Agenda item

Land To The Rear Of Parkdale Ashby Road Ibstock Leicestershire

Having declared a non pecuniary interest in items A2 and A3 Councillor D J Stevenson left the chair and the meeting and took no part in the consideration and voting thereon.

Councillor J Bridges took the chair for the consideration of the items.

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report to Members and read out a letter from Councillor J Clarke, Ward Member.

In response to a question from Councillor J Bridges, the Senior Planning Officer advised Members that the correct notification and consultation process had been followed when all applications had been submitted by the developer.

Councillor J Legrys stated that the Committee had been assured that the developers did not own the land however it was proving difficult to ascertain who did own it, adding that it appeared the land was a ransom strip. He felt if the Committee refused the application the developer would win on appeal and that the residents should take private legal advice on what their options were.

Councillor R Canny raised concerns over the access current residents would have to the strip of land and legally where would they stand.

The Legal Advisor advised Members that if there were any issues over the access, there were legal provisions for the residents to look into.

Councillor M Specht raised concerns over the previous variation application, which had been permitted, which he felt should have been considered by the Committee as it was a significant amendment to the original plan. He asked officers to ensure that in future all variations to applications that had been permitted by the Committee went back to Committee for consideration.

Councillor D Everitt stated that it was a ridiculous situation and it should not have happened.

Councillor R Johnson agreed with Councillor D Everitt adding that the developer wanted to change the original plans and that it was wrong and unethical. He stated that he had sat and read all the objections and that it appeared that the developer had not spoken to any of the residents and as a gesture Bellway should consider one fence not two.

Councillor V Richichi queried which application was being considered as the presentation was misleading.

Councillor M Specht felt that the application should be deferred until the issue with the strip of land could be rectified.

A motion to defer the application for one month to seek a meeting between the developer, residents and officers to seek a way forward to resolve the situation was moved by Councillor J Bridges and seconded by Councillor V Richichi.

Councillor D Harrison raised concerns that as it was unknown who owned the strip of land the Council would have no right in demanding what action was taken.

The Legal Advisor clarified that officers were not saying that no one owned the land rather than it was unsure who owned the land.

Councillor M Specht stated that there should be a common sense approach to the boundary and that out of courtesy the developer should consider one fence only.

RESOLVED THAT:

The application be deferred for one month to allow discussions between parties to seek a way forward.