Agenda item

Land To The South Of 1 Zion Hill Peggs Green Coleorton

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report to Members.

Mr A Large, agent, addressed the Committee.  He reported that the application was made by a local resident and would provide employment for a small local builder; therefore it would be good for the area.  He pointed out that Peggs Green had seen sporadic development in recent years and this application did meet  local housing need as a form of affordable housing.  With regards to the sustainability of the site, he indicated that all of the seven services quoted within the report could be accessed via a footpath and five of the seven were within 495 metres.  He added that the site was well related to existing dwellings and there were no highway objections.  He concluded that in his opinion the site was a Brownfield site not a Greenfield site as stated within the report.

Councillor G Jones stated that he did not agree with the officer’s recommendation, therefore he moved that the application be permitted.  It was seconded by Councillor R Johnson.

Councillor G Jones went on to comment that he felt it was important to support small local builders as they often were specialised and had more expertise.  He also believed that the site was a Brownfield site and that there was a local need.

Councillor R Johnson commented that he could not see any issues with the development of the site and although previous applications had been refused by the Planning Inspector, the site did have access to seven services in the area.  He was also pleased that the applicant had listened to the comments of the Highway Authority.

Councillor J Legrys stated that he would be voting for the officer’s recommendation to refuse.  He believed that the officers had made their opinions clear and agreed with them that the site was not a Brownfield site.  He felt that a policy was required to deal with this type of land.  He concluded that a similar application in Donington le Heath had been refused because it was outside the limits to development and he felt that rural integrity needed to be maintained. 

Councillor M Specht referred to a planning document regarding the sustainability of villages which stated that to be sustainable a village needed to have at least five services, and this application did.  He also referred to a recent appeal decision notice which stated that when a village had no services but was close to Coalville which had those services, and also had access to a bus service, then sustainability would not be a reason for refusal.  Therefore, Councillor M Specht believed that the application should be permitted.

Councillor D Everitt raised concerns regarding going against the officer’s recommendation.

Councillor V Richichi felt that the Committee should be encouraging applications such as this as it helped to support local builders.  He added that he would much rather see one house on the site than a larger development of many.

The Head of Planning and Regeneration pointed out that local employment for small builders and support for local services points would apply for any development anywhere, and that it was a matter of fact that the site was a Greenfield site outside the limits to development, and that was a very important factor for Members to consider.

Councillor D J Stevenson believed that the agent had presented a very sincere argument and other applications in the area had been approved in the past by officers without coming to Committee.  He added that other applications on Greenfield sites had been approved against officer’s recommendations and as Members who were the people on the ground; they were entitled to their own opinions too. 

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

Councillor R Adams requested a recorded vote.  The vote was as follows:

For the motion:

Councillors J Cotterill, J Coxon, J Hoult, R Johnson, G Jones, V Richichi, D Harrison, M Specht and D J Stevenson (9).

Against the motion:

Councillors R Adams, R Boam, R Canny, D Everitt and J Legrys (5).

Abstentions:

(0).

The motion was CARRIED.

RESOLVED THAT:

The application be permitted, with the imposition of conditions to be delegated to the Head of Planning and Regeneration.