Agenda item

Land North Of Butt Lane And East Of Hepworth Road Woodville/Blackfordby Swadlincote

 

The Planning Officer presented the report to Members.

 

The Chairman advised Members that he had received a letter from Andrew Bridgen MP stating that he maintained his objection to the application.

 

Councillor S McKendrick, Ward Member, addressed the Committee.  She reminded Members of the high number of local objections to the application and highlighted how important it was to keep the area of separation between the villages and between Derbyshire and North West Leicestershire.  She commented that it was a rural location with few facilities which would be put under increasing pressure; therefore she did not believe it was sustainable.  The GP surgery and the school could not accommodate the proposed increase in demand and the occupiers of the development would use Woodville’s services.  She felt it was essential to maintain the relief road as the boundary of the settlement, as it added to the character of the village and development outside it would be insensible as well as an intrusion into the countryside.  She urged Members to refuse the application.

 

Mr M Ball, Town Councillor, addressed the Committee.   He commented that the village was close to the national forest and had its own identity and if the application was permitted, the physical separation between the villages would be removed.  He stated that the site was outside the limits to development within the emerging local plan and was contrary to Policy S3. He added that there was no need for the development, as the Committee had already approved 11,400 houses and further approval following appeals was likely, which he believed meant that the housing requirement had already been met.  The five year supply was correct in August and the Willesley Road Inspector agreed. .  He felt that the site was unsustainable as there were no retailers and the GP surgery and school was already full to capacity.  He raised concerns that new residents would be reliant on motor vehicles and that the highways would struggle to cope with the increase in traffic.  He asked Members not to destroy Blackfordby to achieve housing supply figures that had already been met and urged for refusal.

 

Mr R Nettleton, objector, addressed the Committee.  He reminded Members that permission had been refused before and urged for them to do the same again.  He suggested that the Greenhill Road appeal decision was not so authoritative as was being stated and asked Members to consider the Willesley Road appeal decision. He raised the following concerns:

 

-   The school and GP surgery were already overstretched and there was no post office.

-   Blackfordby would be absorbed into Woodville and the unique identity    lost.

-   There would be more vehicles on the roads.

-   The village was currently used as a rat run to avoid Woodville and would become worse.

-   Speeding on Butt Lane had already been confirmed and there was a lack of footpaths.

-   The flooding in the area and the impact on the River Mease had not been considered.

 

Mr A Ward, agent, addressed the Committee.  He advised Members that their concerns from the previous refused application had been addressed and that the site was not protected against development.  He assured Members that the site did not impact the countryside, there was a sustainable drainage system, the area of separation would still be 600 metres and there were no technical objections.  He added that approval would contribute to the five year land supply and if Members were minded to permit then the current appeal on the refused application would be withdrawn.

 

For clarification, the Head of Planning and Regeneration explained that the Authority did have a five year land supply at the time of the Willesley Road appeal but as a result of the Greenhill Road appeal, the inspector determined that this was no longer the case and therefore, Members could not rely upon Policies S3/H1.  Regarding the focus on facilities in the area, he explained that Section 106 contributions had been agreed to address the issues.  He reminded Members that there had been no technical objections to the application from the Statutory Consultees.

 

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

 

Councillor M Specht commented that it was an excellent report and he could not see how Members could not support a development with 30 percent affordable homes.  He stated that he was staggered at the amount of demand for new homes in the District and if Members continued to object then the Authority would not reach its targets.  He felt that the houses proposed were needed to meet the five year land supply.

 

Councillor D Harrison acknowledged that it was a delicate application with lots of objection from local residents but overall he felt that it was a good proposal for a site that would eventually be developed.  He supported the officer’s recommendation.

 

Councillor J G Coxon stated that he could not support the officer’s recommendation due to the loss of the area of separation and he did not believe that the application addressed the Town Council’s concerns.

 

Councillor J Legrys shared Councillor J G Coxon’s views and also raised concerns regarding the increase in traffic on the highways.  He asked for assurances that as the proposal was for outline permission only, that if it was permitted, an application regarding the detail would be considered by the Committee He reminded Members that areas of separation had been discussed before and defended at appeal and judicial review.  He also raised concerns regarding the views of the urban designer and declared that he could not support the officer’s recommendation.

 

Councillor G Jones felt that the only way to resolve the matter was to make sure that better houses were built that compliment the area.

 

The Chairman reminded Members that the application was seeking outline planning permission and if permitted could come back to Committee to consider the design.

 

The Head of Planning and Regeneration reminded Members that there was no formal designation for an area of separation between Blackfordby and Woodville in the current local plan.  In response to a question from Councillor R Canny he explained that as a result of the Greenhill Road appeal, the inspector concluded that the Authority could not demonstrate that it had a five year land supply and as a result the relevant housing policies of the local plan could not be relied upon for determining planning applications.

 

Councillor R Canny commented that it was a difficult decision for Members to make.  Her main concern was that even though the Head of Planning and Regeneration gave his assurances that the education authority had agreed to the Section 106 contributions and therefore in panning terms it was sustainable, there was still not enough spaces in the school to accommodate the increase.

 

Councillor J Cotterill asked whether the Judicial Review case that Councillor J Legrys referred to was concerning the Green Wedge or an area of separation.  The Planning and Development Team Manager confirmed that the case referred to concerned the Green Wedge.

 

The officer’s recommendation to permit the application was put to the vote.

 

A recorded vote having been requested by Councillor J Legrys, the voting was as follows:

 

For the motion:

Councillors R Ashman, J Bridges, J Cotterill, D Harrison, G Jones, M Specht and D J Stevenson (7)

 

Against the motion:

Councillors R Adams, R Canny, J G Coxon, D Everitt, J Hoult, R Johnson, J Legrys, V Richichi and N Smith (9)

 

Abstentions:

None (0)

 

The motion to permit was LOST.

 

At this point Councillor J Legrys moved for an adjournment for Members to consider the most appropriate reasons for refusal which was seconded by Councillor R Adams.  On the advice of the Legal Advisor, the Chairman asked for clarification on the reasons for an adjournment.  Councillor J Legrys responded that in accordance with the Constitution he would like legal advice in formulating the reasons for refusal.

 

The meeting was adjourned at 5.20pm and reconvened at 5.32pm.

 

Councillor J Legrys moved that the application be refused on the grounds of the debatable school places available, that development of the site would not be sustainable and the loss of the area of separation between the villages.  It was seconded by Councillor R Adams.

 

The Head of Planning and Regeneration advised that the first two grounds for refusal be combined as sustainability issues rather than individually as this would be easier to defend in the case of an appeal.  Councillor J Legrys re-affirmed the reasons for refusal as he had originally stated.

 

Councillor D Harrison felt that the reasons for refusal were not strong enough and if the Committee got the decision wrong the cost to the Authority could be enormous.  The Committee had been advised against the proposed reasons for refusal and all residents of the whole District would be contributing to the bill.  He stressed the importance of listening to the professional advice and on this occasion it would be difficult for the officers to defend the reasons for refusal that had been put forward.

 

Councillor D Everitt strongly voiced his views that the laws of national government stopped local councillors from doing what was right and supporting local people due to the focus on development.

 

The motion to refuse the application was put to the vote and the voting was as follows:

 

For the motion:

Councillors R Adams, R Canny, J G Coxon, J Hoult, R Johnson, J Legrys and V Richichi (7)

 

Against the motion:

Councillors R Ashman, J Bridges, J Cotterill, D Everitt, D Harrison, G Jones, M Specht and D J Stevenson (8)

 

Abstentions:

Councillor N Smith (1)

 

The motion was LOST.

 

On the advice of the Legal Advisor, the Chairman put forward the officer’s recommendation to permit to Members once again.  It was seconded by Councillor J Bridges.

 

The voting was as follows:

 

For the motion:

Councillors R Ashman, J Bridges, J Cotterill, D Everitt, D Harrison, J Hoult, G Jones, V Richichi, M Specht and D J Stevenson (10)

 

Against the motion:

Councillors R Adams, R Canny, J G Coxon, R Johnson and J Legrys (5)

 

Abstentions:

Councillor N Smith (1)

 

The motion was CARRIED.

 

RESOLVED THAT:

 

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