Agenda item

Land Adjacent To Blackfordby House Farm Butt Lane Blackfordby

Having declared a pecuniary interest in item A1, Councillor N Smith left the meeting during consideration of this item and took no part in the consideration or voting thereon.

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report to Members.

Mrs D Whetton addressed the meeting on behalf of the Town Council.  She stated that the Town Councillors had been consulted on the original application earlier in the year and had objected to the proposals.  She added that this application had subsequently been amended with no opportunity to comment.  She felt that the Town Council’s objections were still applicable and the issues had not been addressed.  She stated that the site was outside the limits to development, was unsustainable and would add pressure to the existing facilities.  She added that there was no medical provision, no shops, and no space at the school.  She commented that the Council had already identified its 5 year housing land supply and cars were overused in Blackfordby.  She stated that action needed to be taken against the cars using the road as a rat run as it was dangerous to walk on the footpaths, and the road was being treated as a motorway.  She added that flooding remained a real concern to the properties adjacent, and the ecological report was flawed.  She accepted that adequate housing should be provided, but felt there were smaller pockets of land which were suitable for this purpose within the village.  She concluded that the applicant had not addressed the concerns raised by Ashby Town Councillors and to permit the development would not be in the best interests of the village.

Mr R Nettleton, objector, addressed the meeting.  He stated that he had lived within 100 yards of the application site all his life.  He commented that the site was outside the village limits.  He expressed concerns regarding flooding, unrecorded mining and unrecorded landfill at the site.  He added that there had been issues with sewage for as long as he could remember.  He felt that residents had been ignored despite the guidance advising planners to seek local knowledge and he had received a letter stating that officers were too busy to respond to his concerns.  He added that he had been an eyewitness to the materials that had been dumped into the landfill and to the collapse of old workings on the site.  He stated that none of these issues had been properly investigated and the risk of flooding had been ignored.  He respectfully requested that Members listen to residents and seek accurate information now before making a decision.

Mr C Lindley, the applicant’s agent, addressed the meeting.  He fully endorsed the officer’s recommendation.  He stated that the applicant had worked hard to listen to, and where appropriate, respond to comments raised by interested parties.  He added that the proposal had received no objections from any statutory consultee.  He commented that the Council must maintain a 5 year housing land supply and the application provided an appropriate form of development to maintain this.  He added that for permission to be refused, the benefits of the scheme, which he outlined, would need to be significantly outweighed.  He concluded that Members could be confident that the proposal embodied sustainable development and had no significant adverse impact.  He respectfully requested that Members support the officer’s recommendation.

Councillor T Neilson stated that in addition to visiting the site he had been out speaking to residents over the last few weeks to seek their views.  He understood that the officer view was that the site fits within village envelope, which could be said taking into consideration the commercial properties.  He commented however that the views toward the commercial properties were very restricted by vegetation and formed a natural barrier, which contradicted that viewpoint. He did not feel that development in this direction was useful as it was necessary to maintain a separation to Woodville.  He also disagreed that the settlement was sustainable, as it could not be argued that residents could walk to the Norris Hill shops.  He added that one of the speakers referred to the huge reliance on cars which suggested that residents would travel to the shops in Ashby de la Zouch, which doused the argument that the development would make existing facilities any more sustainable than they already were.  He moved that the application be refused on the grounds that it was contrary to policy S3, was outside the limits to development and in his view there was no evidence that the proposals would be sustainable.

The motion was seconded by Councillor J Legrys.

The Chairman sought to move to the vote.

Councillor T Neilson requested a recorded vote.

Councillor J Legrys sought to raise a point of order as he had requested to speak to the motion.

The Chairman invited Councillor J Legrys to speak to the motion.

Councillor J Legrys stated that he was opposed to the development for a number of reasons.  He commented that Mr Nettleton had made a powerful speech regarding what had happened to the backfill on the site, and this was in the days when landfill was completely and utterly uncontrolled.  He added that Mr Nettleton had observed all sorts of things going into the landfill and it could not be known what was under the surface.  He stated that he could not have it on his conscience if the Council started receiving complaints.  He referred to recommendation on  page 47 that the extraction of coal should be considered as a remedial measure prior to development taking place.  He expressed deep concerns that this was never mentioned in the application. He concluded that there was a great deal of uncertainty with this site which caused doubt in his mind.  He stated that he would be voting in favour of refusal of the application.

Councillor G Jones expressed concerns regarding Mr Nettleton’s observation that officers had sent out letters saying they were too busy.  He sought clarification on whether this was true.

The Planning and Development Team Manager stated that the letter received by Mr Nettleton was a standard acknowledgement letter sent in reply to neighbour objections.  He added that the team were not able to comment on every single objection from every objector, but that did not mean that the views expressed had been disregarded.

Councillor J Bridges sought confirmation that, taking into consideration the officer’s report and local knowledge, conditions 9 and 11 would cover the concerns raised regarding ground investigations, and these conditions would protect the Council from development without the necessary items being confirmed.

The Chairman confirmed that this was the case and added that the same would apply with conditions 16, 24 and 25 in respect of flooding.

Councillor D Everitt commented that the application put him in mind of a previous application that had been quashed due to methane coming up from the landfill.  He made reference to the cost of this and hoped that this had been investigated thoroughly.

The Chairman then put the motion to refuse the application to the vote.

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

For the motion:

Councillors J G Coxon, D Everitt, D Howe, R Johnson, J Legrys, T Neilson, R Woodward and M B Wyatt (8).

Against the motion:

Councillors G A Allman, J Bridges, J Cotterill, T Gillard, J Hoult, G Jones and D J Stevenson (7).

Abstentions:

None (0).

The motion was therefore declared CARRIED.

RESOLVED THAT:

The application be refused on the grounds that the proposal was contrary to policy S3, was outside the limits to development and was not sustainable.

Councillor N Smith returned to the meeting.