Agenda item

Land North Of Swepstone Road Heather Leicestershire

The Head of Planning and Regeneration presented the report to members.  He read out a letter from Andrew Bridgen MP stating his objection to the application on the grounds that the site was outside the limits to development and did not constitute limited development as appropriate for a sustainable village.  The letter also expressed concerns in respect of the larger pending application and the level of public objection to the application.

Mrs A Wright, parish councillor, addressed the meeting.  She stated that the development site was a greenfield site outside the limits to development within the confines of the National Forest, the proposals were contrary to policy S2 and only limited development should be permitted in a sustainable village such as Heather.  She made reference to the larger application pending and expressed concerns in respect of facilities being oversubscribed, the hazard caused by increased traffic and the increase in the size of the village that could potentially arise.  She asked members to refuse the application as she felt this could not be considered limited development for a sustainable village.

Mr C Veal, objector, addressed the meeting.  He made reference to the other pending applications and urged members not to disregard the concerns of the residents of Heather relating to unsustainable growth.  He expressed concerns regarding the safety hazard that would be caused by additional traffic, the lack of key employment areas in the village, the oversubscription of services and the impact upon endangered wildlife in the area.

Mr M Rose, agent, addressed the meeting.  He stated that at present, the emerging local plan made no provision to meet the needs or to maintain the sustainability of Heather.  He added that up to 11 of the homes would be affordable and within easy walking distance of facilities.  He commented that there were a number of significant economic benefits to the proposal which had evolved through a careful design process in consultation with council officers, key stakeholders and the local community.  He stated that the scheme would deliver high quality development with a clear sense of place, which would be well integrated with the built form and integrated with the countryside.  He highlighted that there were no technical objections to the proposals from statutory consultees and no objection to the transport statement from the Highway Authority.  He concluded that the proposals constituted sustainable development.

Councillor D J Stevenson moved that the application be permitted in accordance with the officer’s recommendation.  This was seconded by Councillor M Specht.

Councillor J Clarke reiterated that the site was outside the limits to development and Heather was a sustainable village, however there was no real shop, no employment opportunities and no prospect of a bus service.  He expressed concerns in respect of the safety of the proposed exit onto Swepstone Road.  He concluded that he felt the proposals would provide no benefit for those living in the village and would lead to its destruction, and as such he could not support the application.

Councillor F Fenning made reference to the small development of David Taylor Close and sought clarification that this represented sustainable development, as it was established as a rural exception site for the limited growth of housing for local residents.  He expressed concern that the proposals represented speculative development and would ruin the agricultural land behind the site, guaranteeing that the larger development would proceed.  He also expressed concern in respect of highway safety and water run-off.  He stated that he objected to the proposals taking into consideration guidance notes 3 and 4 of the NPPF, as none of the requirements for sustainable rural economy had been met.  He added that the proposals would completely overwhelm Heather and was situated at the furthest point from all services.  He commented on the high level of affordable housing offered and questioned whether this was achievable.

The Head of Planning and Regeneration advised that the developer had agreed to the affordable housing provision and other developer contributions.  He added that there was no evidence to substantiate that the developer could not deliver this.

Councillor R Canny reminded members of an application refused at the previous meeting of the Planning Committee because the site was outside the limits to development, and with a new local plan currently before the Secretary of State, the Planning Committee had felt that the limits to development should not be exceeded at that stage.  She felt that for this reason alone, the application should be refused.

Councillor M Specht made reference to the larger application referred to by the speakers.  He stated that he was happy to support the application on its own merits as there were no objections from the statutory consultees and the proposals would help sustain the local shop and public house.

Councillor D Harrison expressed support for the application which he felt would help sustain the village.

Councillor J G Coxon commented that he found it difficult to support the application solely because it was outside the limits to development.  He added that this was a sensitive area which did not particularly require housing, and to describe the development as infill was incorrect in his opinion as there was no boundary on one side and the development could easily be expanded.

Councillor J Clarke 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 Boam, J Bridges, J Cotterill, D Everitt, D Harrison, J Hoult, M Specht and D J Stevenson (8).

Against the motion:

Councillors R Adams, R Canny, J Clarke, J G Coxon, F Fenning, R Johnson, G Jones, N Smith and M B Wyatt (9).

Abstentions:

None (0).

The motion was declared LOST.

Councillor J Clarke moved that the application be refused on the basis that the site was outside the limits to development and was unsustainable.  This was seconded by Councillor R Adams.

The Head of Planning and Regeneration gave advice to members regarding the reasons for refusal and cautioned in the strongest terms that sustainability would be indefensible at appeal as a reason for refusal, not least because the local plan stated that Heather was a sustainable settlement.  Following this advice, the mover and seconder of the motion agreed to withdraw this reason for refusal.

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 Canny, J Clarke, J G Coxon, F Fenning, R Johnson, G Jones, N Smith and M B Wyatt (9).

Against the motion:

Councillors R Boam, J Bridges, J Cotterill, D Everitt, D Harrison, J Hoult, M Specht and D J Stevenson (8).

Abstentions:

None (0).

The motion was declared CARRIED. It was therefore

RESOLVED THAT:

The application be refused on the grounds that the site was outside the limits to development.