Agenda item

Roseville Outwoods Lane Coleorton Coalville Leicestershire LE67 8PA

As Councillors R Morris and R Boam had declared an interest in this item, nominations were made for Chair. Councillor E Allman was nominated as Chair, it was moved by Councillor R Boam and seconded by Councillor D Harrison. Councillors R Morris and R Boam stepped away from the committee.

Councillor R Ashman was called upon to join the committee in his capacity as substitute and noted that he had been lobbied on this item but had come to the meeting with an open mind.

The Senior Planning Officer presented the application, and outlined the proposal to erect four buildings for the purpose of tourist accommodation.

Mr C Jones, Chair of Worthington Parish Council, was invited to make his representations and voiced the support of the Parish Council for local residents who had opposed the plans. The “significant amount” of objections was noted and it was iterated that the development was outside the limits of development.

Mr C Jones asserted that the Parish Council and local residents who had objected, felt that this development would have an adverse impact  in terms of invasion of privacy and the potential for noise nuisance and believed that there would be no benefit to the community or local businesses should the application be approved.

Mr S Haggart, objector, was invited to speak and wished to highlight that the proposed development would be in close proximity to neighbouring properties and as they would be at an elevated height, felt that this would encroach on the privacy of local homeowners, giving a direct view into their properties. It was also asserted that harm would be caused to the countryside.

Mr Haggart suggested that there would be no benefits to local businesses or the community and that the development did not require a countryside location, and should therefore not be permitted outside the limits of development.

Mr J Mattley, Agent, was invited to speak. Mr Mattley informed the committee that the development would be a high quality proposal and that there had been no other objections received from statutory consultees. He advised the committee that the Local Plan lists tourism accommodation as acceptable use within the countryside. Mr Mattley added that now proposals had been revised and the development would be situated at the rear of the site, this would render it barely visible to the surrounding area, that it would be a sustainable development and that Leicestershire County Council had found the proposal to be acceptable.

Councillor R Morris, Ward Member was invited to speak. Councillor Morris urged members to reject this application and argued that there had been an absence of topographical information, which would have indicated that the land is 4m above the surface level of the highway and would be 7m above the adjacent highway and neighbouring properties. It was suggested that the nature of holiday lodges would lead to parties, barbecues and hot tubs, all of which could potentially cause a noise nuisance to local residents. Members were reminded of a meeting earlier in 2022 which had dealt with the problems faced by residential properties being interspersed with holiday lets, causing distress to permanent residents. Councillor Morris also suggested that should the development be approved, it would cause harm to the character of the rural appearance of the site and surrounding area.

Officers responded that it would be permissible to allow development outside of development limits in some circumstances, and also refuted claims that it would not be a “tourist area”, reminding the meeting that this site is situated within the National Forest, a recognised tourist location.

Officers reminded the committee that all schemes do not have to meet all three strands of sustainable development.

A member enquired as to why limits to development are set but then development is permitted within this. Officers responded that the Local Plan allows for developments to be sited outside of development limits, for example should they be for agricultural or tourism purposes.

A member raised concerns that such a development as had been proposed would not be suitable amongst residential homes.

A member enquired that if the committee were to vote against this application what types of consideration would constitute strong, potential grounds for refusal but officers advised it would be for members to decide upon the reasons for which they felt it would be unacceptable.

A number of reasons for refusal were discussed, which included limits to development, light and noise pollution and waste removal or vehicular access, however officers advised that these would not be sufficient grounds for refusal.

Most members agreed that the location and consequent  detrimental visual impact of the proposed development, would be strong objections as per the previous reason for refusal.

A motion to refuse the application on the grounds stated above was made by Councillor J Hoult 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.

RESOLVED THAT:

The application be refused on the grounds that the proposal would be detrimental to the character and rural appearance of the area and would represent an unwarranted and incongruous intrusion into the countryside.