had not considered the impact of 1,000 new houses, and these reports needed to be revised.  He highlighted that the road audit had taken place at 12.15pm, which was an inappropriate time to properly assess the traffic.  He referred to the death of a girl on the road in 2009, and the subsequent call to reduce the speed limit.  He felt that this was even more relevant now, however no action had been taken.  He added that casualties could rise significantly.  He asked the Council to avoid danger to residents, and concluded that measures should be taken prior to development to prevent fatalities.

Mr M Robson, the applicant’s agent, addressed the Committee.  He stated that the scheme would provide 30% affordable housing, a rich mix of housing types and tenures, and a high quality scheme.  He highlighted that the site was contained with urban inferences on three sides, and would provide public open spaces.  He stated that the Section 106 contribution exceeded requirements.  He added that the applicant was entirely content to pay the requested sums and had no intention to ‘chip’ away at the contributions.  He highlighted that there had only been twelve letters of objection from local residents and there were no concerns from the Parish Council or the statutory consultees.  He added that there would be contributions towards bus stop improvements.

Councillor J Bridges stated that he was pleased to see that the applicant had recognised the need for affordable housing in the area.  He added that he would welcome a full application rather than an outline application.

Councillor J Legrys referred to the current Local  ...  view the full minutes text for item 37.

The meeting was adjourned at 6.25pm and was reconvened at 6.32pm.

It was moved by Councillor J Bridges, seconded by Councillor J Legrys and           

RESOLVED THAT:

The meeting be extended by not more than 30 minutes in accordance with the Council Procedure Rules.

Residential of up to 70 dwellings (Class C3).Green infrastructure to include retained vegetation, habitat creation (including new woodland planting), open space, amenity space & play areas, sustainable drainage systems/features, & new walking/cycling/recreational routes. Infrastructure to include highway & utilities & associated engineering works (including ground modelling) & vehicular access via the construction of a new junction off the existing Lower Packington Road (outline - all matters reserved other than access)

Site At Lower Packington Road, Ashby De La Zouch, Leicestershire LE65 1TS

Residential of up to 70 dwellings (Class C3).Green infrastructure to include retained vegetation, habitat creation (including new woodland planting), open space, amenity space & play areas, sustainable drainage systems/features, & new walking/cycling/recreational routes. Infrastructure to include highway & utilities & associated engineering works (including ground modelling) & vehicular access via the construction of a new junction off the existing Lower Packington Road (outline - all matters reserved other than access)

Site At Lower Packington Road, Ashby De La Zouch, Leicestershire LE65 1TS

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report to Members.

Mrs M Tuckey, representing the Town Council, addressed the Committee.  She stated that Ashby Town Council had strong objections to the development.  She felt that Lower Packington Road should be the boundary to development.  She referred to the severe traffic implications in terms of double parking, and increased congestion due to the winding roads.  She stated that this would make the existing problems worse and local residents had voted this site as the least favourable.  She added that the District Council had refused to endorse the site in the Local Plan and the submission Core Strategy, and development on the site had been consistently rejected.  She concluded that the development was unsustainable and inappropriate and urged Members to refuse the application.

Dr N Garnham, objector, addressed the Committee.  He highlighted that the site was outside the limits to development and was part of a much larger site which was refused on appeal in 2009.  He added that the Secretary of State had identified that the development was unsustainable and would cause harm to the character of Ashby de la Zouch.  He felt that these factors were still relevant today and as such he expressed astonishment that the officer had recommended that the application be permitted.  He stated that the site would be blighted by noise from the A42 and was on the proposed HS2 route.  He pointed out that the HS2 route would not be in a cutting but would be elevated, and therefore the noise assessment was inaccurate.  He referred to the impact on road safety and contested the sustainability of the site.  He concluded that there were more suitable sites known to the local planning system and he urged the Committee to take note of the overwhelming local objection.

Councillor J G Coxon stated that the site was part of a larger development which had been refused at the inquiry and he was dismayed at the officer’s recommendation.  He felt that this was not a natural area of growth for the town, and the location was unsustainable with no accessibility for walking, cycling or public transport having been demonstrated.  He concluded that Lower Packington Road should be a development boundary for the town.

Councillor J Bridges sought advice on reasons for refusal of the application.

The Head of Regeneration and Planning advised that he could not concur that HS2 was a reasonable planning objection.  He stated that the reason the application was recommended to be permitted was that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 38.

Erection of 8 no. detached dwellings with associated access road

Land Adjoining Whitwick Filling Station, Talbot Street, Whitwick, Coalville

Erection of 8 no. detached dwellings with associated access road

Land Adjoining Whitwick Filling Station, Talbot Street, Whitwick, Coalville 

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report to Members.

Councillor L Spence, as Ward Member, addressed the Committee.  He stated that he was not averse to development on the site in principle, however there were three issues of significant concern to local residents.  He expressed disappointment that Leicestershire County Council had chosen not to object on highway safety grounds, as the access was on a steep incline on a busy road, with a single file footpath.  He added that existing residents had contacted him due to poor visibility and speeding traffic, a fact which was accepted by Leicestershire County Council when part night lighting was discussed.  He felt that the development would significantly increase the risk if the access was sited in its proposed location, and if the Committee were minded to approve the application, consideration must be given to developer contributions to minimise the risk. He explained that Gracedieu Brook flooded regularly and put homes at risk at least annually.  He stated that residents were concerned that the development would lead to an increased risk of flooding.  He expressed concerns regarding overbearing and intrusion.  He stated that the topography of the site meant that some properties were proposed to be located directly above existing properties.  He added that consideration must be given to the measures which could be taken to prevent intrusion.  He felt that the enjoyment of privacy was being put at risk and he urged Members to reconsider.

Mrs S Alldread, objector, addressed the Committee.  She stated that the proposals would offer no benefit for local residents or for wildlife.  She referred to the existing problems with speeding traffic and felt the development would lead to an increase in traffic.  She explained that the plot of land was invaluable to wildlife and the proposals would not sustain the species on the site.  She stated that the proposals would mean that she would be looking from her kitchen window into a brick wall, and all light to her property would be overshadowed.  She expressed concerns regarding water drainage and that this would be diverted to the properties below.

Councillor J Bridges stated that a number of issues had been brought to his attention, and he moved that the application be deferred due to highways and other issues.

Councillor T Gillard indicated that he wished to move that the application be refused as it was contrary to policies T3 and E3.  He referred to the current traffic issues and stated vehemently that this was an accident waiting to happen.

The motion to defer the application was seconded by Councillor M Specht.

The Legal Advisor explained that as the motion to defer the application had been moved and seconded, this needed to be considered before a further motion could be proposed.

The motion to defer the application was then put to the vote and declared a tie.  The Chairman exercised  ...  view the full minutes text for item 39.

Erection of 6 no. dwellings with associated access off Kings Gate

Post Office Farm, 7 Main Street, Lockington, Derby

Erection of 6 no. dwellings with associated access off Kings Gate

Post Office Farm, 7 Main Street, Lockington, Derby

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

It was moved by Councillor J Bridges, seconded by Councillor G Jones and

RESOLVED THAT:

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