Agenda item

Land Adjoining Woodcock Way Ashby De La Zouch 

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report to Members.

Councillor R D Bayliss, Ward Member, addressed the meeting. He advised Members that he had no objection to the Money Hill development in principle as it was difficult to find a reason to not develop, however the application before them had issues. He raised concerns over highway access to the site as there was only one and it was already congested. He asked Members to refuse the application on the grounds that the development was unsustainable.

Mrs M Tuckey, on behalf of Ashby Town Council, addressed the meeting. She advised Members that the Town Council had constantly objected to the application when submitted for 30 houses and now objected to 70. She stated that the access at Woodcock Way was too narrow and the surrounding roads were already congested with 15,000 cars a day travelling along them, and that due to all the other developments within the Ashby area schools and medical facilities were at capacity. She urged Members to refuse the application.

Mr M Ball, objector, addressed the meeting. He reminded Members that the Packington Nook Inspector had stated that the SHMA advised that the district had a 5 year plus housing land supply and that there should be no further development outside the limits to development as there were sufficient brownfield sites. He stated that the junction was already at capacity and there had been 20 accidents there also. He added that the application was unacceptable as it was for outline matters and it conflicted with the Money Hill application. He urged Members to refuse the application as it was contrary to policy E6, the NPPF and the Local Plan.

Mr G Lees, agent, addressed the meeting. He advised Members that the development had been designed carefully so that it could either stand alone or become part of a wider development. He informed Members that the application contained 30% affordable housing and that any access concerns that had been raised by the Highways authority had been addressed. He highlighted that the transport plan was now acceptable and that Miller Homes would restrict access to only the 70 homes with bus access to a wider development. He added that the Money Hill consortium had no objections to the development.

Councillor D J Stevenson stated that he agreed with the first three speakers, however the application was for outline with all matters reserved and therefore the committee was unable to consider issues such as highways and design, it was only the principle of development of the land that they could consider.

Councillor M Specht stated that his concerns were around sustainability. He highlighted that the report stated that 2km was an acceptable walking distance from the development, however a later report stated that 800m was an acceptable walking distance. He added that he was not happy with the sustainability and access but understood that this could not be discussed. He moved that the application be deferred until further information could be provided on access and sustainability. This was seconded by Councillor G Jones.

Councillor J G Coxon agreed that the application should be deferred as he felt that Members needed to consider access details. He also felt that the application should not be considered until the outcome of the Money Hill appeal was known. He requested a recorded vote.

Councillor S Sheahan raised concerns about the traffic impact comments from the County highways and that there was no definition of severe in the NPPF.

Councillor J Legrys stated that he would have preferred that the application go to a decision, but took heed of what had been said. He felt that a fresh application would be exactly the same. He raised concerns over the trunk road that was only 8m wide having to incorporate 3 lanes. He praised the driver of the bus that took Members on the site visit for negotiating Woodcock Way.

Councillor J Bridges stated that he did not agree with the application and that Members had a duty to protect the area and a responsibility to consider the impact on Ashby. He raised concerns how the highway access would be controlled, should the application be approved.

The Head of Planning and Regeneration advised Members that as the application was for outline only, a further application for reserved matters to provide details of the access arrangements, would need to be submitted which the committee could call in should they wish to.

Councillor J Bridges raised concerns that if the application was granted the Council would not have control over a master plan.

Councillor G Jones congratulated the speakers and stated that he supported the recommendation to defer as the application could not be considered without all the information.

The Head of Planning and Regeneration responded to the points that had been made by Members. He advised that:

·         Leicestershire County Council was the Highways authority and therefore refusal on highways grounds would not be defensible

·         The report outlined the proposed Section 106 contributions of £456,882.68 to schools and £23,331.83 to the NHS.

·         The Council would be able to control the access rights to a wider development on Money Hill.

·         Just because the SHMA stated the authority had a 5 year land supply, it did not mean that the authority should not permit any further development within the district.

·         Highways were content that with the access off Woodcock Way and that it would not prejudice a wider scheme.

·         Reassurance was provided that the development was deliverable in a sustainable way.

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

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

For the motion:

Councillors A Bridges, J G Coxon, D Everitt, J Hoult, R Johnson, G Jones, J Legrys, T Neilson, S Sheahan, M Specht and D J Stevenson(11).

Against the motion:

Councillors J Bridges, T Gillard, L Spence and M B Wyatt(4).

Abstentions:

None(0).

RESOLVED THAT:

The application be deferred to allow further information on access and sustainability to be provided, and the outcome of the Money Hill appeal to be known.