Agenda item

Land at Loughborough Road Whitwick Coalville Leicestershire LE67 5AQ

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report to members.

Councillor T Gillard, ward member, addressed the Committee.  He made reference to the attractiveness of the site.  He stated that he totally agreed with the officer’s recommendation and added that there were endless reasons to refuse the application including a high number of objections, increased traffic and the visual impact upon the attractive countryside.  He urged members to support the officer’s recommendation and refuse the application.

Mr L Spence, parish councillor, addressed the Committee, stating that Whitwick parish council had long objected to this development which was located in a beautiful part of the village, as they strongly believed the development would be incompatible with the rural nature of the setting.  He commented that he was reassured by the officer’s recommendation to refuse the application as the site was clearly outside the Limits to Development and was set in an area of particularly attractive countryside.  He added that the site was rich in flora and fauna, and was valued by the residents of Whitwick.  The county ecologist noted that the site included species rich grassland, and Leicestershire and Rutland Wildlife Trust had objected to the application.  He stated that the proposals would be significantly harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding area and would also form a strong precedent for future proposals seeking further incursion into the countryside.  He felt that given its location on the extreme edge of the village, the proposal was unsustainable as there were no bus services or shops.  He referred to the serious local concern in respect of water run-off and flooding and added that it should be no surprise that over 700 representations had been made by local people.  He added that this level of concern did not have a common precedent.  He concluded that this development was wrong for the site and he asked members to refuse it.

Mr S Lewis-Roberts, agent, addressed the Committee.  He stated that the application site was located in greater Coalville and represented sustainable development.  He added that there were no technical objections from the statutory consultees.  He stated that it was evident that the benefits of the proposals outweighed the limited adverse impacts. He referred to a letter of support from Jeremy Cahill QC which outlined benefits andstated that the Council could not demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply and officers recognised that weight could not be attributed to Policy E22; therefore the reason for refusal sought to rely on Policy E4, which was design based, and the proposals clearly accorded with this policy.  He added that the development had been subject to a Building for Life 12 assessment which had concluded that the proposals accorded with Policy E4.  He stated that it was considered that the site made a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the countryside and the surrounding landscape and therefore there was no basis to rely on Policy E4 as a reason for refusal.  He made reference to the large housing developments which had already been permitted in close proximity to this site which had a greater adverse impact on the local landscape.  He concluded that there was no objective basis to justify the recommended reason for refusal, and the proposals would address the Council’s lack of a 5 year housing land supply and accordingly should be permitted.

It was moved by Councillor R Adams and seconded by Councillor D Everitt that the application be refused in accordance with the officer’s recommendation.

Councillor D Everitt stated at it was clear that any encroachment into the site would be the start of greater encroachment.  He felt that the application was not needed and was not necessary.  He made reference to the flooding concerns and felt that it was madness to site another estate on the hill.  He expressed support for the officer’s recommendation.

Councillor J Legrys requested a recorded vote.

The Chairman then put the motion to the vote.  

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

For the motion:

Councillors R Adams, R Boam, R Canny, J Clarke, J Cotterill, J G Coxon, D Everitt, J Hoult, J Geary, J Legrys, N Smith, M Specht and D J Stevenson (13).

Against the motion:

Councillors J Bridges, G Jones and V Richichi (3).

Abstentions:

None (0).

It was therefore

RESOLVED THAT:

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