Agenda item

Former Lounge Disposal Point Ashby Road Coleorton Leicestershire LE65 1TH

Having declared a prejudicial interest in the item, Councillors D Bigby and R Boam stepped down from the meeting and were substituted by Councillors S Sheahan and R Ashman. Councillor R Boam remained in the meeting to address the committee as Ward Member and then he left the meeting for the consideration and voting of the item.

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report to members.

Town Councillor M Ball, on behalf of Ashby Town Council, addressed the committee, highlighting the significant impact the development would have on the already severely congested roads, that there was no immediate need for the employment site, that the site was inaccessible by sustainable means of transport, the increased height of the proposed development  and that the development proposed would have a detrimental effect on the wider environment. He urged the committee to refuse the application.

Mr K Ward, Chairman of the Ashby Civic Society, objector, addressed the committee, highlighting that the development would have a detrimental effect on the landscape and would be clearly visible to many Ashby residents and, that the development would go against both Ashby’s Neighbourhood Plan and the adopted Local Plan, as it was outside the Limits to Development. He also highlighted that there were several distribution sites already under construction around the district, that the decision should be delayed until the impact of HS2 was known and that it would have a severe impact on the local highways network.  He stated that the applicant’s travel plan document contained inaccurate information. He urged the committee to refuse the application.

Mr M Fox, agent, addressed the committee, highlighting that the brownfield part of the site had been designated for employment land in both the Local Plan and the Neighbourhood Plan, that the eastern field on the application would be used for the new access and parking only. He added that the Corkscrew Lane access was more direct and safer than the existing access which could no longer be used due to proposals by HS2, that the proposal would create around 1,000 new jobs. He noted that the development would be built to a high standard of design and would be sustainable and that, a financial contribution would be made to the Coalville Road Strategy. He also noted that there were no technical objections or material planning reasons to refuse the application.

Councillor D Harrison, Ward Member, addressed the committee, highlighting significant concerns over the impact on Air Quality that the development would have, along with the impact the significant increase in vehicle movements from the site would have on the local highway network. He drew member’s attention to an FOI document he had received from a resident that he felt highlighted significant concerns over the Air Quality data that had been submitted and in particular its reliability and urged that the application be deferred for that reason.

Councillor R Boam, Ward Member, addressed the committee, highlighting the significant impact the development would have on traffic and that the application that included rail connection that had been permitted back in 2012 did not resemble what was now before them. He noted that part of the site that would be built on was outside the Limits to Development and the impact on Air Quality that the development would have.

Councillor R Boam then left the meeting.

Before the debate took place, the Independent Air Quality Consultant addressed the committee to outline what work that had been carried out as part of the consultation process and clarified matters regarding receptors and the dispersion model. 

In determining the application, some members expressed concerns over the impact the development would have on the highways network, that the site lay outside the Limits to Development, that the sustainable transport measures outlined would not be used due to lack of footpaths around the area and the ecology impact the development would have on the area.

Members had regard to the fact that under policy EC1 of the adopted Local Plan, as permission had already been granted for the site, the land could be developed and that the ecology report that had been carried out was acceptable along with the receptor area that would be included for translocation of the native species. It was noted that there were no statutory technical consultee objections and should the HS2 project not go ahead the applicant could revert to the original permission that had been granted as it had commenced. 

The Legal Advisor and the Head of Planning and Infrastructure advised the committee that they had no concerns following the concerns that had been put forward by Councillor D Harrison and that due process had been followed.

A motion to permit the application in accordance with the recommendation of the Head of Planning and Infrastructure was moved by Councillor S Gillard and seconded by Councillor R Ashman.

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.

Councillors R Ashman and S Sheahan stepped down from the meeting and Councillors D Bigby and R Boam returned.