Agenda item

Site adjacent Computer Centre and Jct 24, Packington Hill, Kegworth, Derby, DE74 2DF

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report to Members.

Mr S Harley, Agent, addressed the Committee. He advised Members that the proposal not only provided towards the need for new homes it also responded to the desire for more sports pitches, as most of the local teams played their games outside the village. He highlighted that there were no fundamental barriers, one letter of support and no objections, adding that they were working very closely with the Highways Authority. He stated that the application met all the polices and the client was keen to bring the application forward.

The officer’s recommendation was moved by Councillor D Harrison and seconded by Councillor J Cotterill.

Councillor D Harrison stated that it was a fabulous site especially with the leisure facilities.

Councillor J Legrys stated that he was excited about the application and was happy to support the facilities. He expressed concerns about the additional traffic that it would generate and sought confirmation as to whether the site was outside the Limits to Development adding that if it was he would lobby for it to be included within the limits and that it would add to the 5 year land supply.

In response to a query from Councillor G Jones, the Head of Planning and Regeneration stated that the request for developer contributions from the Police was capable in principle of compliance with all the required CIL tests.

Councillor M Specht stated that he was happy to support the application especially with the play areas and the 30% affordable housing. He requested a recorded vote.

Councillor R Canny stated that the development was on her backdoor and the open space was needed in the north area of the District. She expressed concerns that the site was outside the Limits to Development and expressed concern that the Committee has been asked on a number of occasions to consider schemes favourably “on balance” that were outside the limits to development. She also had concerns over the additional traffic.

The Head of Planning and Regeneration stated that even though the Authority had a five year land supply, it needed to be maintained, especially if it was a good site.

Councillor V Richichi expressed concerns that the developer was offering a carrot and that over time the application could be withdrawn or variations submitted that would be considered by officers. He sought assurances that should any material changes be submitted they would be brought back to Committee.

The Head of Planning and Regeneration advised that the application was a well advanced scheme and there was no reason why it should be withdrawn unless there was a significant change in the market, adding that if Members wished so, any material changes that may be submitted could be brought back to the Committee.

Councillor R Adams sought confirmation that the application was outside the Limits to Development and stated that he must be consistent and vote against applications that were outside the limits.

The Head of Planning and Regeneration confirmed that the application was outside the Limits to Development.

Councillor D J Stevenson stated that all applications could not be judged the same and that generally more and more developments were moving closer to motorways.

A recorded vote having been requested, the voting was a follows:

For the motion:

Councillors R Ashman, R Boam, R Canny, J Cotterill, J G Coxon, D Everitt, D Harrison, J Hoult, R Johnson, G Jones, V Richichi, J Legrys, N Smith, M Specht, D J Stevenson and M B Wyatt (16).

Against the motion:

Councillors R Adams (1).

Abstentions:

None (0).

RESOLVED THAT:

The application be permitted in accordance with the recommendation of the Head of Planning and Regeneration.

Councillors N Smith and M B Wyatt left the meeting.