Agenda item

Land off Standard Hill, Hugglescote, Coalville

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report.

Councillor J Geary, objector, addressed the Committee. He advised that he had been involved with the application due to the illness of the previous Ward Member. He was broadly in favour of the proposal as the site was surrounded by development on three sides and the design was pleasing but he was greatly concerned about congestion and road safety. Therefore, he requested certain conditions be imposed if permission was to be granted, including ward Member involvement on boundary treatments with Private Road, traffic access solely via Standard Hill, and the utilisation of Vehicle Activated Signs to reduce dangerous driving which had historically been a problem on that road. He also requested construction management and traffic routing conditions.

Ms C Clarke, agent for the development, addressed the Committee. She stressed that this was proposed as an entirely affordable housing development with a variety of house types, that the developers would contribute approximately £1 million to the benefit of the local community, that the site was earmarked in the emerging Local Plan and that she had worked with Officers to address key concerns. In response to concerns raised, she advised that the ward Member would be consulted, noted traffic flow and safety mitigations planned and the lack of objection from Leicestershire County Council Highways, and reiterated that the design had been approved by the Council’s urban design advisor.

Councillor C Beck, ward Member, addressed the Committee. She advised that residents were concerned with construction traffic, sought assurances about lorries on Highfield Street, was concerned with the lack of prospective public transport links, and noted that Leicestershire County Council Highways thought there was the potential for traffic dangers.

The Planning and Development Team Manager addressed some of these concerns around road safety and how they could be formally communicated to the developer, though he advised that a construction management plan or a construction traffic routing plan could not be made a condition as they failed the test for planning conditions. However, traffic construction routing would be controlled by a clause in the Section 106 Agreement.

Members debated road safety and traffic congestion matters. Members favoured the use of Vehicle Activated Signs to mitigate road safety concerns, expressed strong concern about the impact of speeding and congestion on residents both when the site was finished and whilst it was being constructed, and wondered what mechanisms could be put in place to ease the speeding issue.

A Member disputed the issue of lack of public transport links, suggesting the site was in a sustainable location near to Coalville town centre and that demand for better transport links might be generated by the development itself and that the lack of them would impact only a small number of people. Some Members were also inclined to defer to Officer’s recommendations re traffic congestion and road safety.

Officers offered further advice on the limited use of Vehicle Activated Signs, what could be negotiated with the applicant regarding traffic speeds and what was the responsibility of Leicestershire County Council Highways. As such, Officers advised that a note to applicant could be attached to the decision notice if permission was granted to advise the applicant to discuss the position of these signs with County Highways.

Members broadly agreed that the development would provide social housing, which was much needed, and they accepted the design of the development was of a good standard. A Member did question the adequacy of the provision of play facilities for the site to be used by children from the new development. Officers advised that the site was in close proximity to a nearby development and a condition of S106 for that site was that the play facilities were available to the public in general and not to just the residents of the specific development.

The officer’s recommendation to permit the application, subject to a S106 agreement, was moved by Councillor R Morris and seconded by Councillor R Canny.

The Chair put the motion to the vote. A recorded vote being required, the voting was as detailed below.

The motion was CARRIED.

RESOLVED THAT:

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