Agenda item

Land Adjacent To 25 Buckingham Road Coalville Leicestershire LE67 4PB

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report to Members.

Mr I Barnes, objector, addressed the Committee. He drew Members attention to the report that stated only 4 neighbours were notified yet 16 objections had been received showing the tremendous feeling over the application. He informed Members that the original planning consent included the requirement of green spaces for the enjoyment of all residents and that it went against the Council’s green space strategic wish. He advised that the land was currently woodland planting and it had taken many years for the habitat to develop and for wildlife to make its home. He expressed concerns that the S106 agreement would not benefit the residents of the estate who were losing the woodland and that with the Council promoting the development of the land at Cropston Drive, which once approved how would the residents of the new estate trust the Council to protect their green spaces in the future. He highlighted to the Committee that if the application in front of them be approved the owners of no 27 Buckingham Road would be disadvantaged as they would not have the same opportunity to extend their garden and it was inappropriate that a relatively new resident benefit to the detriment of the rest of the community. 

Mr J Iliffe, applicant, addressed the Committee. He expressed to Members that he felt that the neighbours had misinterpreted the intentions of the application and having read all of the objections acknowledged that the biggest concerns were over the loss of green space and harm to the wildlife. He stated that he was sympathetic to the concerns and that throughout the application process had made it clear that no building would take place on the land and it would remain a garden adding that the only signs of wildlife were insects, brambles and stinging nettles which the family had to constantly cut back, and no signs of animal tracks, bird’s nests, badger’s setts or fox holes. He advised that his family were animal lovers with three pets. He made it clear that it would be green space and as part of the contract of buying the land it was agreed that there would be no building on there. He informed Members that the National Forest Company had raised no issues, only a concern over the loss of green space, and that he was willing to compensate the loss of trees on the strip of land by providing double the amount of trees for an off-site area elsewhere in the district.

The officer’s recommendation to permit the application was moved by Councillor R Boam and seconded by Councillor J Cotterill.

Councillor J Legrys asked for the local elected ward Member’s views about the application.

Councillor J Cotterill said that he considered that the site made a valuable contribution to the street scene.

Councillor J Bridges sought clarification from Councillor J Cotterill, whether he was in support of the proposal or against it, as he seconded the motion to grant permission but appeared to have spoken against it.

Councillor J Cotterill withdrew his seconding of the motion to grant planning permission.

Councillor D Harrison seconded the motion to grant planning permission.

Councillor J Cotterill stated that having looked at the proposals and that the applicant was willing to provide planting elsewhere as a contribution to the loss, if the application was to be permitted it would set a dangerous precedent and applications would be received from all directions from other residents wishing to extend their gardens. He advised that he had received telephone calls from more than seventeen local residents, who were very concerned and felt that the application should be refused.

Councillor J Legrys expressed concerns over applications such as the one that was in front of them that came before committee and he was aware that the land in question belonged to the original developer. He stated that he supported Councillor J Cotterill as that should the applicant be successful there would be no control over what went on the land and the land was open space. He felt that Councillor J Cotterill had a point that once one was permitted the Council would be inundated with similar applications and was therefore minded to vote against the application.

Councillor J Clarke stated he had concerns, firstly, with the fact that the application extended over the rear of 27 and if in the future the owners of 27 wished to extend their garden they would not be able to do so and secondly with condition 6 which restricted the removal of vegetation between March and August, he felt that it should be to October and should the application be permitted the condition should be amended.

Councillor D Everitt stated that the piece of nature was put there for the residents to enjoy and that the green patches within developments such as the one being discussed were valuable and broke up all the bricks. He agreed that it would start a precedent and that when 16 objectors had taken the time to write in it proved that they valued the area and therefore should not deny them the right to keep it.

Councillor J Geary stated that his concerns were that the report stated that whilst some trees would be lost, it would not be significant and a dense area of trees would be retained however some had already been removed. He advised the Ward Member that to avoid further loss, a TPO should be applied for to ensure that it did not happen again. His main concern was the application site went behind the neighbouring property therefore denying the owner the opportunity to extend their land and reducing their privacy. Unless he heard anything to the contrary he would be voting against the application.

Councillor J Bridges confirmed that a neighbouring property no longer having the same opportunity to extend its garden was not a planning ground.

Councillor M Specht stated that he would not be supporting the application, he accepted that the devaluation of properties was not a material planning consideration however when the properties were bought the planting area was part of the permission of the site. He expressed concerns that off-site planting should be provided elsewhere in the district however it would not benefit the residents surrounding the application land that would be losing the trees. He felt that the trees were part of the original permission and therefore should remain, adding that he was embarrassed for the developer selling the land off for whatever reason.

Councillor R Canny stated that most people would love bigger gardens but should the application be permitted a lot of people would put in applications. She added that even though wildlife may not be seen during the day the chances are that it was there living under the protection of the brambles. She felt it would be shame to get rid of the open space.

Councillor D Harrison stated that having seen the site he was not worried that it would be a big loss as it was a small strip however he did feel a little sorry for 27. He advised that he could not see anything horribly wrong, it appeared that there was a worn pathway and could not see why the application should be refused as it was a small area and rather than being overgrown it would enhance the applicant’s garden.

Councillor R Boam stated that there had been much mention of 27 and he felt that there was plenty of opportunity for the owners to purchase the land if they wished to. He highlighted that the applicant had stated there would be no building on the land, there would be no major change and the district would gain double the amount of trees. He could see not problems with the application.

The motion to permit the application in accordance with the officer’s recommendation was put to the vote and declared LOST.

Councillor J Cotterill moved that the application be refused on the grounds that there would be a loss of green space. This was seconded by Councillor M Specht.

RESOLVED THAT:

The application be refused on the grounds that there would be a loss of open space