Agenda item

Land Between Burton Road And Moira Road Shellbrook Ashby De La Zouch

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report to Members.

Ms D Grice, objector, addressed the meeting.  She stated that the application was a departure from policy S3, and commented that policies were useless if applications were still being considered regardless.  She added that residents had expressed concerns regarding the impact on roads and pollution, and Ashby Town Council had objected on the grounds that the district’s housing quota had been met.  She stated that the development could lead to a saturation of houses.  She added that there were issues in respect of flooding, design and access, and all properties on the boundary of the development would be overlooked and the streetscape would be adversely affected.  She felt that the community feel of the area would be lost and the proposals would cause additional hazards on the footpath used by school children.  She added that local residents were experiencing disruption on the road with the existing development and the delivery of heavy goods.

Mr R Garnham, the applicant’s agent, addressed the meeting.  He stated that the planning merits of the application had been covered in the officer’s report.   He commented that every Council had to have a local plan and a land supply.  He added that in order to show commitment to developing the site, the applicant proposed to amend the condition in respect of the reserved matters application to specify that this be submitted in 2 years rather than 3.  He added that the proposals would provide a range of affordable housing including bungalows for older people.  He added that the legal agreement would give first refusal to people in the local area, and the development would truly deliver local homes for local people.  He commented that only 14 objections had been received from members of the public, which he hoped was a reflection of the huge efforts the applicant had gone to in respect of this scheme.  He reassured Members that the application would meet the needs of local people and would do so in a timeframe that supported the Council’s strategic needs.  He respectfully requested that Members support the officer’s recommendation.

Councillor J G Coxon stated that he had the opposite view to the officers.  He moved that the application be refused on the grounds that it was contrary to policy S3 and was not sustainable.  He commented that the proposals would extend the limits of Ashby de la Zouch further and would put a belt or perimeter on the town. He made reference to the density of the application and added that the site was significantly overdeveloped.

The motion was seconded by Councillor J Legrys.

The Head of Planning and Regeneration advised Members that the sustainability issue had been given as a reason for refusal in respect of the site to the south of this development, and this was permitted at appeal.  He advised that the Inspector had said this was not reasonable and therefore he felt that this could not be defended on appeal.  He added that the change to the condition in respect of the reserved matters application would be welcomed and accepted.  He advised that conditions were imposed which addressed the concerns regarding flooding, as was the impact of construction.  He stated that visual impact was unavoidable on a development of this size and Members were asked to make a judgement given the existing structures, the proposed development to the south and the proposed forest planting.  He advised that in respect of the affordable housing, the Council as the housing authority would have a say as to how the affordable housing was allocated.

Councillor J Hoult commented that the proposal was too close to Norris Hill and he expressed concerns about development in this general direction.  He asked if the application could be refused on the grounds that it was too close to the next settlement.

The Head of Planning and Regeneration advised that the application could not be refused on this basis as the same arguments would apply to the other sites.  He added that the development would not extend significantly beyond the existing settlement.

The Chairman commented that the density of the proposal was quite low.

Councillor T Neilson stated that personally he could see very little difference between this site and the previous item, except that this was slightly closer to the amenities, which were far in advance of those at Norris Hill. Additionally local transport was available and he hoped this was taken into consideration.  He Agreed with officers and did not feel the sustainability argument applied in this case because of the offer in the town.  He felt that Money Hill as a proposal was far more sustainable than this one.  He sought a view from the officer on how this would affect the ongoing appeal in respect of Money Hill as it was far closer to the town centre than this application.

The Head of Planning and Regeneration advised that the Money Hill appeal was at a very early stage so it was difficult to answer how this might be impacted.  He advised that in principle, adding to stock of sites nearby would not hurt the Council’s case as it would demonstrate that permission would be granted when a good site came forward that met the requisite criteria.

The Chairman urged Members to bear in mind the officer’s advice.

Councillor G Jones stated that he was very concerned about stretching the envelope of the Ashby de la Zouch boundary.  He added that the town had had to take more than its share of housing and immigration.  He felt that it would be wrong to grant further permissions when there were existing developments that had not been commenced.  He added therefore that he would be voting against the proposals.

Councillor T Gillard enquired about the potential cost of losing at appeal.

The Head of Planning and Regeneration advised that the costs could potentially escalate up to hundreds of thousands of pound if a public inquiry was held, which represented a significant amount of the budget.

Councillor J Legrys stated that he would be voting in favour of refusal of the application.  He sought clarification about the proposed distributor road through the site and expressed concerns that this could create a western Ashby bypass which could encourage further growth in the area.  He stated that he shared the concerns regarding extending the Ashby de la Zouch envelope towards the Moira boundary and the settlement of Shellbrook.  He believed that extending Ashby in this direction was the wrong way to go.   He stated that he supported any community who were having deep concerns regarding maintaining their community identity and proper areas of separation to the next town, which was why he would be supporting the motion to refuse the application.

The Chairman reminded Members that the internal roads associated with the development would be discussed at a later stage.

Due to the officer’s advice in respect of the reasons for refusal, the Chairman requested a recorded vote on the motion.

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

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

For the motion:

Councillors G A Allman, J G Coxon, J Hoult, G Jones and J Legrys (5).

Against the motion:

Councillors J Bridges, J Cotterill, D Everitt, T Gillard, D Howe, R Johnson, T Neilson, N Smith, D J Stevenson, R Woodward and M B Wyatt (11).

Abstentions:

None (0).

The motion was therefore declared LOST.

The officer’s recommendation was then put to vote and declared CARRIED.

RESOLVED THAT:

The application be permitted in accordance with the recommendation of the Head of Planning and Regeneration.