Agenda item

Site Off Main Street Normanton Le Heath Leicestershire

The Planning and Development Team Manager presented the report to Members

Mr A Cooper, Chair of Normanton le Heath Parish Meeting, addressed the committee. He stated that there was a lot of opposition to the development as it was outside the limits to development, near to the listed church, would affect a well used footpath and the land was classed a sensitive area. He informed the committee that the village was already suffering from increased parking and traffic, and that it was not sustainable. He urged Members to refuse an application that would destroy a piece of village history.

Mr P Bailey, objector, addressed the committee. He stated that the statements in the application were untrue and the site plan was misleading. He advised that the site was outside the limits to development and that the applicant had no consideration for the village when purchasing the site. He added that the development offered nothing to the village and that in permitting the application the council would view one family over many more. He urged the Members to refuse the application and protect Normanton le Heath.

Mr G Phillips, agent, addressed the committee. He informed Members that he had been brought in to look at the application with a fresh pair of eyes. He highlighted to the committee that an application was permitted back in 1974 and only did not come forward as the applicant passed away. He stated that the applicant had taken into consideration that the area was a sensitive site and had put forward an application that would enhance the area. He stated that the dwelling would be well away from the footpath and had been designed to ensure there was no loss of view.

The officer’s recommendation was moved by Councillor J Legrys and seconded by Councillor M Specht.

Councillor N Smith stated that he had never known so many objections to an application and felt that there was no positive approach. He stated that the application should be refused on the grounds that the application was outside the limits to development, a sensitive area, unsustainable and that the village regarded the space as its own green wedge. He accepted that an application had been permitted in 1974 but that was 41 years ago.

The Head of Planning and Regeneration reminded Members that the number of objections that had been received in relation to a planning application was not a reason for refusing it and Members should judge the application on planning merits only.

Councillor D Everitt stated that Councillors were appointed to represent the views of the residents of the district and felt that the application was un-necessary, stating that the centre of villages such as Normanton le Heath were slowly disappearing. He urged Members to respond to common sense.

Councillor K Merrie stated that he had listened to all that had been said and he would be voting against the officer’s recommendation.

Councillor V Richichi stated that a few months previously a small booklet had been delivered to the residents of the District encouraging them to have their say on the Local Plan and questioned why it was done if the council was going to ignore the responses. He highlighted that many applications had been refused on the site, including one for a bungalow and that his principles prevented him from voting in favour of the development. He informed Members that there was no bus service and it would mean an addition of cars on the roads and that nearly every household in the village had signed the petition.

The Head of Planning and Regeneration advised Members that the emerging Local Plan was at an early stage and that the application had to be considered alongside the information in front of them.

Councillor J Legrys stated that he had moved the recommendation as there was no reason to refuse. He expressed disappointment over the remarks made about listening to residents  and advised Members that he was under the impression that the emerging Local Plan was 90% there. He informed the Committee that the church was not directly opposite the site, instead there was a row of 20^th century buildings and that the ground was not classified as special. He felt that the development would benefit the village and sought clarification on the meaning of sensitive areas and what the cost would be to the council if it went to appeal.

The Head of Planning and Regeneration informed Members that if they were minded to refuse the application he was confident that the authority would not lose costs at appeal and that sensitive areas are local plan designations that are supported by Policy E1. The Planning & Development Team Manager clarified the meaning of the sensitive area and advised that part of the sensitive area would still be maintained as a result of this proposal.

Councillor M Specht stated that he was not there to be popular and as with other members of the Committee had gone through the training, highlighting what was or was not material planning conditions. He informed Members that loss of view was not a reason but overshadowing could be, however the application did not overshadow and the land was not a green wedge. He advised that the church was not opposite the site, only houses were and that Members were there to make a balanced judgement.

The motion to permit the application in accordance with the recommendation of the Head of Planning and Regeneration was put to the vote and LOST.

The motion to refuse the application was moved by Councillor N Smith, seconded by Councillor V Richichi and

RESOLVED THAT:

The application be refused as it is outside the limits to development, a sensitive area, and the proposed development would be unsustainable.