Agenda item

Land Adjoining Wells Road And Willesley Road Ashby De La Zouch 

The Planning Officer presented the report to Members.

Mrs M Tuckey, representing the Town Council, addressed the meeting. She advised Members that the Town Council had objected to the application as they felt that it was not consistent with the Heart of the National Forest and that the landscape had been given a quality of 9 which was the highest value in the area. She stated that the development was not in accordance with the NPPF in observing its natural environment. She added that there were concerns regarding the speed of traffic along Willesley Road and that the local schools were already full.

Mr F Bedford, objector, addressed the meeting. He stated that the application was contrary to policies S3 and H4/1. He informed Members that the site was similar to Packington Nook which had been refused and upheld at appeal as the inspector had found the development not to be sustainable and located in a tranquil area. He added that the development would be highly out of place and unacceptable.

Mr N Hainsworth, agent, addressed the meeting. He advised Members that the application had been 18 months in development and the applicant had approached the Council to find a suitable site and had agreed to sign a legal agreement. He stated that the site would be sustainable and that it had taken considerable time to agree the design for each house so that it met the building for life criteria. He highlighted to Members that housing was urgently required and that the application before them was of a high quality. He urged Members to permit the application.

Councillor J G Coxon moved that the application be refused. This was moved by Councillor J Hoult.

Councillor J G Coxon felt that the application before them had the same characteristics as the application they had just refused and the application that was to be considered next. He stated that the site was outside the town boundary and it was not sustainable as there was a big distance to the nearest schools and the roads were too dangerous to cycle along.

Councillor J Legrys stated that he supported the motion to refuse the application as he agreed that it was too similar to the previous one. He highlighted that when they were out on site Members were told that it would take 12 minutes to walk to the nearest petrol station and that it would be at least 30 minutes walk to the schools. He felt that the development would be a bolt on to the urban area.

Councillor T Neilson sought clarification of the reasons for refusal.

Councillor J G Coxon moved that the application be refused on the grounds that it was contrary to policies E3 and S3.

The Planning and Development Team Manager clarified that there had been no discussion on policy E3, which refers to Residential Amenities,  only S3 and that unless the Committee were to specifically consider residential amenity impact, which in his view would be acceptable, E3 should not form the basis of a reason for refusal in this instance.

Councillors J G Coxon and J Hoult confirmed that they were happy to move policy S3.

Councillor G Jones stated that he was upset that any discussion had taken place with the developers considering local opinion and Members were duty bound to oppose.

A recorded vote having been requested, the voting was as follows:

For the motion:

Councillors R Adams, J Cotterill, J G Coxon, D B Everitt, T Gillard, J Hoult, D Howe, R Johnson, G Jones, J Legrys, T Neilson, N Smith, M Specht, D J Stevenson, R Woodward and M B Wyatt (16).

Against the motion:

(0).

Abstentions:

Councillor A Bridges (1).

The motion was CARRIED.

RESOLVED THAT:

The application be refused on the basis that the application would not constitute sustainable development, contrary to policy S3, and that due to its location outside the settlement boundary and its relative distance from local services the proposal would not represent sustainable development.