Agenda item

Land At Wells Road And Willesley Road Ashby De La Zouch Leicestershire 

The Planning Officer presented the report to Members.

Parish Councillor M Ball addressed the Committee.  He commented that Ashby was a beautiful part of the district and because of that there had been an endless queue of developers for many years.  He believed that unfortunately, what made Ashby special would be lost if it continued to be developed.  His main concerns were that the development was outside of the urban area of Ashby and would destroy the countryside; and the distance to nearby services was too far which would mean an increase of vehicle use in the area.  He stated that other nearby brown field sites would be better for the development than the current site and as the council had more than six years of land supply, the development was not necessary in Ashby.  He urged Members to refuse the application.

Mr F Bedford, objector, addressed the Committee.  He stated that the same application was considered by the Committee in November 2014 which was refused and nothing had changed since then.  He felt that the area was an important gateway to the town and the amount of objection from local residents and Ashby Town Council justified refusal of the application.  He raised concerns that the development would significantly harm the look of the landscape and added that it was contrary to the NPPF as it refers to the protection of countryside locations.  Also he believed that the distances to services as stated within the report were incorrect.  He concluded that as the Council had given the site a high landscape value of ‘9’ and there was already a five year land supply, he urged Members to refuse the application.

Ms H Guy, agent, addressed the Committee.  She began by commending the officers for the report.  She explained that she had worked closely with officers to achieve the sustainable, deliverable and appropriate scheme that Members had in front of them.  She reported that it was the second time that the application had been presented to the Committee, and further evidence had been included to show that the previous reasons for refusal could not be upheld.  She assured Members that the distances to services stated within the report were correct and reminded the Committee that there were no objections from the statutory consultees. 

Councillor G Jones moved that the application be refused on the grounds that it was outside the limits to development.  It was seconded by Councillor J G Coxon.

Councillor J G Coxon agreed that he felt the application was outside the limits of development but also that it was unsustainable.  He stated that he voted for refusal previously and would do so again.  He then requested a recorded vote.

Councillor J Bridges stated that if the application was to be refused he believed that the Council would lose if the decision went to an appeal.  He understood the objections and concerns of the local residents but there were no strong planning grounds for refusal.

The Planning and Development Team Manager advised the Committee that the reason for refusal put forward would not be strong enough on its own and asked the mover and seconder of the motion if they wanted to include sustainability as another reason.  Councillors G Jones and J G Coxon as mover and seconder of the motion agreed.

The motion to refuse the application was put to the vote.

As a recorded vote was requested, the voting was as follows:

For the motion:

Councillors R Canny, J G Coxon, J Hoult, G Jones, J Legrys, N Smith, D J Stevenson and M B Wyatt (8).

Against the motion:

Councillors G A Allman, J Bridges, R Boam, J Cotterill, D Everitt, J Geary, D Harrison, R Johnson and M Specht (9)

Therefore the motion to refuse was LOST.

The chairman then put the officer’s recommendation to permit to the vote and the motion was LOST, the application was therefore undecided.

The officers’ recommendation to permit was moved again by Councillor M Specht and seconded by Councillor J Bridges.

At this point the Legal Advisor requested that the meeting be adjourned so that he could seek further legal advice. The meeting was adjourned at 6:08 pm and  re-convened at 6.25 pm.

On the advice of the Legal Advisor and under procedure rule 13.1.9 of the Council’s Constitution, the Chairman moved that the Committee proceed to the next item of business.  It was seconded by Councillor J Bridges.

RESOLVED THAT:

The Committee move to the next item of business.