Agenda item

81 & 81A North Street Whitwick Coalville Leicestershire LE67 5HB

Having declared a pecuniary interest in item A2 Councillor J Legrys left the meeting and took no further part in the discussion and voting thereon.

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report to Members.

Ms S Chalmers, objector, addressed the Committee. She advised Members that her role within the surgery was to oversee the running of the clinic and the health and safety of the users. She informed the Committee that the only access to the site was over land owned by the NHS, which was the result of a wayleave agreement granted in 2012, which was for 2 properties only. She added that the plans to shorten the pavement on the designated walk ways into the surgery to create easier turning into the development were unacceptable and dangerous. She highlighted that the number of users to the health centre had continually increased therefore the car park was well used by not just visitors to the centre but also local residents, and the additional dwellings would add to the problem. She also expressed concerns over safety of frail patients who experienced issues getting across the car park, the impact of emergency vehicles getting to the centre and safety during the construction. She asked Members to take into consideration the increased provision of health services in the area due to an increased population which meant longer opening times and access being required more. She asked that the concerns were taken on board and urged the Committee to refuse the application.

Ms M Ferguson-Jones, objector, addressed the Committee. She advised that she had opposed the development of the land since 2008. She highlighted that the original plan of 5 new dwellings along with the original 2 had been passed but now the developer was trying to increase the number of properties and due to the change of layout her property would have a window overlooking it. She stated that she had taken advice over the issue and that in relation to plots 4, 5, 6 and 7 they would have a case for a right to light. She informed Members that her property was on a lower level and that it would be as though they were being overlooked by a small block of flats. She stated that parking was also a major issue as she lived on a busy road which was used by visitors to the health centre when the car park was full, and as North Street was mainly double yellow lines the owners of the existing cottages would struggle to park. She also expressed her disappointment over the consideration the developer had for existing residents when starting to the clear the site at the weekend and the high noise level they had experienced from the machinery and birds chirping as the hedges were cut.   

Councillor R Woodward, on behalf of Whitwick Parish Council, addressed the Committee. He stated that the original application should not have been passed and neither should the application before the Committee. He highlighted that the access was through an extremely busy car park that served two surgeries, that the access land was a wayleave not a shared drive and the access to the car park was dangerous as those that could not park on the car park would then park on the road in front of the health centre. He felt that the proposed development was too big for the site as it would need to accommodate parking for up to 14 vehicles. He drew Member’s attention to the number of objections that had been received, the levels of the new properties in relation to the existing properties and the safety concerns raised by the health centre and urged the Committee to refuse the application.  

Councillor D Everitt moved that the application be refused on the grounds of over intensification of the site. This was seconded by Councillor V Richichi.

Councillor D Everitt felt that the Council would become a laughing stock if it approved the application as the area was one of the busiest areas in Whitwick as parking for the health centre was difficult. He felt that the proposed development was dangerous for the users. He felt that the five dwellings that were already permitted was too many and that the authority needed to do the best it could to preserve the area as it was used by the wider community. He also expressed concerns over the increase in traffic levels on the road. He stated that the Committee should protect the residents.

Councillor R Adams stated that he had visited the surgery in the past and that what the Committee had seen on the site visit was not a true reflection of the usage of the car park, and that most of the time vehicles were parked on along the hedgerow and that trying to get in and out was a safety concern and was dangerous.

Councillor N Smith stated that he had been asked to make the following points on behalf of Councillor T Gillard, who was unable to attend the meeting due to work commitments. Councillor T Gillard felt that the development would cause problems with access and egress of the site, that North Street was incredibly busy and he was concerned that the medical centre had not been included in the consultation.

Councillor D Harrison stated that it was an interesting debate and acknowledged the concerns of the speakers. He felt that the entrance was wide enough and understood that the parking for the development would be within the site and therefore not using the car park of the health centre. He stated that the access issues over the land was not a planning consideration and that the application that had been submitted was legitimate which he would support. It would be up to the NHS to lodge a legal challenge to the access regarding ownership.

Councillor G Jones felt that an opportunity had been missed as the two additional properties should have been bungalows.

Councillor R Johnson highlighted that had the site been at the edge of a row of cottages it may have been a different story. However, it had been raised that there was no agreement for access and therefore questioned whether the Committee sought to put the health of residents before access as it was a dangerous stretch of road. He stated that he could not support the application as he know from his own surgery that the car park was not big enough. He highlighted that the plan included the road which was not owned by the developer and the access had not been agreed therefore he could not support that application.

Councillor D Stevenson stated that if the access was owned by the NHS, why had they not advised the developer that they would not grant access for any additional dwellings.

Councillor M Specht highlighted the statement that the wayleave was between the NHS and the 2 properties and asked if the Council was aware of that. He understood Members concerns over the traffic but he stated that he would not expect the health centre to restrict patient’s use of the car park due to safety concerns. He highlighted that work could be carried out on trees and hedgerows between the end of September to the end of March and that the Planning Committee had to consider planning matters only, and in relation to the application before them there were no grounds for refusal.

In response to a questions from Councillor J Bridges, the Planning and Development Team Manager advised Members that in the original application approved in 2016, the access to the site was the same as now proposed, albeit the internal layout within the site had changed to reflect the additional two dwellings.

Councillor J Bridges stated that there could be grounds for refusal for over intensification of the site, however the NHS had ample opportunity to act on the access issues and he would be supporting the officer’s recommendation.

In response to a question from Councillor J Hoult, the Planning and Development Team Manager advised Members that the applicant had served notice of the application on the NHS and therefore followed the correct procedure.

Councillor N Smith stated that he had heard a lot of emotional and emotive arguments but the Committee was not there to consider emotion and that the NHS had had the opportunity to consider the access issues.

Councillor R Adams requested a recorded vote.

The Head of Planning and Infrastructure advised Members that over intensification was an acceptable reason for refusal but not a strong one however highways issues would not be a reason for refusal as LCC highways had no objections to the application.

The mover and seconded agreed that the reason for refusal was over intensification of the site only.

The motion was LOST.

The officer’s recommendation was moved by Councillor D Harrison and seconded by Councillor J Bridges.

RESOLVED THAT:

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

Councillor J Legrys returned to the meeting