Agenda item

242 Melbourne Road Ibstock Coalville Leicestershire

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report to Members.

Councillor J Ruff, Ward Member, addressed the Committee.  She explained that as there had been numerous objections from local residents, she was speaking as their representative.  She stated that the application had changed very little from when it was previously considered and Plot One was still overbearing.  As the development was small it would not contribute to any of the services within the village, local schools would be affected and the heritage of the village would be lost.  She explained that a main concern was that the development was close to two roundabouts and it would increase the amount of traffic on an already busy road.  She was happy with the change to the access as the previous proposal was dangerous but she felt that the proposed change from one to two bungalows was not appropriate for the site.  She urged Members to refuse the application.

Mr S Freakley, objector, addressed the Committee.  He thanked the developer for listening to the concerns regarding the access but he now felt that the current driveway was only built for one bungalow, so the proposal for two bungalows was inappropriate.  He believed that the proposed pedestrian access would take away the privacy of neighbouring properties and could lead to anti social behaviour and littering, just like the local green.  He also stated that the proposal for refuse collection was not appropriate due to the lack of space for leaving the bins at the kerb side.

Mr C Lawrence, agent, addressed the Committee.  He assured Members that the proposal was for a good scheme that included a controlled pedestrian access, onsite parking, careful consideration of layout and landscaping, and no vehicular impact on Linden Close.  He stressed that there was a need for bungalows in the area.  He concluded that the developer had worked thoroughly with officers to get to this stage and urged Members to endorse the officer’s recommendation to permit.

Councillor R Woodward commented that he had seconded the motion to defer the application at the previous meeting due to concerns regarding access and the closeness of the development to the neighbouring property’s secondary windows.  He stated that he would prefer to defer the application once again so that a better scheme could be achieved but if this was not possible he could not support approval.  On the advice of the Head of Regeneration and Planning, the Chairman reported that if the application was deferred the applicant would likely appeal against non-determination, therefore Members should make a decision on the application.

The officer’s recommendation was moved by Councillor G Jones and seconded by Councillor J Hoult.

Councillor M Specht referred to the report regarding the distance to neighbouring properties being acceptable but he felt by looking at the photographs of the site it was obvious that the development would be overbearing, therefore he did not agree with the report.

Councillor J Bridges asked if the distance to neighbouring properties was something that could be negotiated with the applicant if the Committee were to approve the application.  The Head of Regeneration and Planning explained that this would not be possible as it was a full application and he could not see any way of further improvement.

Councillor T Neilson concurred with the comments made by Councillor R Woodward regarding the secondary windows of the neighbouring property as he did not approve of having a wall two metres away from windows that let in light.

Councillor J Geary stated that the secondary windows of the neighbouring property might be the only light source to the top of the stairs and approving this would take that away.  The Head of Regeneration and Planning confirmed that a landing area was not a living space so it was not necessary to have windows for light.

The motion was put to the vote and LOST.

The Chairman then asked for an alternative proposal with sufficient planning grounds.

Councillor R Woodward moved that the application be refused on the grounds that it was overbearing and therefore contrary to Planning Policy E3.  It was seconded by Councillor M Specht.

RESOLVED THAT:

The application be refused on the grounds that it was contrary to Planning Policy E3.