Agenda item

Land Off Grange Road Grange Road Hugglescote Leicestershire

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report to Members.

Dr T Eynon, County Councillor, addressed the meeting.  She stated that she had no objection to the principle of development on the site and had nothing but praise for the way the agent had engaged with residents.  She felt however that the application was premature from a highways perspective, and much more work needed to be done to make the scheme viable.  She added that there would be a material impact on every junction of the A511.  She noted that the original solution included a bypass, which had been delayed for years due to increasing costs.  She added that the Planning Committee had now approved an application on the land set aside for the bypass.  She stated that the link road which was intended to punch through the site was mired in difficulties and was likely to cost far more than the developer could hope to provide.  She commented that monies from the transport and infrastructure pot from this development would be going towards the works at the Markfield junction in Hinckley and Bosworth.  She asked the Committee to reject this offer until the officers have worked up a robust strategy to find the requisite funding for the bypass and the other infrastructure requirements as identified by the Highways Authority.

Mr W Jennings, representing the Parish Council, addressed the meeting.  He stated that he was the Chair of the planning working party and since its inception, the Parish Council had engaged with higher authorities.  He expressed concerns regarding the lack of infrastructure in what was by far the biggest application for the district.   He stated that the proposals were in contravention of policy E21 as the parish identities would be compromised.  He added that there was no infrastructure in place to support the development and the proposed punch through road was eighth on the list of priorities.  He commented that phrase ‘short term pain for long term gain’ had been quoted, yet it was the communities that would pay the price.  He stated that not only was the weight of traffic a prime concern, but also the roads expected to bear the traffic were not fit for purpose, and the road proposed as the main thoroughfare was dangerous.   He added that the school did not have spare capacity and the issues raised had not been addressed.  He stated that the proposals were contrary to policy E4 as they were not in tune with the surroundings, as much of Hugglescote was Victorian.  He added that the lack of affordable housing was also a concern and there were too many unanswered questions in respect of this development.  He also questioned the CIL compatibility of the scheme.

Councillor P Hyde, Ward Member, addressed the meeting.  He stated that the agent had done an excellent job and had involved the local community, parish council and district council Members, which was what everyone should do when submitting a scheme of this size which affected the area.  He referred to the workshops which had been held and the overriding 2 points highlighted had been sewers and highways.  He commented that he had been involved with the project since the beginning.  He added that the major concern was the highways implications, as was evident in the report.  He pointed out that no consultation had been done by the Highways Authority on this issue and HGVs cutting through the area was a problem.  He felt that the scheme should be deferred to enable the highways issues to be resolved.  He commented that originally there was a requirement for a bypass which would have to be funded by the developer; however now the advice was that there was less traffic and therefore a bypass was not needed.  He assured Members that there was more traffic now than there was in 1995.

Mr G Lees, the applicant’s agent, addressed the meeting.  He stated that the South East Coalville development represented the most significant component of achieving the sustainable growth of Coalville.  He felt it was important to point out that part of site at the north was allocated for housing and the southern part was brownfield.  He highlighted the clear and desirable benefits of approving the application, such as contributions to the regeneration of the town centre, walking and cycling routes, two new centres, two new primary schools and 44% of the site being allocated for planting.  He referred to the key concerns regarding highways, and pointed out that there was now over £24 million on the table for infrastructure provision secured through planning permissions and the central government growth deal.  He added that this was a chicken and egg situation, and without granting permissions, further central government funding would not be forthcoming.  He commented that the offer in respect of affordable housing and education was above and beyond what other schemes were offering.  He respectfully requested that Members accept the officer’s recommendation.

It was moved by Councillor J Bridges and seconded by Councillor T Gillard that the application be permitted in accordance with the officer’s recommendation.

Councillor R Johnson acknowledged that the land had been allocated for housing but questioned whether this application was really necessary for South East Coalville without having the proper highways infrastructure through the villages.  He commented that to have two new villages within the Hugglescote Parish boundary was just plain daft.  He added that one major element not included in the application by the consortium was the impact on the quality of residents’ life, which was not acceptable. He added that residents had concerns regarding what impact the development would have on their village identities as there would be no area of separation.  He commented that the villages should not be seen as a dumping ground for developers’ profits.  He felt that the application was premature, considering that Leicestershire County Council had just begun a consultation on the community centre and the future of the crossroads, the results of which would not be known until 2015.  He added that this would affect roads further afield and there would be an impact upon Bardon Road also with the quarry increasing production.  He expressed concerns regarding the access on Beveridge Lane.  He commented that no amount of money thrown at all the road junctions and islands around the town would solve the traffic problems as there were still branches of highway which were not fit for a large development such as this.  He added that the bypass would have partly solved the problem with the lack of infrastructure, but this was not an option, and the proposed punch through road may never happen.  He noted that the school would accommodate 420 pupils which was not a lot considering the housing numbers.  He commented that the local centre may be forward thinking from the developers to include a proposed sustainable area.  He referred to the widening of Grange Road which residents had previously been totally opposed to.  He added that having access points of an only bus lane road onto one of the narrowest parts of Forest Road was a crazy idea, and to top it all the access point close to Newbridge School was on a renowned accident hotspot.  He asked if this was reasonable.  He commented that the plans looked wonderful on a piece of paper, but in reality there would be a lot of upheaval for residents for a very long time.  He asked if it was worth it.  He commented that the residents were not of the persuasion of the short term pain for long term gain scenario.  In his view proper infrastructure was required before there could be any notion of building.

Councillor M B Wyatt commented that he wished he didn’t have to support the proposal, but due to it being the only way to fund the relief road he felt he had no choice.  He added that the residents understood that without this development there could be no relief road.  He added that this application would go some way to relieving the highway situation.  He pointed out the infrastructure plans were yet to be finalised in respect of Network Rail, and he was confident the ransom strip issue could be addressed.  He added that he had spoken to a representative of the consortium and asked if they would be prepared to fund a feasibility study for the reintroduction of the Ivanhoe Line and they had indicated that they would do so if officers approached them for a contribution.  He stated that he would be supporting the proposals.

Councillor J Legrys stated that he could not support the application, however he extended his personal thanks to the agent for the exemplary work he had done with the Parish and District Councillors.  He stated that the crossroads at Broom Leys Road was already at capacity and the impact of the development had been demonstrated to be material.  As part of the junction was in his Ward, he asked how long the short term pain was likely to last and how many properties would need to be demolished to provide the significant improvement required at the junction.

The Principal Planning Officer advised that the strategy was designed to enable Leicestershire County Council to draw on the monies in a priority order so that most pressing issues could be addressed first, and therefore the timescales could not currently be known.  He added that no detailed schemes had been drawn up yet, by the Highways Authority who would need to draw these up and address the priorities as they came forward.

In response to a comment from Councillor J Legrys, the Principal Planning Officer confirmed that the junction was in an air quality management area and it had been concluded that the proposals would not have an unacceptable impact on air quality.

In response to comment from Councillor J Legrys, the Head of Planning and Regeneration clarified that the presence of a housing land supply was not a basis for asking the Planning Committee to reconsider an application, regardless of whether the Section 106 Agreement had been signed or the decision notice issued.

Councillor J Legrys asked if there was any likelihood that land at Park Lane was likely to come back before the Committee.

The Chairman reminded Councillor J Legrys to confine his comments to the application before him.

Councillor J Legrys commented that the issue was that the application would further increase the housing land supply, which he felt would jeopardise those permissions where the Section 106 Agreements hadn’t been signed.  Considering this, he expressed concerns that residents were having to put up with long term pain for short term gain.  He praised the agent’s work on engagement and felt that where the developers had been let down was in breaking the logjam of highways improvements.   He added that the bypass was sacrificed and the land now had a planning permission granted.   He referred to the alternative offered by the failed Core Strategy which was the ransom strip belonging to Network Rail.  He stated that he was of the opinion that the punch through road would go above the cost of whatever would be provided by central government.  He referred to the 699 properties proposed on the Massarella land, which had not materialised due to housing marketability and the lack of proper highways.  He added that no mitigation was proposed for the school and the inconvenience of school gate parking.  He expressed concerns regarding the demolition and blitzing of the centre of Hugglescote and the additional traffic going into Ravenstone.  He commented that the route was the old route between Leicestershire and Ashby de la Zouch, and he did not want to see traffic going through the village and using Corkscrew Lane to access the A42.

The Chairman reminded Councillor J Legrys that no Member may speak for more than 5 minutes without the permission of the Chairman.  He asked Councillor J Legrys to conclude his speech.

As a point of personal explanation, Councillor J Legrys stated that he felt the application was premature and he was opposed to it.

Councillor T Gillard stated that he supported the application as he firmly believed it would go a long way to securing the Whitwick green wedge if successful.

Councillor R Woodward stated that Councillor T Gillard’s comments had spurred him to speak.  He stated that he agreed with what he was saying, however he commented he was claiming to be the saviour of the green wedge, but others had done so long before.

Councillor T Neilson commented that the application was outline so he did not see how it could be premature.

The Chairman called for order at this point in the meeting.

Councillor T Neilson stated that he shared the concerns that the fabled bypass would not see the light of day due to difficulties down the line.  He felt that it was necessary to bear in mind that a lot of that work had a long way to go and what was currently needed was to establish the principle of development on the site.   He stated that he supported the recommendation.

Councillor T Gillard requested a recorded vote.

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

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

For the motion:

Councillors G A Allman, J Bridges, J Cotterill, J G Coxon, D Everitt, T Gillard, J Hoult, D Howe, G Jones, N Smith, D J Stevenson, R Woodward and M B Wyatt (13).

Against the motion:

Councillors, R Johnson and J Legrys, (2).

Abstentions:

Councillor T Neilson (1).

The motion was therefore declared CARRIED.

RESOLVED THAT:

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