Agenda item

Report of the Head of Regeneration and Planning.

Consideration was given to the report of the Head of Regeneration and Planning, as amended by the update sheet circulated at the meeting.

The Chairman moved that item A4, application number 14/00309/FULM be deferred to allow a consultation response from the County Council Ecologist to be received and assess the revised representations received from objectors. It was seconded by Councillor J Legrys.

RESOLVED THAT:

Application number 14/00309/FULM be deferred to allow a consultation response from the County Council Ecologist to be received and assess the revised representations received from objectors.

Before moving onto the next application, the Head of Regeneration and Planning stated the following:

‘Members are aware that they will be considering two major housing applications in Packington and as such it is useful to provide a brief overview on the issues of sustainability and scale of development considered appropriate for the village before looking at the merits of each individual application.

Firstly, in terms of the sustainability of the site, Packington provides a range of day to day facilities, i.e. a primary school, shop, church, village hall, a public house, play area/recreation ground and some small-scale employment sites. 

There is also a limited public transport service; the No. 7 service currently provides a service Monday to Saturday (approximately every 1.5-2 hours) and serves Measham, Ashby de la Zouch, Atherstone and Nuneaton with a total of 11 buses running per day. The County Council has confirmed that the No.7 service will not be serving Packington going forward due to the No.19 Service now providing an hourly service between Ashby and Measham via Packington. 

Ashby de la Zouch is located approximately 2.3km walking distance from the centre of the site, where amongst other services retail, secondary education, a library and GP surgeries can be found.  There would be continuous footways available to facilitate pedestrian access to this nearby market town. Furthermore, it is considered that the short distance involved and the relatively low traffic flow along the routes available and local gradients, would encourage cycling.

Therefore, it is considered that Packington is a sustainable settlement that is capable of accommodating some new housing growth.

In terms of the scale of new development that might be considered appropriate for Packington, as previously advised at the Planning Committee in April with the Appleby Magna applications, no formal policy decision has been made as to the amount of development in percentage terms that might be appropriate in individual villages. However, what Officers have sought to do when looking at these applications is to look at the scale of growth in comparison with what was anticipated for the District in the now withdrawn Core Strategy so as to provide members of the Planning Committee with some local context.

In terms of likely future needs the GL Hearn Leicester and Leicestershire Housing Requirements Study which was used to inform the housing requirement in the now withdrawn Core Strategy includes information regarding future natural change across the district.  This Study projected a 23.4% increase in housing was required across the District from 2006-2031, which was reflected in the now withdrawn Core Strategy.

As set out in the update sheet, the number of properties within Packington has been recalculated using 2011 Census information from the Office of National Statistics (a reputable source of information), which confirms that there are 324 properties within Packington.  This has implications for the level of growth and therefore, revised calculations have been undertaken and the implications have been considered.

When considered cumulatively, the two major housing proposals for the village (a maximum of 72 dwellings), would equate to a 22% increase in new dwellings within the village, which would represent a higher level of growth anticipated for the villages than proposed across the District as a whole in the GL Hearn Study.  When taking into account new dwellings/commitments this growth increases to 23.7% and 24% respectively. 

This revised figure (representing the level of growth) is slightly higher than that envisaged for the District as a whole and it is higher than that envisaged for smaller settlements within the Core Strategy.  However, Members are advised that even if a development takes the scale of growth in a settlement over that which was envisaged district wide in the Core Strategy, this should not be a reason for refusal on its own (particularly as no weight can be attached to the provision of the Core Strategy).  A particular adverse impact would have to be demonstrated.

When having regard to the sustainability credentials of Packington, it is considered that this level of cumulative development (growth) for Packington is considered acceptable.

Therefore, while it can be concluded that, on balance, the level of growth for Packington as indicated, is appropriate, each application has also been considered on its own merits and these have been assessed in the detailed reports on the agenda taking into account all other material planning considerations, and these will now be presented briefly in turn.’