Agenda item

Land Adjoining Woodcock Way Woodcock Way Ashby De La Zouch Leicestershire LE65 1AX

The Principal Planning Officer presented the reports for A2 and A3 together, to Members.

Councillor M Tuckey, on behalf the Ashby Town Council, addressed the Committee. She advised Members that the Town Council was in objection to the application as the district had a 5 year housing land supply, the access to the development on Nottingham Road was unsuitable and the increase in traffic would add to an existing problem for local residents with the road being congested. She informed the Committee that the increase in traffic was a safety concern for the school nearby and that there had been several traffic accidents in the area, which the emergency services had found it an issue in getting through the traffic. She urged Members to consider the points that she had raised.

Mr T Gregory, objector, addressed the Committee. He advised Members that residents of Ashby were aware of the traffic issues along Nottingham Road and the lengthy queues during the peak times. He highlighted that should the development go ahead there would be a 25% increase in the amount of traffic. He informed the Committee that the authority had enough housing land supply and that brownfield sites should be used instead. He added that residents were not against the bigger Money Hill development, but only when the time was right. He urged Members to refuse the application on the grounds that it was contrary to policies S3, H4/1, E6 and NPPF 32.

Mr S Lewis-Roberts, agent, addressed the Committee. He advised Members that following the deferral of the previous application, the applicants had now provided further information in respect of access to the site and sustainability, and proposed that 30% of the site would be affordable housing. He informed Members that should they be minded to permit the application, the applicants would withdraw the appeal on the previous application. He highlighted to Members that the site was close to the town centre, that there were no technical issues with the application, including no objections from the highways authority and Section 106 contributions had been agreed. He stated that the district need to maintain its housing land supply and that the application should be granted.

Councillor G A Allman moved that the application be refused on the grounds that the site was outside the Limits to Development and there was inappropriate vehicle access. It was seconded by Councillor J Hoult.

Councillor J G Coxon stated that the district had met its 5 year housing land supply and that the application was a piecemeal application  of a much larger site, which it was not acceptable to pick bits from as there would be no infrastructure. He added that Nottingham Road was over capacity and the local knowledge on the traffic issues was much more valuable. He expressed that he would be voting in support of Councillor Allman’s motion.

Councillor V Richichi stated that he did not like the application as the area was too congested and that he would not be voting in favour of the application.

Councillor J Hoult stated that he had lived opposite Woodcock Way and had seen the traffic issues on Nottingham Road. He highlighted to Members that it was up to the Committee to get the issue ofaccess right for the area.

Councillor G Jones stated that the schools in the area were at full capacity with more developments to come and that he was totally against the application before them, but not the whole Money Hill development. He added that the traffic on Nottingham Road was already excessive and expressed that the application was contrary to policy E6.

The Head of Planning and Regeneration advised Members that because the proposal was in outline, which establishes the principle of development, and that the indicative images suggested potential connection with the wider money hill scheme, it would not compromise a comprehensive scheme, and urged Members to steer away from refusing permission on that ground. He highlighted that the clear advice of the county highway authority was that traffic from 70 extra homes emptying onto Nottingham Road via Woodcock Way would not take the traffic congestion situation along Nottingham Road to severe. He added that education contributions had been agreed within the Section 106.

The Planning and Development Team Manager advised Members that the motion to refuse on grounds that the application would be contrary to S3 would not be defendable on this occasion.

Councillor J Bridges stated that the application before them was a back door development, but could understand where officers were coming from. He felt that the application was speculative and that Members wanted to see the bigger picture however the Committee had to determine the application that was in front of them. He advised that he would have to vote in favour of the application, even though he did not like it and added that developers did not think of the masterplan.

Councillor D J Stevenson stated that the access was satisfactory to normal developments, but he felt that Nottingham Road was not normal.

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

For the motion:

Councillors R Adams, G A Allman, R Boam, R Canny, J Cotterill, J G Coxon, D Harrison, J Hoult, R Johnson, G Jones, J Legrys, V Richichi, D J Stevenson and M B Wyatt (14).

Against the motion:

Councillors J Bridges, D Everitt, and M Specht (3).

Abstentions:

(0).

The motion was CARRIED.

RESOLVED THAT:

The application be refused on the grounds that it was outside the Limits to Development there was inappropriate vehicle access and was contrary to policy S3.