Agenda item

Land At Stephenson Way Coalville Leicestershire LE67 8RL

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report to members.

Mr R Heath, objector, addressed the committee highlighting the number of objections that had been submitted against the application and that half of the application was based on speculation without a commitment to completing the project. He was concerned that a full Environmental Impact Assessment should have been commissioned, as the application before them would have a significant impact on both the carbon neutral reduction promises and the air quality in the area. He also expressed concern that the traffic and noise reports were flawed and urged the committee to refuse the application.

Mr J Clark, agent, addressed the committee highlighting the collaborative approach the applicant had taken working with officers to develop the scheme with a significantly different visual appearance of the proposal to what was first submitted. He noted the proposed use of landscaping to soften the appearance of the development, that there were no objections from statutory consultees and that the proposal would assist a local business wishing to expand. He urged the committee to permit the application.

Parish Councillor R Cairns, on behalf of Swannington Parish Council, addressed the committee highlighting the objections that had been received to the application and that, by permitting the application at that site before them, would effectively move a number of residential properties into an industrial estate. He felt that there were more suitable brownfield sites in the area.

Councillor T Eynon, Leicestershire County Councillor, addressed the committee highlighting concerns raised by both LCC and NWLDC, that there was no national planning policy requirement to measure the levels of dirty air particles. She also highlighted the impact the development would have on the A511, which already required significant improvement to deal with the current volumes of traffic, especially the increase in vehicle movements should the application be permitted and potential accidents from slow moving heavy goods vehicles pulling out of the site. She urged the committee to refuse the application or consider a condition of left turns only in and out of the site.

Councillor E Allman, Ward Member, addressed the committee highlighting the concerns of the residents about the application including the lack of information provided in responses to residents about the proposal, the lack of community engagement from the applicant and their agents, and that the applicant had verbally agreed to no further development in the area. He raised concerns that the application would have a significant impact on the local amenities and the air quality in the area, that the extension would not benefit the local area and community, that there was no need demonstrated for the proposed units and the site was not allocated for development in the Local Plan. He urged the committee to refuse the application.

In determining the application some members expressed concerns that the application did not comply with Local Plan policy Ec2 part 2 as there was no evidence for the need for the units in the outline application and because the application would have a significant adverse impact on the neighbouring residential properties, therefore being contrary to Local Plan policy D2. Concerns were also raised about flooding in the surrounding areas due to surface water runoff from the site, the negative impact on air quality from the vehicles on the neighbouring residential areas, the significant impact the development would have on the A511 and the distance to the nearest bus stop. Members noted that the site was inside the Limits to Development, as set out in the Local Plan, and that the full application was an extension to an existing business.

Members were advised that they had to consider the application as a whole and could not make separate decisions in respect of the full and outline elements of the application. They were also advised that if members were minded to permit the application, conditions could be added to the outline permission at this stage that would ensure a maximum height restriction at the reserved matters stage, as well as conditions to reduce the timescale for the implementation of the development and submission of the reserved matters application. Following a question from a Councillor, it was explained that the committee could not exclude the B8 unit from the application and that the application as submitted would need to be considered and decided by the committee.

A motion to refuse the application on the grounds that it failed to comply with Local Plan policy Ec2 part 2, as there was no evidence in the outline application for either the need or demand for that part of the development, that the outline part failed to demonstrate that the proposed uses could not be met by land allocated in the Local Plan, that the development would have a detrimental effect on the amenities of the surrounding residential properties and failure to comply with Local Plan policy D2, due to inadequate screening of the site, which would have an overbearing impact on the residential properties was moved by Councillor D Bigby and seconded by Councillor J Legrys.

The Head of Planning and Infrastructure advised that should they wish to do so, the committee could move to defer the application to allow the applicant the opportunity to provide the evidence required in relation to the need or demand for the development.

The motion to refuse was withdrawn.

A motion to defer the application to allow the applicant the opportunity to provide the evidence that was outlined in the motion to refuse was moved by Councillor D Bigby and seconded by Councillor J Legrys.

The Chairman put the motion to the vote. A recorded vote being required, the voting was as detailed below. As the vote was tied, the Chairman exercised his casting vote against the motion.

The motion was declared LOST.

A motion to permit the application in accordance with the officer recommendation subject to additional conditions relating to the maximum height parameters on the outline application and a reduced timescale in respect of the outline elements, which would be delegated to officers, in conjunction with the legal advisor to agree with the applicant was moved by Councillor N Smith and seconded by Councillor J Bridges.

The Chairman put the motion to the vote. A recorded vote being required, the voting was as detailed below.

RESOLVED THAT:

The application be permitted in accordance with the recommendation of the Head of Planning and Infrastructure subject to additional conditions relating to the maximum height parameters on the outline application and a reduced timescale in respect of the outline elements, which would be delegated to officers, in conjunction with the legal advisor to agree with the applicant.

The meeting closed at 7.51pm.