Agenda item

Money Hill Site North Of Nottingham Road And South Of A511 Ashby De La Zouch Leicestershire

The Head of Planning and Regeneration presented the report to Members. He reminded Members that an almost identical application, save for the access arrangements via numbers 3 and 5 Nottingham Road, was permitted at appeal and the new application sought to provide a new access, with egress for the care home, car park, and up to 100 homes only onto Nottingham Road.

Councillor G A Allman, ward member, addressed the committee.  He stated that one could measure the strong feelings about what wicked developments were being planned for the town which would irreversibly change it for our children.  He highlighted that the impact of such a development would result in the junction with the A42 at Flagstaff island being oversaturated, and any such development should only take place once this had been mitigated.  He asked what infrastructure plans there were for in place for this, and stated that the application was rendered undeliverable if there were none.  He respectfully reminded members that planning applications had to be sensible, and he pleaded passionately with the committee to listen to the residents of Money Hill and Ashby de la Zouch as a whole.  He quoted from the Local Plan which stated that the purpose of planning was to help achieve sustainable development, which meant ensuring that providing for the needs of the current generation did not make life worse for future generations, and the proposal in front of them most certainly would.

Mrs M Tuckey, representing the Town Council, addressed the committee. She advised Members that the Town Council objected to the development on the grounds that it was not sustainable, outside the Limits to Development, it would add to an already congested Nottingham Road and that the proposed access was in close proximity to the school. She acknowledged that the site was included in the draft local plan and neighbourhood plan, but stated that the Town Council had grave concerns over the safety of the pupils at the school. She urged the Members to refuse the application

Before addressing the committee, Ms L Titley sought clarification from officers on the proposal in front of Members in relation to the accesses.

The Head of Planning and Regeneration clarified that all would be able to access the site from both Nottingham Road and the A511 but only the 100 homes in phase one and visitors to the care facility and the car park would be able to exit onto Nottingham Road. All other residents would have to exit the site on to the A511.

Ms L Titley, objector, addressed the committee. She expressed concerns over the number of additional vehicles that would be using the access on to the development from Nottingham Road that was already congested. She also questioned why Ashby required another car park, which would also add to the high traffic volume in the area and asked why a Park and Ride scheme could not be considered. She highlighted that the proposed re-location of the bus stop, the nearby brow and inconsiderate driving of users of Nottingham Road could lead to many accidents. She felt that the development should be accessed off the A511 only and that it should not be permitted under pressure, but on what was right and safe.

Mr I Anderson, agent, addressed the committee. He advised Members that the consortium had an excellent working relationship with all partners and considering the scale of the development they had good duty of care. He informed Members that due to the size of the proposal the development would contribute a great deal to the Town including the provision of an additional car park. He stated that the proposed access would help to secure phase one of the development. He highlighted that there were no technical objections to the application and it was recommended approval.

Councillor M B Wyatt stated that he could not support the development and moved that the application be refused on the grounds that it was outside the Limits to Development and highways concerns. It was seconded by Councillor J Hoult.

Councillor J Bridges stated that it was a difficult decision to be made by the committee, however a previous application had been granted by way of national and local policies at appeal. He highlighted to Members that he could not think of a reason to refuse the application and that there were no objections from technical experts. He added that morally he could not support the application and would prefer for the access road to be from the A511, but as there was no sound reason to refuse he would have to support the application. He stated that should the matter proceed to an appeal, the council would lose as the council would not be able to provide a reason for refusal which would stand up in front of an inspection.

Councillor G Jones stated that he was in a difficult situation as he was in favour of a new care facility for the town and car park, but could understand the concerns over safety and highways issues on Nottingham Road.

The Head of Planning and Regeneration advised Members that the Highway Authority, and the independent expert who he had approached, had each concluded that the impact of the access would not be severe, he reminded Members that the site was included in both the Publication draft Local Plan and Submission draft Neighbourhood plan, that impact on property values could not be taken into consideration, and clarified that Members were being asked to consider the access only as the principle of the development had already been established.

Councillor J Legrys stated that the committee was stuck between a rock and a hard place as the 605 homes had already been approved by the Secretary of State and the only issues to be discussed were the proposed access and traffic concerns. He stated that the site was in the previous Core Strategy and in the draft Local Plan that was moving forward. He stated that the principle of development had been the Council’s will. He expressed concerns that the additional access had not been thought through well enough and that many of the residents would feel imprisoned as they would not be able to get out of the site and that he was not happy with the junction.  

Councillor D Harrison shared the concerns raised and felt that it was an awful project to join Nottingham Road as even though it was only 100 homes that could exit, it could be 200 vehicles therefore more than 400 vehicle movements a day as all of the 605 homes could be accessed off Nottingham Road. He asked if the committee could just reject the junction or would they have to refuse the whole application. He felt that there had been very little consultation in the proposed junction.

The Head of Planning and Regeneration stated that the application in front of them was for the whole site, the only difference being the access off Nottingham Road. He reminded Members that the site had permission in principle and therefore refusal on the grounds of being outside Limits of Development would not be a defensible reason for refusal, and re-iterated that it was only the access arrangement via numbers 3 and 5 Nottingham Road that was for consideration.

Councillor D Harrison stated that the committee was being conned as the developer knew that the 605 homes had approval and that if the committee was to refuse the whole district would have to foot any costs awarded at appeal.

The Head of Planning and Regeneration stated that the Highways authority felt that the new access was the preferable option and that it was difficult to have restrictions if an application had been made relating solely to the access. He advised Members that refusing on highways grounds at appeal would be difficult to defend, and that when he had asked the independent consultant whether he would assist the Council in the event that the application was not approved and was subject to appeal, the response had been a resounding “no”.

Councillor J Hoult asked if the Inspector had put both sites together as there had been mention of the access for 30 dwellings off Woodcock Way and then the stand alone development if 70 homes off Woodcock Way.  

Councillor M Specht stated that many of the vehicles leaving the development would not drive into the town centre, but out of Ashby and that the sole access should be off the A511. He reminded Members that the Inspector had considered an application for no more than 30 dwellings could access off Woodcock Way and the rest off the A511.

In response to Members comments, the Head of Planning and Regeneration confirmed that the 70 homes scheme was separate to the application before them, and to the previous 605 application, being the Miller Homes scheme.

Councillor A C Saffell stated that he agreed with all his fellow Members and felt that it was a difficult decision to be made. He raised concerns about the increase of traffic on Nottingham Road and questioned why the developers could not start at the by-pass end as it would be easier for the construction traffic to access.

Councillor D J Stevenson stated that applicant had been debating the application for 10 years and that had they gone in from the by-pass end the development would be half built. He advised Members that the £150k at appeal would be a minimum and that as the reasons were so weak no one would represent the authority. He expressed that in his 40 years of being a Councillor the proposed development was the worst planning he had ever experienced. He questioned why the developers had not started at the top end of the site and added that he could not expect the whole district to bear the costs. He requested a recorded vote.

Councillor J G Coxon stated that permitting the development would unlock the door for others. He agreed that the development should be started from the A511 and that it was not the authority’s fault that the consortium could not afford to build. He added that he had lived in Ashby for over 60 years and that local knowledge should be taken into account. He expressed concerns that there was no master plan for the site and stated that he could not support the application.

The Head of Planning and Regeneration warned Members that the applicant had indicated that they would appeal if the committee were minded to refuse, and that the appeal would be on the basis of egress from 150 homes as described in the application form, and not 100 homes as under consideration by the committee. He added that the council would bear significant costs, in that event, and clarified that he had a responsibility to protect the council by warning the committee in this manner.

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

For the motion:

Councillors J G Coxon, J Hoult, G Jones, J Legrys, A C Saffell and M B Wyatt(6).

Against the motion:

Councillors R Adams, R Ashman, R Boam, J Cotterill, D Everitt, D Harrison, P Purver, M Specht and D J Stevenson(9).

Abstentions:

Councillor J Bridges(1).

The motion to refuse that application on the grounds that application was outside the Limits to Development and on highways grounds was LOST.

The officer recommendation was moved by Councillor J Legrys, seconded by Councillor J Bridges.

For the motion:

Councillors R Adams, R Ashman, J Bridges, R Boam, J Cotterill, D Everitt, D Harrison, P Purver, M Specht and D J Stevenson(10).

Against the motion:

Councillors J G Coxon, J Hoult, G Jones, J Legrys, A C Saffell and M B Wyatt(6).

Abstentions:

None (0).

RESOLVED THAT:

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