Agenda item

Land At  Spring Lane/Normanton Road Packington 

The Planning and Development Team Manager presented the report to Members.

Parish Councillor C Miles addressed the Committee.  He believed that the application did not meet the National Policy Framework or the Local Plan and gave the following reasons to reject it; protection of the historical environment, the school was already at full capacity, it was not the preferred site, it was not sustainable and was contrary to the NPPF.  He explained that there had already been approval for other developments in the area which meant that there would be enough new housing in line with all policies and plans.  He referred to an email from the Minister for Housing and Planning, Brandon Lewis MP, which stated that he was ensuring countryside was being protected.  He concluded by urging Members to refuse the application.

Ms A Walters, objector, addressed the Committee.  She explained that she was a planning solicitor who had been appointed by the residents of Packington to represent them.  She listed the following objections to the application:

-   It was outside the limits of development and unsustainable

-   It would have a harmful impact on Packington House

-   The proposals would have a disproportionate impact on the size of the village and would be harmful to the character and appearance of the countryside contrary to Policy E4 and the NPPF.

-   There had been no formal assessment of the cumulative impact of development of this site together with the Normanton Road site and as to whether the village could sustain such an increase in size.

-   The District Council now had a five year housing land supply and therefore did not need the development.

-   If the application was permitted, the judicial review that would be requested by residents would be very costly to the District Council.

Mr S Lewis-Roberts, agent, addressed the Committee.  He explained that the site was sustainable with good access to local facilities and there had been no objections from the statutory consultees. He stated that the scale of the development was not disproportionate to the size of the village. He reported that after extensive discussions with the Urban Design Officer, the proposals were for a high quality development that would provide much needed affordable housing.  The application submission made it clear that the proposals would have no impact on Packington House and the Conservation Officer was in agreement.  He concluded that all necessary assessments had been undertaken and as it was a good site he urged Members to permit the application in accordance with the officer’s recommendation.

Councillor N Smith moved that the application be refused on the grounds that it was outside the limits to development, there was already a seven year land supply and that the original planning permission had been quashed.  It was seconded by Councillor J Legrys.

Councillor N Smith commented that Packington Parish Council and the local residents strongly objected to the application and it was important to listen to their views.  He stated that there were other applications in the pipeline for the area which were more appropriate as they were within the limits to development.  He strongly urged Members to protect the beautiful village and not to breach the natural boundaries as this would encourage more development.  He urged Members to refuse the application.

Councillor J Legrys stated that only he and one other Member voted against the application when it was considered by Committee previously and he still believed it was wrong as it was outside the limits to development.  He expressed the importance of listening to the people of Packington and urged the Parish Council to establish a neighbourhood plan.  He also expressed concerns regarding the additional traffic the development would generate and Members needed to think carefully if they wanted a future for the village.  He was happy to support refusal.

Councillor G Jones asked for clarification on the housing land supply figure.  The Head of Planning and Regeneration explained that the District Council currently had 6.08 years of housing land supply.

Councillor G Jones expressed concerns that if the application was refused the village would miss out on the Section 106 money for the school and health centre.  The Head of Planning and Regeneration explained that planning obligations are imposed to mitigate the development and not to make up for existing shortfalls in an area.

Councillor J G Coxon supported the views of the local people and the motion to refuse the application as put forward by Councillor N Smith.

The Head of Planning and Regeneration clarified the following points.  The amount of housing land supply that the District Council had was not a reason to refuse permission.  The application site was outside the limits to development but as it was adjoining an existing settlement its impact was acceptable.  The scale of the proposal was sustainable.  Traffic concerns were not supported by the Highway Authority as there were no technical objections.  The Committee should consider the current application on its own merits.

The Planning and Development Team Leader referred to the grounds for refusal and offered his advice to Members.  He explained that the site being outside the limits to development was a valid reason if Members felt the scheme would adversely impact on the countryside.  The impact of the development on Packington House, a listed building would also be a valid reason for refusal, albeit not a view shared by the Council’s Conservation Officer. However, reference to the previous permission being quashed was not a valid reason for refusal and therefore would be difficult to defend in the case of an appeal.

Councillor N Smith confirmed that his grounds for refusal were that the site was outside the limits to development and would adversely impact on the countryside, there was more than a five year housing land supply and detrimental impact on the setting of Packington House.

Councillor J Legrys having requested a recorded vote, the vote was as follows:

For the motion:

Councillors G A Allman, R Boam, R Canny, J Cotterill, J G Coxon, D Everitt, J Geary, R Johnson, J Legrys, N Smith and M B Wyatt (11).

Against the motion:

Councillors J Bridges, D Harrison, G Jones, M Specht and D J Stevenson (5).

Abstentions:

Councillor J Hoult (1).

The motion was CARRIED.

RESOLVED THAT:

The application be refused on the grounds that it was outside the limits to development, there was more than a five year housing land supply and detrimental impact on the setting of Packington House.