Agenda item

Land Off Greenhill Road Coalville Leicestershire  

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report to Members.

Miss J Tebbatt, objector on behalf of the residents, addressed the Committee. She thanked the developer for the information changes received since the last meeting however the recreational activities in the water retention area and the road close to the existing properties were still not satisfactory. She highlighted that policy D1 and D2 were there to protect the existing residents and requested that the road that was showing on the new plan be removed and retained as green space to protect the existing residents from noise, dust and pollution created by vehicles using the road. She asked that the southwest drainage area be used for just that and that no recreational activities take place and that residents expected the layout on the approved plan to be forthcoming. She highlighted that the recreational use would cause noise and disturbance to the existing residents and pose a health and safety risk as a result of potential vandalism of the flood controls, adding that it would produce an activity zone that in its own rights had to meet certain requirements. She informed the Committee that dual use areas must be addressed and consulted on early in the process and be addressed on a site by site basis. She asked that a buffer zone around the area be 10m not 8m and/or a no ball or equipment use imposed and that councillors help to impose a common sense approach to the application.

Ms A Gilliver, applicant, addressed the Committee. She advised Members that the developer had addressed the number of issues that had been raised at the last meeting and reminded them that the principle of development had already been established and highlighted the following:-

-       The existing drystone boundary wall would be retained and it was proposed that a green living screen be put in place along with landscaping and a 1.2m high post and rail fence.

-       The drainage features have been designed in accordance with the approved FRA including all the discharged rates and including all provisions. The finer details were to be submitted for consultation with the relevant statutory consultee in respect of a required discharge of condition submission and as such no development could take place until approval given.

-       A local stonemason had advised the internal stonewalls could not be built as they currently were, but with a solid core, they could be built to look very similar.

-       It was proposed to reduce the ground level near to the existing properties by 500mm above neighbouring land.

-       The western parcel of land would be two fold, firstly to ensure the correct drainage on the site and secondly an attractive open space. The previous viewing platform would be removed from the plan and replaced with soft landscaping.

She urged the Committee to support a now acceptable, sustainable and deliverable application.

The officer’s recommendation was moved by Councillor D Harrison and seconded by Councillor G Jones.

Councillor M B Wyatt stated that he was still not happy and would not be supporting the officer’s recommendation. He advised that he had been trying to find common ground to address the concerns raised by residents and as such some minor changes had been made but some of the genuine issues had not been addressed. He also confirmed that he had prepared the statement he was reading from while the speakers were addressing the Committee. 

Councillor J Legrys stated that he had deep concerns over the revised proposals. He sought clarification of the use of the word perpetuity in the report in relation to the use of a maintenance company should the County Highways not adopt the roads, and the roads being managed by the private company. He stated that there were a number of interpretations of the use of the word. He highlighted that there was substantial land around the country that was open to the public in perpetuity and managed by private companies and when they went bust the agreements ran into dust.

The Legal Advisor advised Members that the position was that LCC would not be adopting the roads and that a private company would be maintaining the road which would be secured by a section 106, therefore should the private company fold it would be up to the land owner to ensure the maintenance was carried out as it would be a registered charge which ran with the land.

Councillor J Legrys asked that in the event of both the developer and maintenance company wishing to no longer maintain the estate, where would it leave the residents. He expressed concerns that the authority would have to continue to collect the waste and if the road was not adopted the Council may not do so on unmaintained roads. He stated that residents would have to take their waste to the nearest suitable collection point on adopted roads. He felt that the Committee was being asked to make a decision on the word perpetuity, and as he had not received a definitive answer to his question was unable to support the application.

Councillor R Adams stated that he had raised his concerns at the last meeting and having listened to all parties nothing that had been said had addressed the concerns and therefore had not changed his mind.

In response to questions from Councillor R Canny, officers advised and pointed out the location of both the existing and proposed houses and that a balancing pond and green area were planned for the south west corner of the site.

In response to a question from Councillor D Everitt about the existing and proposed drystone walling, the Principal Planning Officer advised Members that the boundary walls would remain and the external walls would be rebuilt.

Councillor D Everitt expressed sadness that the heritage of the walls could not remain.

Councillor M B Wyatt requested a recorded vote.

RESOLVED THAT:

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