Agenda item

Residential development for 27 dwellings including demolition/conversion of former school

Land Off Church Lane Ravenstone Coalville

Residential development for 27 dwellings including demolition/conversion of former school

Land Off Church Lane Ravenstone Coalville

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report to Members.  Further to the update sheet, he advised that Leicestershire County Council’s position was that without the full developer contributions, especially in relation to education, they would not have the funds available to make up the shortfall.

Mrs S Lunn, representing the Parish Council, addressed the Committee.  She referred to the density of the application and stated that the proposals were inappropriate for the environment.  She added that the amenity the land provided as a wide open space had been ignored.  She highlighted that the developer contribution of £55,000 represented 10.7% of what was required for sustainable development, and asked how this could be justified.  She also asked if this would set a dangerous precedent of putting the burden on the taxpayer to subsidise development.  She stated that the old school was a recognised heritage asset and the proposed landscaping did not mitigate the loss of the gardens.  She added that the proposals were more reminiscent of suburbia than a rural landscape.  She referred to the traffic and parking issues and stated that the traffic assessment had been completed based on an out of date Google map.  She felt that the benefits of the scheme did not outweigh the harm and asked who would meet the shortfall of £450,000.  She concluded that the proposals did not constitute sustainable development on account of their inability to meet the cost to the public purse.

Mrs M Danaher, objector, addressed the Committee.  She relayed the background of the Lombardy Poplar trees which had been planted to commemorate those who had served in World War I.  She added that the footpath through the middle of the site was widely known as memorial walk and should be preserved as many relatives of those who died in World War I still lived in the locality.  She stated that the school was the only recognisable Victorian building in the village and if this was demolished it would have lost its historic character.  She added that the boundary wall which had been retained in previous developments would be lost.  She referred to the current parking issues and stated that elderly residents at the Almshouses would be put at risk.  She added that the introduction of double yellow lines would increase congestion.  She concluded that heritage was very precious and should be retained.

Dr M Wellstood-Eason, supporter, addressed the meeting.  He stated that the development solved a number of problems for Ravenstone and the old school was an eyesore which would benefit from having the recent additions removed.  He added that the land was currently unused and the footpath was muddy and overgrown.  He felt that the concerns in respect of increased traffic would pale into insignificance taking into consideration the benefits of the scheme and compared to the traffic chaos that used to occur when the school was previously open.  He added that the only loss was the Lombardy Poplars, however the view was that these would sadly be lost in the near future irrespective of this application.  He stated that the Almshouses was a listed building in need of repair, without which it may have to close.  He urged Members to permit the application as recommended by the officer as there were no grounds for refusal.

Mrs J Hodson, the applicant’s agent, addressed the Committee.  She asked Members to support the officer’s recommendation.  She highlighted that Cameron Homes were specialists in this type of heritage site which required a high quality scheme.  She stated that the construction materials would enhance the conservation area and the character of nearby listed buildings had been carefully considered in conjunction with the Council’s conservation officer.  She added that the proposals were within the limits to development of the village and therefore there was a presumption in favour of development.  She acknowledged that the site was low density, however this was appropriate to the location.  She stated that the proposals would improve the street scene, would bring the old school and the land back into use and would boost the housing land supply. 

Councillor R Johnson expressed disappointment in respect of the lack of affordable housing and the insulting amount of developer contribution which had further reduced according to the update sheet.  He felt that the developer needed to get back to basics and consult with local residents on what they wanted.  He stated that he could not support a proposal like this without affordable housing provision.

The Head of Regeneration and Planning advised that the Council’s policy in respect of affordable housing contributions was guidance only, and each application had to be weighed on its own merits.  He added that in this instance, the site was in a special conservation area, and the funding required for the design element meant that there would be insufficient funding to provide affordable housing.  He added that the District Valuer concurred with this view.

Councillor J Legrys referred to the access and traffic issues, and the proposal to introduce double yellow lines should the application be approved.  He understood that there had been a change of policy in that the Highways Authority would not impose waiting restrictions before the development was occupied, as there was often a long period between approval and execution of a development.  He stated that visibility at the site access was already limited, and there were problems on Church Lane.  He added that the proposals would cause a serious highways issue with a substandard access.  He expressed disapproval that construction materials were being prioritised over community services.  He referred to the proposed developer contribution in respect of education, and the current position of Leicestershire County Council that they could not afford to top up the money required to improve Woodstone School.  He expressed disapproval that the taxpayer should have to pay for improved education facilities and the developer would walk away without having to pay.  He felt that it was a matter of principle that the development was not sustainable as it could not sustain its duty to the community.

Councillor A Bridges sought clarification on what consideration had been given to the impact on the village.

The Senior Planning Officer referred to the report which outlined the impact of the development by itself and cumulatively taking into account all three proposals.  He stated that the view had been taken that the increase in property numbers would be in accordance with the now withdrawn Core Strategy, and on that basis there were no objections to the proposals.

Councillor A Bridges referred to the low density of the proposals and the lack of affordable housing provision. She asked if the number of dwellings on the site could be increased to enable the provision of affordable housing.

The Senior Planning Officer advised that there could be concerns from a conservation viewpoint if the density were increased.

Councillor D Everitt stated that at the site visit, he was quite pleased with the proposals.  However he expressed concerns that the goalposts appeared to be moving and based on what he had heard at the meeting he felt he could not support the proposals.

The Senior Planning Officer clarified the update in respect of developer contributions.  He advised that the amount being offered by the developer had not changed, however an additional request had been submitted by the Parish Council which reduced the pro-rata amounts slightly.

Councillor M Specht stated that the majority of the site could not be seen from the road.  He added that he supported the recommendation but expressed concerns regarding the current safety of the footpath.  He felt that this should be closed off until all the trees could be assessed.

Councillor G Jones paid tribute to all the contributions which had been made at the meeting.  He expressed sympathy regarding the Lombardy Poplar trees, but highlighted that the walkways would be retained and enhanced.  He felt the developer contributions were too low, however the development would have a beneficial impact on the local area and would provide a good mix of housing.  He added that he would like to see a larger contribution to the Almshouses.

Councillor T Neilson expressed sympathy in respect of the value given to the Lombardy Poplar trees, however given that the Council’s tree officer had concluded they would not survive, this could not be a material consideration.  He felt that the works to the school would improve the streetscene.  He stated that the developer contributions were miserly, and suggested that the developer come back with a scheme that was viable.

Councillor J Bridges asked if the request for developer contributions would be the same if the proposed development was not in a conservation area. 

The Head of Regeneration and Planning advised that the contributions requested were in line with the policy and each scheme needed to be assessed in terms of its viability.  He added that developers were not currently selling houses as quickly and not necessarily for the full market value.

Councillor J Bridges asked if a developer submitting an outline application could simply make a statement at that stage to indicate that they would pay the full amount of developer contribution.

The Head of Regeneration and Planning advised that outline applications were not normally accepted in conservation areas, however the position in respect of developer contributions could change from the outline application if a further full application was submitted.

It was moved by Councillor T Gillard and seconded by Councillor A Bridges that the application be permitted in accordance with the officer’s recommendation.

Upon being put to the vote, the motion was declared LOST.

It was moved by Councillor J Legrys and seconded by Councillor R Adams that the application be refused on the grounds that the development was not sustainable given the amount of developer contributions currently being offered.

Upon being put to the vote, the motion was declared CARRIED.

RESOLVED THAT:

The application be refused on the grounds that the development was not sustainable given the amount of developer contributions currently being offered.