Agenda item

191 Loughborough Road Whitwick Coalville Leicestershire LE67 5AS

The Planning and Development Team Manager presented the report to Members and read out a letter that had been received after publication of the update sheet.

Councillor T Gillard, adjacent ward member, addressed the committee. He stated that this was the fourth time an application had been submitted on the site, previous applications having been refused. He informed Members that the site was not sustainable as there was no bus route and no amenities, with a 30 minute walk to the nearest shop and bus stop. He highlighted that the development was outside the Limits to Development and that the application across the road had been refused. He reminded Members that when the application across the road had been considered grave concerns had been raised over traffic issues such as speeding and he also expressed concerns over the flooding a few months previous and that the development would add to the water drainage issues that already existed. He urged the Members to refuse the application.

Mr F Duncombe, objector, addressed the committee. He informed Members that the application was not sustainable as it was a mile up a steep road and the residents of the new development would need to rely heavily on cars. He reminded Members that they had refused the application opposite to the one before them on the grounds that it was unsustainable and that the application before them was further away from the village centre. He highlighted that under the emerging Local Plan the site would be outside the Limits to Development, that 191 Loughborough Road had flooded in June and the dwellings would be visible to other residents. He asked the committee to refuse the application.

Mr R Woodward, on behalf of Whitwick Parish Council, addressed the committee. He highlighted to Members that the previous applications on the site had been refused, that the land rises and there was an inaccuracy as there were no dwellings behind the proposed site. He stated that the Parish Council had listed a number of objections as the site would be outside the Limits to Development and as Members had seen photos of the recent flooding added that the area would be exacerbated. He felt that the access was not suitable and there were several protected trees on the site.  He queried as to why the existing dwelling was being left to dereliction  He urged the committee to refuse the application for all the reasons that had been stated.

Mr S Clarke, agent, addressed the committee. He reminded Members that each application should be considered on their own merits. He highlighted to the committee that officers were confident that there would be no adverse impact on the area, they were happy with the design and that there had been no technical objections to the application. He informed Members that local policy stated that developments should have a density of 40 dwellings per hectare as a maximum and the application was for 7 dwellings rather than the previous application for 34. He advised Members that there were no valid reasons to refuse the application and urged the Members to support the officer’s recommendation.

Councillor R Adams moved that the application be refused on the grounds that that it was outside the Limits to Development, highways concerns and unsustainable location. It was seconded by Councillor D Everitt.

Councillor R Boam sought clarification from officers in relation to the access mentioned off Swannymote Road by the speakers and would the 6 dwellings currently inside the Limits to Development still be inside under the emerging Local Plan.

The Planning and Development Team Manager stated that the only proposed access was off Loughborough Road and that there would only be an access gate off Swannymote Road, and in relation to the Limits to Development in the adopted Local Plan the 6 dwellings were currently in and in the emerging Local Plan they would be outside.

Councillor J Legrys stated that he was not in favour of the application having seen photos of nearby properties following the recent flooding. He also expressed concerns that even though the 6 dwellings were currently within Limits to Development under the emerging Local Plan they would be out and felt that there should be definable areas of separation between urban and rural Whitwick. He highlighted that the area was in the SSSI and wildlife trust land and  that the authority needed to ensure that the boundary was in the right place which it was now.

Councillor D Everitt expressed concerns that once again the countryside was to be blighted when there were Brownfield sites that could be developed and that should the application before them be permitted than an application would come back for the site opposite. He advised Members that vehicles came down the road into Whitwick at speed and left it until the last minute to reduce their speed. He felt that the development would destroy what was a beautiful part of the countryside and expressed concerns that the additional dwellings would make the flooding issues worse. He supported the motion to refuse the application.

Councillor R Ashman stated that as it stood the application was inside the Limits to Development, that issues or concerns that had been raised had been addressed, that the development would not be visible from the road and that it was a derelict site. He supported the officer’s recommendation to permit.

Councillor D Harrison concurred with Councillor R Ashman adding that things were altering in planning constantly and that the site was semi derelict and may have become too hard to maintain. He added that the nation needed more homes, and that he supported the officer’s recommendation to permit the application stating that it was lovely living in the countryside and the development would mean 6 to 7 families enjoying the countryside

The Head of Planning and Regeneration stated to Members that having considered the reasons for refusal he would advise that the application may be defendable on the basis that part of the site was outside the Limits to Development and the potential visual impact being harmful to the countryside.

The mover and seconder agreed to the reasons.

In response to comments made by Councillor A C Saffell, the Head of Planning and Regeneration stated that any new developments could not make any flooding issues worse and that they should improve the surface water runoff rate by 20%, resulting in improved water retention on the site. Therefore, by developing, it should in fact be improving the surface water flood risk profile of the land.

The motion to refuse the application on the grounds that it was outside the Limits to Development and it would have a detrimental visual impact was put to the vote and LOST.

The officer recommendation was moved by Councillor J Bridges, seconded by Councillor R Ashman and

RESOLVED THAT:

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