Agenda item

Land Off Lower Moor Road Coleorton Coalville Leicestershire

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report to Members. 

The Planning and Development Team Manager read out the following letter from Councillor R Boam who had submitted his apologies for the meeting because he was unable to attend.

‘I would like the committee to consider the following points before making their minds up whether to permit or refuse this application.

-   This application is outside the limits to development in a very sensitive    area.

-   There are no local needs to support this application. 

-   There is strong opposition in the surrounding area.

-   The support seems to be from outside of the area.

-   The parish council also object to it.

-   My concerns are the highway safety , I'm aware the highways have put conditions in place , but as someone who has lived in this area since a child, I believe I know this area better than a visiting highway officer. This would be a dangerous entrance in a dip on a corner.

-   The site is also classed as a Greenfield site with no local need,

-   There has been a previous application for this site which was refused and that was

-   backed up by being refused at an appeal.

Thank you for reading my letter out, as ward member for the Valley Ward I hope you consider my points carefully.’

Mr S Haggart, objector, addressed the Committee.  He explained that he had been nominated to represent over 50 residents of Coleorton village and asked Members to note that the vast majority of supporters of the application did not live within the village.  He highlighted the following reasons why Members should refuse the application:

-   It contravened Policy E1 which classed the site as a sensitive area and stated that no development would take place that affected it.  It was an open meadow and therefore designated as a Greenfield site.

-   It contravened Policy E18 as the site was within a historic area.  The Council had determined that the site was of special interest due to its inclusion within the grounds of Coleorton Hall.

-   Coleorton was no longer a sustainable village as it had only a very small post office, a very limited bus service and the doctor’s surgery had recently closed.  The officer’s conceded that the school was outside the 1000 metre threshold but failed to mention that to reach it involved crossing the A512 which had seen the deaths of two villagers, including a child.

-   It contravened Policy S3 as the site fell outside the village boundary and therefore outside the limits to development.

-   It contravened Policy HS4 as the site was not identified within the proposals map as suitable for residential development.  He felt that there were more suitable sites available to meet the housing stock requirements.

-   It contravened Policy T3 as there were already issues with speeding vehicles and parking on the road which would be exacerbated by the development.  He added that there had been traffic accidents in the area as recently as last month.

He concluded that the development would have a detrimental effect on the character of the village, destroy the open aspect of the neighbourhood, it would overlook the adjoining properties and affect the visual and rural amenity of neighbouring properties. He felt it would also set a precedent for other similar developments within unsustainable villages.

Mr P Hessian, supporter, addressed the Committee.  He advised that he had lived in Coleorton since 1974 and regularly used the facilities within the village that could only be sustained by bringing more people to the area.  The way to do this was by permitting developments such as this.  He also added that the village had an aging population and it was important to bring families into the area.  He said that there was a need for new housing otherwise there would be nowhere for the next generation to live.  He stated that he could see no negative impact from the development and the site  appeared as scrub, adjacent to and opposite existing houses, and was currently overgrown.  He concluded that the proposal included sufficient parking and that he he was pleased with the proposals to create a nature reserve.  He urged Members to permit the application.

Mr A Large, the applicant, addressed the Committee.  He noted that the proximity of the site to other houses made objections inevitable and advised that there was no site specific policy in the emerging local plan.  He commented that it was good to see so many of letters of support and reminded Members that there were no technical objections to the proposals.  He stated that the development would act as an ‘end stop’ to the village and that the landowners would be providing a nature reserve, so there was no potential for any further development on the site. He felt that the majority of objectors seemed to be concerned about the conservation of the historical site and informed the Committee that an independent conservation assessment had been undertaken which resulted in a positive  outcome regarding development.  He added that the site was currently scrubland that was undermanaged and urged Members to permit the application.

The officer’s recommendation was moved by Councillor J G Coxon and seconded by Councillor G Jones.

Councillor J G Coxon stated that the development was in keeping with the village, that it would not be harmful and that the nature reserve was an added asset for the village.

Councillor J Legrys believed that villages such as Coleorton needed small scale growth to enable shops and facilities to be sustained as these businesses were in decline.  He fully supported the officer’s recommendations.

Councillor M Specht advised that Coleorton Parish Council always made comment on proposals that are outside the limits to development but they did want some growth in the village and to continue to have facilities open.  He noted that there were pubs and a post office nearby, and an hourly bus service.  He believed the small scale development proposed would help to sustain the village.

Councillor R Canny commented that Members needed to bear in mind the sensitive area but she did feel that the development was important to the village. 

The Chairman commented that it was important to help the younger generation stay in the villages that they grew up in as many currently cannot afford to do so.

RESOLVED THAT:

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