Agenda item

Land Off Greenhill Road Greenhill Road Coalville

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report to Members.

The Development Control Team Manager read out the following letter received from Andrew Bridgen MP:

‘I am writing to notify the Committee of several objections I have received regarding the above application.  I would ask that all the concerns previously raised by the objectors to the proposed development are once again taken into account, especially the concerns of the Leicestershire and Rutland Wildlife Trust as this site is part of Charnwood Forest, and this application does represent significant encroachment into the Forest.  I also believe there are questions surrounding highways and the risk of flooding to residents living in Kenmore Crescent.

I believe given the natural beauty of this area there are far more suitable areas around Coalville to open up to housing development and I would therefore ask that your Committee support the Planning Officer’s decision in refusing this application.’

Councillor M Wyatt, Ward Member, addressed the Committee.  He stated that he had lobbied to protect the site due to its natural beauty and was pleased that officers were also in agreement.  He expressed concerns regarding the additional traffic the development would create on an already busy road especially as a development had recently been approved at a nearby site on the other side of the road.  He also commented that the site was outside the limits to development and it was important to protect the countryside.  He concluded that all Members could agree that on this occasion building on the proposed site was unacceptable. 

At this point, as Councillor M B Wyatt had declared an interest in the item, he left the meeting and took no part in the consideration or voting thereon.

Ms J Tebbatt, objector, addressed the Committee and raised the following points:

-   The proposed site was a Greenfield site, outside the limits to development.

-   The development encroached on Charnwood Forest.

-   The development would result in the loss of wildlife habitat which supported a huge variety of species.

-   An adverse impact would be had on the environment

-   The token offer of planting on the site was not sufficient.

-   The Council had a housing land supply of over six years; therefore further development was not required.

-   The published draft Local Plan identified preferred areas for development.

-   There would be increased traffic congestion on the surrounding road network which would lead to the air quality exceeding the national limit.

-   The proposed flood solutions were unacceptable.

She concluded that sites such as this one should be protected for the enjoyment of future generations and urged Members to refuse the application.

Mr L Lane, applicant, addressed the Committee.  He reported that the number of dwellings had been reduced from the previous application and that there were no outstanding technical objections.  He stated that he was aware that the housing land supply calculations used by the Council were not sufficient and this development would help towards increasing the numbers.  He believed that the policies regarding building in the countryside were out of date and that the development was no different to the nearby David Wilson site.  He confirmed that the Landscape Officer had no objections and asked members to disregard the objections regarding the illustrative design as the application was for outline matters.  He also confirmed that he was happy to make the library and civic amenity contributions as referred to within the report.

The Head of Planning and Regeneration assured Members that the five year housing land supply was based on the Leicester and Leicestershire SHMA, which is calculated Countywide and that the figures were correct.

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

Councillor D Everitt commented that it was wrong for the applicant to compare the proposed site of development with the neighbouring development as they were very different.  He expressed the importance of protecting the area as it was valued by local people.  He believed that if the application was permitted, the Committee would be doing a great injustice to the area and the natural beauty.

Councillor R Adams thanked the objector for speaking well and declared that he was in support of the proposal to refuse the application.

The Head of Planning and Regeneration recommended that providing written notice was received from the applicant stating the acceptance of the suggested contributions to library and civic amenity as referred to in the address to Committee, recommended reason for refusal could be deleted.

RESOLVED THAT:

The application be refused in accordance with the recommendation of the Head of Planning and Regeneration (save for the deletion of reason for refusal 3 subject to written confirmation from the applicant that it would pay the library and civic amenity contributions sought).