Agenda item

Residential of up to 70 dwellings (Class C3).Green infrastructure to include retained vegetation, habitat creation (including new woodland planting), open space, amenity space & play areas, sustainable drainage systems/features, & new walking/cycling/recreational routes. Infrastructure to include highway & utilities & associated engineering works (including ground modelling) & vehicular access via the construction of a new junction off the existing Lower Packington Road (outline - all matters reserved other than access)

Site At Lower Packington Road, Ashby De La Zouch, Leicestershire LE65 1TS

Residential of up to 70 dwellings (Class C3).Green infrastructure to include retained vegetation, habitat creation (including new woodland planting), open space, amenity space & play areas, sustainable drainage systems/features, & new walking/cycling/recreational routes. Infrastructure to include highway & utilities & associated engineering works (including ground modelling) & vehicular access via the construction of a new junction off the existing Lower Packington Road (outline - all matters reserved other than access)

Site At Lower Packington Road, Ashby De La Zouch, Leicestershire LE65 1TS

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report to Members.

Mrs M Tuckey, representing the Town Council, addressed the Committee.  She stated that Ashby Town Council had strong objections to the development.  She felt that Lower Packington Road should be the boundary to development.  She referred to the severe traffic implications in terms of double parking, and increased congestion due to the winding roads.  She stated that this would make the existing problems worse and local residents had voted this site as the least favourable.  She added that the District Council had refused to endorse the site in the Local Plan and the submission Core Strategy, and development on the site had been consistently rejected.  She concluded that the development was unsustainable and inappropriate and urged Members to refuse the application.

Dr N Garnham, objector, addressed the Committee.  He highlighted that the site was outside the limits to development and was part of a much larger site which was refused on appeal in 2009.  He added that the Secretary of State had identified that the development was unsustainable and would cause harm to the character of Ashby de la Zouch.  He felt that these factors were still relevant today and as such he expressed astonishment that the officer had recommended that the application be permitted.  He stated that the site would be blighted by noise from the A42 and was on the proposed HS2 route.  He pointed out that the HS2 route would not be in a cutting but would be elevated, and therefore the noise assessment was inaccurate.  He referred to the impact on road safety and contested the sustainability of the site.  He concluded that there were more suitable sites known to the local planning system and he urged the Committee to take note of the overwhelming local objection.

Councillor J G Coxon stated that the site was part of a larger development which had been refused at the inquiry and he was dismayed at the officer’s recommendation.  He felt that this was not a natural area of growth for the town, and the location was unsustainable with no accessibility for walking, cycling or public transport having been demonstrated.  He concluded that Lower Packington Road should be a development boundary for the town.

Councillor J Bridges sought advice on reasons for refusal of the application.

The Head of Regeneration and Planning advised that he could not concur that HS2 was a reasonable planning objection.  He stated that the reason the application was recommended to be permitted was that the Council did not have a Core Strategy in place.  If the Core Strategy was in place, a reasonable objection would be that the proposal did not relate well to the existing pattern of development and was not sustainable.  However he highlighted the risks due to existing precedent and the current position in respect of the Core Strategy.

Councillor J Hoult stated that Lower Packington Road should be the boundary for development.  He added that just because the Core Strategy had been withdrawn, that did not mean that Ashby de la Zouch should suffer.

Councillor G Jones stated that he could not support the application.  He pointed out that Ashby Town Council had consistently voted against it and it was essential to preserve the small green wedge between Ashby de la Zouch and Packington.

Councillor J Legrys felt that refusing the application was the right decision.  He felt that the area of separation was important.  He recalled the difficulty with accessing the site on the site visit, which demonstrated how unsustainable the development was.  He added that the site was remote from Ashby de la Zouch and the bus service would only be available for part of the day.  He added that the developer had proposed no mechanism to improve or provide highways access.  He felt that developers were trying their luck.

It was moved by Councillor J G Coxon and seconded by Councillor J Legrys that the application be refused on the grounds that it was unsustainable and would be located beyond the existing established extent of the town.

The motion was put to the vote and declared CARRIED.

RESOLVED THAT:

The application be refused on the grounds that the development was unsustainable and would be located beyond the existing established extent of the town.