Agenda item

Land At Main Street Normanton Le Heath Coalville

The Planning and Development Team Manager presented the report to Members.

Mr A Cooper, Parish Councillor, addressed the Committee.  He explained that local people were not against development in the village and there had been no objections to the nearby wind farms,  but they did however have many concerns regarding this proposal.  He stated that the proposal was not in keeping with the area, the site was outside the limits to development, it was contrary to Policy E4, and it was unsustainable with no facilities in the village.  He added that there was already traffic issues in the village and this proposal would exacerbate them.  The sensitive area was adjacent to the site and the access road to the development.  He believed the development would be harmful to the majority of residents.  He concluded that applications to develop the site had been refused for the last 41 years and urged Members to do the same once again.

Mr M Roberts, Objector, addressed the Committee.  He informed Members that his property was at the front of the site and he was assured that it was not suitable for development when he moved into the village.  He explained that he had bought his property due to its position and this development would destroy that as the house would be up against his boundary and would overlook his property.  He believed that moving the development 50 yards from where it was originally planned did not make a difference and felt that officers had relaxed policies to allow it to be permitted.  He stated that the site was unsustainable as occupiers would be totally reliant on motor vehicles and the development would harm the whole village not only his home.  He also stated that the development made an insignificant contribution to the five year housing land supply.   He felt that no concern had been shown towards local people and urged Members to refuse the application.

Mr G Phillips, agent, addressed the Committee.  He explained that the proposed development was very different to the previous application and all concerns from local residents and officers had been listened to.  He stated that the development was now within the limits to development and outside the village’s sensitive  area, it did however extend three metres over the village envelope which officers advised would be acceptable.  He concluded that there had been other developments in the village that had been permitted and that the proposed site had planning permission 40 years ago which people buying houses in the area would have been made aware of. 

The officer’s recommendation was moved by Councillor J Bridges and seconded by Councillor R Johnson.

Councillor N Smith stated that there were 65 houses in the village and 55 objections had been made.  He explained that he had been told by local residents that the previous owner of the site approached the Council after being diagnosed with terminal cancer and enquired into building a bungalow to move to so he could end his days in the village as he had lived there his entire life.  The planning department had advised him not to pursue it.  This was approximately two years ago.  The Chairman was informed by officers that no application such as that referred to by Councillor N Smith had been received.  Councillor N Smith confirmed that it had been informal discussions with the officers only.

Councillor V Richichi raised concerns that the driveway was within the village’s sensitive  area and still  outside the limits to development, the nearest bus stop was two kilometres away from the site, it was unsustainable and there were no other properties in the vicinity that were the same height.  He also commented that this proposal for one dwelling  made a limited contribution to the five year land supply figure.

The Chairman clarified to Members that no applications had been submitted for this site historically.

Councillor J Legrys commented that the application was difficult to consider as it was clear from the report that there was significant opposition to it.  However, he noted that the village was not a Cotswold stone village and there were many modern style buildings that would have been constructed during the 1970’s and 1980’s within the village, and as the application was for one dwelling he would be supporting the officer’s recommendation to permit.

Councillor D Everitt felt it was important to keep the character of villages such as this but after visiting the site he did not think it would have an impact as it was tucked away down the lane.  He believed that the site was appropriate for one dwelling.

Councillor R Canny commented that she had voted to refuse the previous application because of the impact on the view but was happier now that the footprint had been moved.   Her only concern was the proposed height of the development.

In response to a question from Councillor R Canny, the Planning and Development Team Manager reported that the application was for the dwelling to have a render and brick finish but if approved, materials  was something that could be conditioned.

Councillor R Johnson commented that after visiting the site he could see that the nearby development on Highfield Close were three storeys high and they were built in 2013, therefore he could not see any issues with this application.  He also commented on the well written report.

Councillor M Specht commented that he was looking at the application on its merits and as it was in a barely visible location from the village, he did not believe it would have a significant impact.  He felt that residents would be no more reliant on cars than any other house in the village.   He also added that as the majority of the village was built in the last 30 years the proposed dwelling would not affect the character as it was ‘not a chocolate box village with architectural merit.’

RESOLVED THAT:

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