Agenda item

Land On The East Side Of Butt Lane Blackfordby 

Having declared an interest in the item, Councillor N Smith left the meeting during the consideration and voting thereon.

 

The Planning Officer presented the report to Members.

 

Councillor S McKendrick, Ward Member, presented the report to Members.  She stated that the application was one step closer to destroying Blackfordby and that the development was not necessary.  She expressed highway concerns as there were no pathways and longer vehicles would struggle on the narrow roads.  Also, Blackfordby would be used as a cut through for traffic and the surrounding areas would also be affected by the increase in vehicles.  She stated that local residents did not believe that assessments had been carried out and questioned the accuracy of the report.  She believed that local knowledge should be taken into account when considering the application and urged Members to refuse.

 

Parish Councillor M Ball addressed the Committee.  He stated that Blackfordby was a delightful village which residents were very proud of and the proposals would destroy this.  He felt that the separation between the villages was important and there was no reason to go against Policy S3.  He also expressed the following concerns and urged Members to refuse the application:

-   The development would mean that the village would have over a 20 percent growth.

-   The local school was already full to capacity.

-   There were no services within the village.

-   New residents of the development would be reliant on cars and the roads were not equipped to deal with this.

-   The scale was not sustainable.

-   Current flood issues would worsen.

 

Mr R Nettleton, objector, addressed the Committee.  He stated that Members were considering the same application that was presented in December which had been refused, he emphasised that there were no changes.  He commented that the site was unsustainable with no services at all in the village.  He also felt that local knowledge was being ignored as there were flooding and sewerage problems in the area and former mining on the site which had been ignored and dismissed.  He added that he believed the consultants flood model was flawed.  

 

Mr C Lindley, agent, addressed the Committee.  He began by endorsing the officer’s recommendation.  He explained that they had worked with officers on the proposals and thoroughly considered the sustainability.  The development was appropriate to maintain the housing land supply and brought many benefits to the area.  He concluded by reminding Members that there had been no objections from the statutory consultees and urged to permit in accordance with the officer’s recommendation.

 

The Planning and Development Team Manager read out the following letter received from Andrew Bridgen MP to the Chairman of the Planning Committee:

 

‘I am writing once again in opposition to the above planning application.  As the Committee will note, 89 letters were received relating to the original plan raising a number of objections and the plan was voted down by the Committee.

 

My principal concerns then, and that of many residents is the coalescence between Blackfordby and Woodville and the fact that this development would virtually remove the separation between Woodville and Blackfordby.  The development does not easily link in with the rest of the village and has no link to Main Street.  There are also highway issues with the road layout for traffic approaching from Moira and flooding issues as demonstrated by the floods that have historically occurred on Strawberry Lane.  I see no evidence that there is any change in these positions.

 

This application site lies outside limits to development as defined in the adopted North West Leicestershire Local Plan and the Council is able to demonstrate a five year land supply.  Given the scale of this development and its impact on the character of the village, I urge Members to once again reject this planning application.’

 

 Councillor J Bridges asked for clarification on the housing land supply figure and what the figure meant.  The Head of Planning and Regeneration confirmed that there was currently 6.08 years of housing land supply, this meant 3079 houses, of which 2928 currently benefit from planning permission.  This figure included the 20 percent buffer, without the buffer included it would be 7.29 years of housing land supply.

 

Councillor J Bridges commented that the village was an established and sustainable area, and he could not think of a legitimate planning reason to refuse the application.  He added that he used to be the Ward Member for this area and therefore could understand the resident’s objections but as the appeal process would cost a significant amount of money he asked the Committee to support him as he reluctantly moved the officer’s recommendation.  It was seconded by Councillor G A Allman.

 

Councillor J Legrys expressed concerns with flooding in the area and although he understood concerns regarding the separation of the villages, it was not a consideration for the Committee.  He commented that the Committee had to consider the tax payers money with regards to the possible appeal if the application was refused but as an elected Member, he believed he had to support the local residents.  He was also not convinced that the contaminated land had been mitigated within the report.  Overall he felt that it was a bad application with little information regarding how it would benefit the residents of Woodville and Blackfordby.

 

Councillor G A Allman commented that he could not see a reason to justify refusal of the application.

 

Councillor M Specht referred to conflicting advice within the report as it referred to policies S3 and H4/1 being both relevant and out of date, he asked for clarification.  The Head of Planning and Regeneration assured Members that the policies were saved and should be treated as being up to date.  He explained that the original reports on the Packington applications from 2014 were appended to the current Packington reports on this agenda , and that when these applications were first considered in June 2014 the District Council did not have a five year land supply, therefore that advice was correct at that time.

 

Councillor J G Coxon felt that he would need to side with local residents and the Parish Council as he did not believe that the site was sustainable and it was outside the limits to development.

 

Regarding Councillor J Legrys’ comment on the issue of contaminated land, the Head of Planning and Regeneration explained that conditions 11, 20, 21 and 26 were designed to manage the issue.  Regarding flooding concerns, he reminded Members that there had been no objections from the Lead Local Flood Authority or Environment Agency and that conditions 24 and 27 were designed to address the issue.

 

The Chairman put the officer’s recommendation to permit the application to the vote.

 

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

 

For the motion:

Councillors G A Allman, J Bridges, R Boam, J Cotterill, D Harrison and J Hoult (6).

 

Against the motion:

Councillors R Canny, J G Coxon, D Everitt, J Geary, R Johnson, J Legrys, M Specht, D J Stevenson and M B Wyatt (9).

 

Abstentions:

Councillor G Jones (1).

 

The motion was LOST.

 

The Legal advisor asked Members to provide reasons for refusal.

 

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

 

Councillor M Specht commented that after visiting the site he felt that the lane would be substandard on highway grounds and suggested that this be included in the grounds for refusal.  Councillor J Legrys stated that he did not want this included as it was a weak ground for refusal.

 

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

 

The Chairman having requested a recorded vote, the vote was as follows:

 

For the motion:

Councillors R Canny, J G Coxon, D Everitt, J Geary, R Johnson, J Legrys, M Specht, D J Stevenson and M B Wyatt (9).

 

Against the motion:

Councillors G A Allman, J Bridges, R Boam, J Cotterill, D Harrison and J Hoult (6).

 

Abstentions:

Councillor G Jones (1).

 

The motion was CARRIED.

 

RESOLVED THAT:

 

The application be refused on the grounds that it was outside the limits to development and unsustainable.

 

Councillor N Smith returned to the meeting.