Agenda item

Former Depot Highfield Street Coalville Leicestershire LE67 3BL

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report to members.

Councillor J Geary, ward member, addressed the meeting.  He stated that the use of the site for affordable housing had to be welcomed as there was little affordable housing in Snibston South ward, and this development would improve the situation greatly.  He expressed concern regarding the layout of the site, adding that he would certainly have liked to see more bungalows.  He commented that the minimum density required was 40 dwellings per hectare, and this development offered 54.9 dwellings per hectare, so the developer certainly would have been able to include more bungalows and still meet the minimum density requirement.  He added that the siting of the dwellings was also contentious due to the proximity of existing bungalows.  He stated that the bungalows would be deprived of natural light as the new houses would cast a shadow.  He added that to make matters worse, the developers would also plant trees there which could grow taller than the houses and cast more shadow.  He referred to the comments of the Council’s Urban Designer who suggested the scheme needed further work.  He commented that  boundary treatments should be agreed in consultation with the local ward member and he hoped that could be arranged.

Mr J Roberts, the applicant’s agent, addressed the meeting.  He stated that the scheme would provide 100% affordable housing and the applicant had worked closely with officers and taken on board their comments and requests.  He added that the design reflected existing dwellings, there were no protected species found on the site and no objections from the statutory consultees.  He stated that the scheme was a direct response to the shortfall in affordable housing, and provided a housing mix that met the needs of the local community.  He stated that sufficient parking provision had been made and there were no highways concerns.  In respect of the bungalows, he advised that the plots had been moved and lowered in response to the concerns raised, and officers considered the proposals to be acceptable in terms of residential amenity.  He concluded that the proposals represented housing for local people which was fitting within the constraints of the site.  He respectfully urged members to support the officer recommendation and provide much needed housing for Coalville.

Councillor R Johnson stated that he had called in the application due to the overlooking impacts on the site from Zetland Close and the land levels.  He added that he and Councillor J Geary had requested that two bungalows be put at the rear of the site and felt that bungalows were needed.  He referred to the comments from the Urban Designer on page 47 of the agenda which indicated that there was still further work to be done in terms of design and he asked why the application was before members without this work being completed. 

Councillor R Johnson moved that the application be deferred until the requisite work on the design was completed.  This was seconded by Councillor R Adams.

The Head of Planning and Regeneration advised that there were a number of amber indicators highlighted on page 47 of the agenda; however there was no objection from the Urban Designer as the design aspects could be secured by way of suitably worded conditions.  He asked members to consider whether the proposals represented sustainable development of the site, or whether the issues were so unsatisfactory that they felt the application should not be determined today.

The Chairman then put the motion to defer the application to the vote.  The motion was declared LOST.

It was moved by Councillor M Specht and seconded by Councillor G Jones that the application be permitted in accordance with the officer recommendation as set out in the report.

Councillor M Specht stated that he agreed with the comments regarding the bungalows.  He commented that solar gain could save huge amounts on energy bills and he fully agreed that there should be a condition that there were two bungalows at that end of the site.  He added that a landscaping condition could require a row of trees along this boundary.  He referred to a row of trees in Coleorton which had been planted in close proximity to a row of dwellings, and the residents were up in arms about issues such as the height of trees, overshadowing and interfering with television reception.  He stated that therefore he would like to see the condition regarding the hedgerow planting removed.

Councillor G Jones stated that he was happy to support the officer’s recommendation.  He commented that this was an ideal location for the housing needed in Coalville.  He asked however that officers reconsider the square footage of what was being presented as there was an ideal opportunity to increase this. 

Councillor J Legrys sought clarification as he believed that Councillor M Specht had moved a motion that had not been seconded to add a condition about the siting of the bungalows, and remove the condition relating to the hedgerow planting.

It was clarified that this was not a formal motion, but a wish list for the developer to note.

Councillor J Legrys moved an amendment to the motion that a condition be added to ensure that the dwellings at the top end of the site were bungalows, and the condition relating to hedgerow planting be removed.  He commented that the site did need tidying up and the social housing was required, however he felt that it was necessary to be concerned about the neighbouring dwellings.  He accepted that in the event of any development, someone would not be satisfied; however at the last Planning Committee meeting, the local member was given permission to negotiate with the developer regarding the orientation to one plot, which has proved successful.  He also moved as part of his amendment that the plots near to Zetland Close be bungalows.

The Chairman asked members to bear in mind that in respect of the bungalows on Zetland Close, residents have asked for the concrete wall to be retained, and it would be quite dark in that corner in any case.  He put it to members that they should refuse the application if they felt that a significant amendment was required.

Councillor J Legrys sought to raise a point of order in that a vote should be taken on the amendment.

The Legal Adviser clarified that in the event that an amendment to a motion was seconded, this would need to be voted on prior to dealing with the substantive motion.

Councillor R Johnson seconded the amendment put by Councillor J Legrys.

The Chairman then put the amendment to vote.

The voting having been tied, the Chairman exercised his casting vote and the motion was declared LOST.

The Chairman then referred members to the substantive motion as set out in the report.

Councillor T Neilson commented that this affordable housing was desperately needed in Coalville.  He added that for many years the allocation had been deteriorating due to problems getting developers to put enough in to these schemes.  He added that the Council were providing funding also, and as such he was disappointed that members’ views were not being taken into account regarding the layout.  He concluded that he could not support the proposals due to overshadowing.

Councillor D Everitt stated that he was going to support this, however having viewed the aerial view of the development site, he was quite concerned about the proximity of the wall to the corner of the bungalow. 

Councillor J G Coxon referred to the application permitted at the last meeting which was not dissimilar to this.  He commented that there was no talk of wanting bungalows on the perimeter then, and the Committee was not being consistent.   He felt that the application and officer recommendation should be supported.

Councillor L Spence stated that this was a very difficult decision for him personally as he came to the meeting truly open minded and could see the case that it would be overshadowing on Zetland Close.  He added that he was also conscious of the need for affordable housing.  He concluded that with all that in mind, he felt that the impact of the overshadowing needed to be weighed against the need for affordable housing in the town, and he felt that need was greater.  Therefore he felt he must support the application.

The Chairman then put the motion to the vote.  The motion was declared CARRIED.

RESOLVED THAT:

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