Agenda item

Residential development of up to 65 dwellings along with a new access, amenity space and associated works (Outline - All matters other than part access reserved)

Land At Ibstock Road, Ravenstone, Coalville, Leicestershire 

Residential development of up to 65 dwellings along with a new access, amenity space and associated works (Outline - All matters other than part access reserved)

Land At Ibstock Road, Ravenstone, Coalville, Leicestershire 

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report to Members. 

Mr P Tubb, representing the Parish Council, addressed the Committee.  He stated that there were problems that would render the development unsustainable.  He pointed out that the development was clearly aimed at families, however it was not within walking distance of a bus route.  He added that two thirds of the bus stops in Ravenstone were not serviced, and the number of services was being reduced.  He referred to the deficit in school places and remarked that the one class per year system would be lost.  He added that cyclists would be at increased risk with no proposed reduction in speed limit.  He stated that there were not enough services to accommodate a 24% increase in housing.  He felt that the village identity would be lost and the conservation area would be negatively impacted.  He added that traffic issues would worsen.

Mr A Soeder, objector, addressed the meeting.  He stated that the residents of Ibstock Road were living on a dangerous road, the transport situation being the main issue, and the measures proposed were insufficient.  He added that the transport assessments undertaken in 2008 and 2011 had not considered the impact of 1,000 new houses, and these reports needed to be revised.  He highlighted that the road audit had taken place at 12.15pm, which was an inappropriate time to properly assess the traffic.  He referred to the death of a girl on the road in 2009, and the subsequent call to reduce the speed limit.  He felt that this was even more relevant now, however no action had been taken.  He added that casualties could rise significantly.  He asked the Council to avoid danger to residents, and concluded that measures should be taken prior to development to prevent fatalities.

Mr M Robson, the applicant’s agent, addressed the Committee.  He stated that the scheme would provide 30% affordable housing, a rich mix of housing types and tenures, and a high quality scheme.  He highlighted that the site was contained with urban inferences on three sides, and would provide public open spaces.  He stated that the Section 106 contribution exceeded requirements.  He added that the applicant was entirely content to pay the requested sums and had no intention to ‘chip’ away at the contributions.  He highlighted that there had only been twelve letters of objection from local residents and there were no concerns from the Parish Council or the statutory consultees.  He added that there would be contributions towards bus stop improvements.

Councillor J Bridges stated that he was pleased to see that the applicant had recognised the need for affordable housing in the area.  He added that he would welcome a full application rather than an outline application.

Councillor J Legrys referred to the current Local Plan and sought clarification on the designation of the site.

The Head of Regeneration and Planning advised that the land had been designated as a sensitive area rather than an area of separation.  He added that this policy was designed to prevent an ongoing ribbon of development down the road, and he felt that this proposal would achieve this by preventing development either side.  He added that the policy did not outweigh the requirement to increase the housing numbers.

Councillor J Legrys felt that this scheme was the best of the three Ravenstone schemes.  He highlighted that the developer had tried to engage the Highway Authority to reduce traffic speeds in order to aid access and egress.  He understood that the developer’s proposals had been rejected by the Highway Authority.  He felt that if a developer was prepared to install a road safety feature, the Highway Authority should take the opportunity.  He agreed that he would like to see more firm full applications rather than outline.  He concurred that the development would form a convenient boundary.  However he felt that the Committee urgently needed to start using its policy remit to tell village communities where the boundaries lay.

Councillor J Bridges commented that if the developer was not required to make a contribution towards highways, perhaps more contribution could be made towards education.

Councillor M Specht stated that he supported the proposals in view of the provision of affordable housing and the land break between existing properties which would be provided by the development.

It was moved by Councillor J G Coxon, seconded by Councillor J Cotterill and

RESOLVED THAT:

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