Agenda item

Land North Of Greenhill Road And East Of Agar Nook Lane Coalville Leicestershire

The Planning and Development Team Manager presented the report to Members.  Councillor N Clarke, Ward Member, addressed the Committee.  He spoke in support of the officer’s recommendation as this was an area of particularly attractive countryside and the development would encroach into the Charnwood Forest and a SSSI site.  He referred to the document from the Leicestershire and Rutland Wildlife Trust which supported the officer’s recommendations and he thanked them for producing the document.  He felt that there would be an effect in terms of highways, as the development would generate an increase in traffic which would impact upon Warren Hills Road.  He added that the additional traffic had not been mitigated.  He thanked the residents who had highlighted the flooding issues and pointed out that the report offered no conclusive solution to these issues.  He encouraged all Members to support the officer’s recommendation.

Mr T Sporne, objector, addressed the meeting on behalf of the Save Our Green Fields Action Group and neighbouring residents.  He stated that the proposed development was outside the limits to development, in an area of particularly attractive open countryside, which should be protected.  He added that the proposals were contrary to policy E22, would encroach into Charnwood Forest, and would set a dangerous precedent for similar sites.  He pointed out that the Leicestershire and Rutland Wildlife Trust had objected for a number of reasons.  He stated that the ecological buffer and wildlife corridor should be retained in respect of the Holly Rock Fields SSSI.  He made reference to the recent revisions to the methodology used to calculate the housing land supply and the current position that the Council was able to demonstrate a five year supply plus a twenty per cent buffer, which meant that it was no longer necessary to permit the application.  He stated that residents had grave concerns regarding traffic and the environmental implications.  He added that if the application was granted, an additional junction onto Broom Leys Road would be required.

Mr S Lewis-Roberts, agent, addressed the meeting. He stated that the application site was in a sustainable location, with good access to shops, schools and bus stops.  He added that there were no technical objections from any of the statutory consultees.  He made reference to the comprehensive S106 package.  He stated that the development was of high quality, and was sensitive to local concepts following discussions with the Council’s Urban designer.  He added that the proposals would ensure that more than one third of the site would be protected and designated as a wildlife site.  He acknowledged that the area was attractive countryside, however he felt that this should not prevent appropriate development taking place.  He stated that the landscape strategy would reduce the visual impact of the proposals.  He commented that the five year housing land supply was a critical factor when considering this application.  He stated that the argument to rely on the recent changes in methodology was flawed, as demonstrated by a recent decision at Blaby which had been overturned on appeal.  He advised that calculations made by his organisation showed that the current position was in fact only 2.94 years.  He added that policy S3 and E22 were out of date and concluded that permission should be granted.

Councillor R Adams commented that Councillor N Clarke and Mr T Sporne had said most of what he was intending to say and therefore he moved that the application be refused in accordance with the officer’s recommendation.  He expressed concerns regarding the report from the Highways Authority as he felt this was not correct in terms of the traffic situation on Greenhill Road and Warren Hills Road.  He added that he was local to the area and was aware of the issues.  He commented that he would like to see some reinvestigation of the highways situation and asked whether such a recommendation could be made.

The Director of Services clarified that if Members were minded to refuse the application, this could be included as an additional reason for refusal.

Councillor R Adams moved that the application be refused in accordance with the officer’s recommendation, and that an additional reason for refusal be included on highways grounds due to local knowledge.  This was seconded by Councillor J Legrys.

The Chairman advised Members that firstly a vote would be taken on adding the additional reason for refusal.  The motion was then put to the vote and declared a tie.  The Chairman exercised his casting vote and the motion was declared LOST.

Councillor T Neilson stated that he supported the officer’s recommendation to refuse the application.  He added that the current position meant that the Committee would not be forced to approve applications due to the lack of a housing land supply.  He made reference to the speed in which Pegasus had come to conclusions about the housing land supply issue and stated that he was happy to support the SHMA outcome and the officer’s recommendation.

Councillor M B Wyatt stated that he agreed with the recommendation to refuse the application.  He felt that it would have a detrimental and harmful effect, would destroy the local countryside and would cause congestion.  He referred to the objection from Friends of Charnwood Forest, and felt there would be a detrimental impact upon the landscape.  He stated that he would support the recommendation to refuse the application.

Councillor T Gillard made reference to various policy constraints including H4/1 and S3, which should apply when determining applications if there was no conclusive backup of delivered housing.  He stated that on this basis, the application should be granted.  He felt that this was a very good scheme and sought advice on planning grounds for permitting the application.

The Planning and Development Team Manager advised that there was substantial detailed evidence backing up how the figure of 7.4 years’ housing land supply had been arrived at.  In respect of the concerns raised by the applicant’s agent, he advised that the latest figures were a good basis for the calculation and could be relied upon.  He added that the deliverability figures had been assessed.

The Director of Services advised that, in terms of planning grounds, it was a matter for Members whether they regarded the proposals to represent sustainable development.

Councillor T Gillard moved that the application be permitted on the grounds that the proposals represented sustainable development.  This was seconded by Councillor G Jones.

Councillor T Neilson raised a point of order in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 14.10, in that no further motions could be moved when a motion was under debate.  He suggested that a vote be taken on the motion to refuse the application in accordance with the officer’s recommendation.

The Chairman then put the motion to the vote and it was declared LOST.

Councillor G Jones stated that he had reservations about the density of the development site and sought assurance that the square footage of the properties was above average.  He felt that the location was ideal.

The Planning and Development Team Manager advised that there were approximately 30 houses per hectare, which was deemed to be an appropriate density for a development of this size.

Councillor M B Wyatt sought advice from officers whether permitting this application would set a precedent, particularly in this area.  He also referred to the uncertainty regarding the housing land supply figures and asked whether it was worthwhile deferring the application so that Members’ concerns could be clarified.

This was seconded by Councillor R Adams.

The Chairman sought clarification from Councillor M B Wyatt on the grounds on which he wished to defer the application.

Councillor M B Wyatt commented that the officer’s report had been questioned, especially regarding the housing land supply figures.  On that basis he felt the application should be deferred until the September meeting as clarity was needed.

The Director of Services advised that the housing land supply would always be a fluid situation, and therefore if Members were minded to defer the application, it was unlikely that there would be a more definitive position when the application was reconsidered.  He explained that officers were claiming a five year housing land supply currently existed, and the applicant did not agree.  He added that the motion to approve the application was on the basis that the scheme was sustainable, and not the basis that Members did not agree with the officers’ claim in respect of the housing land supply.  He commented that the position regarding setting a precedent was difficult to answer, however clearly if this site was being reconsidered, a precedent would have been set.  He added that sites nearby would need to be considered on their own merits.  He stated that permitting this application may have implications for nearby sites, however a definitive answer could not be given as to whether a precedent would be set.

Councillor R Adams sought advice on whether the application could be deferred due to the fact that there were outstanding flooding issues.

The Chairman advised that the application could not be deferred on this basis as these issues would need to be dealt with in any case.

Councillor M Specht commented that it was a breath of fresh air to have a recommendation to refuse.  He stated that he was not happy with the content of the report and felt that the application met two of the three key criteria.  He referred to the housing land supply issue and commented that there had been a lot of figures bandied about, however he was not satisfied that the current presumption could be relied upon.  He added that many of the applications approved over the past 18 months were outline applications, and as such, the housing land supply figure could be minimised at appeal.  On that basis he expressed support for the application.

Councillor J Legrys agreed that this application was close to call.  He stated that the figures from G L Hearn were as good as it would get.  He referred to the speech made by the applicant’s agent regarding the application at Blaby, as his understanding was that this application was refused at appeal.  He expressed concerns regarding flooding, traffic, and the fact that the application site was outside the limits to development.  He commented that there had to be a line drawn in the sand between the urban and rural areas, and until today, Agar Nook Lane had been that line.  He referred to Charnwood Forest which was currently earmarked in the Local Plan.  He expressed concerns that applications may be received on the other side of Warren Hills Road, and that precedent was not a planning objection.  He acknowledged that the line in the sand could not be held in perpetuity however he believed strongly that a 7 year housing land supply did exist and expressed support for the SHMA figures.  He stated that he could not under any circumstances support the motion to permit the application.  He requested a recorded vote.

Councillor A Bridges highlighted that there were no objections from the statutory consultees and added that she could find no reason to refuse the application.

Councillor D Everitt referred to the risk of flooding and stated that the application needed to be considered in the overall context as it would cause problems for the surrounding low lying areas.

Councillor R Johnson highlighted the reasons for refusal in respect of the application at Blaby which had been referred to.  He stated that the proposals would be harmful to the area and commented that all we seemed to do was build on areas of natural beauty.

The Planning and Development Team Manager referred Members to the current motion to permit the application and advised that the developer contributions would need to be secured by means of a Section 106 Agreement.  The mover and seconder agreed that they were happy to have this written in to the recommendation.

The Chairman then put the motion to the vote.  A recorded vote having been requested, the voting was as follows:

For the motion:

Councillors G A Allman, A Bridges, J Bridges, J Cotterill, J G Coxon, T Gillard, J Hoult, G Jones and M Specht (9).

Against the motion:

Councillors R Adams, D Everitt, D Howe, R Johnson, J Legrys, T Neilson, R Woodward and M B Wyatt (8).

Abstentions:

None (0).

The motion was declared CARRIED.

RESOLVED THAT:

The application be permitted subject to conditions, and the wording of the decision notice be delegated to the Director of Services.