Agenda item

Residential development of up to 50 dwellings, with new vehicular access, landscaping, public open space, balancing pond, national forest planting and creation of new allotments. (Outline - all matters other than part access reserved)

Land Off Heather Lane, Ravenstone

Residential development of up to 50 dwellings, with new vehicular access, landscaping, public open space, balancing pond, national forest planting and creation of new allotments. (Outline - all matters other than part access reserved)

Land Off Heather Lane, Ravenstone 

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report to Members.

Mr R White, on behalf of the Parish Council, addressed the Committee.  He stated that the proposal was outside the limits to development and approval would be contrary to Policy S3.  He referred to the Localism Act which enshrined in law the need for public consultation, however the developers had not attended.  He felt that Ravenstone had inadequate infrastructure and local facilities to accommodate this development.  He stated that the narrow roads could not cope with the existing traffic.  He added that Woodstone School was at capacity and there were no doctors or dentists within walking distance.  He stated that there were serious problems with flooding to the south of the site.  He expressed concern that no ecological field study appeared to have been undertaken, however Ravenstone had a historic background, with Mesolithic, Neolithic and Bronze Age flints and arrow heads having recently been found.  He concluded that the development would be the death warrant for Ravenstone as the village identity would be lost.

Mr D Lunn, objector, addressed the Committee.  He stated that the development was too large and in the wrong location, being outside the limits to development.  He added that the proposals would scar the approach to the development land and Woodstone School, which was at capacity, would lose its rural setting.  He stated that Heather Lane was a section of the national cycle network and this road would be busier than ever with no footpaths.  He urged Members to refuse the application.

Mrs M Duffy, the applicant’s agent, addressed the Committee.  She stated that Ravenstone was a sustainable location for development, being well related to Coalville and the range of opportunities it provided.  She added that the issue in respect of cumulative impact had been assessed and deemed acceptable, and Leicestershire County Council had no objections in respect of highway safety.  She highlighted that 20% of the site would be given over for National Forest planting which would enhance the landscaping and provide a buffer for existing residents.  She added that a new footpath would provide a link for residents walking to and from the school.  She referred to the positive social and economic benefits provided by the Section 106 package and the provision of affordable housing.  She urged Members to permit the application.

Councillor J Legrys outlined the similarities of the application to the Moira Road site in Ashby which had been lost at appeal.  He stated that if Members were minded to approve the application, he would have particular concerns in respect of the contribution towards education.  He highlighted that there was currently a deficit of 12 places at Woodstone School.  He added that although Heather Primary School currently had a surplus of 10 places, Heather Lane was not suitable for primary school children to walk down.  He asked if the contributions in respect of education could be solely allocated to Woodstone School.

The Senior Planning Officer advised that he had discussed the matter with the Education Authority and they had confirmed that all education monies from sites in Ravenstone would be spent on Woodstone School.  He added that this could be secured in the Section 106 Agreement.

Councillor J Legrys asked that the developer consider providing dropping-off places at the school to overcome on-street parking issues.

Councillor J Bridges advised that this matter would be under discussion separately at the monthly Members Planning Forum.

The Head of Regeneration and Planning advised that as the application was in outline form, this request could be considered as the application progressed into the detail stage.

Councillor T Neilson stated that if the District Council was not in its current position in terms of the policy backlog and the five year housing land supply, he believed the application would be recommended to be refused on the grounds that it was not in accordance with Policy S3.  He added that he could see no other reasons for refusal, and given the current situation, there was no other option.

Councillor G Jones asked if the land had ever been opencasted.  It was clarified that it had not.

Councillor G Jones stated that the Council was duty bound to provide a healthy environment and good quality homes, and so he would be supporting the proposals.

Councillor M Specht stated that he would have been voting against the proposal if affordable housing had not been provided.  He added that he would support the application on the basis that the affordable housing offer would not alter in the detail stage. 

Councillor J Bridges supported this view in respect of affordable housing.  He pointed out that the application was outline, and the Committee would be looking closely at the full application in due course.

It was moved by Councillor T Gillard, seconded by Councillor J Bridges and

RESOLVED THAT:

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