Agenda item

Land Off Grange Road Grange Road Hugglescote

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report to Members.

Councillor P Hyde, Ward Member, addressed the Committee.  He stated that despite the confidential information and legal advice, he still had major concerns in respect of the highways issues.  He added that he had lived in the area and he refuted the information provided.  He added that Leicestershire County Council was refuting the accredited speedwatch scheme which had been undertaken.  He referred to the issues with speeding in the area.  He stated that the Parish Council were rightly concerned about the highways issues and the proposed right turn provisions.  He added that this was an accident waiting to happen.  He made reference to the observations regarding the layby and pointed out that when the surgery was open, there could be up to 15 cars parked there.  He felt that parking provision should be made for 10-15 cars, not 2, and that this should be assessed during the day.  He stated that the right turn provisions were potentially dangerous, and further discussions needed to be held with the Parish Council and local residents who knew the area.  He refuted the mean speeds suggested in the report, highlighting that there had been two fatalities, and stated that he had had near misses himself.

The Legal Advisor advised Councillor P Hyde that the time limit had been reached.

Mr W Jennings, on behalf of the Parish Council, addressed the meeting.  He referred to the similarities to the previous scheme which had thankfully been voted down.  He stated that many of the previous concerns remained, not least of which was the highways issues.  He explained that the entrance to the site was at the bottom of a hill in an area where speeding traffic had been accurately recorded.  He referred to the two speedwatch campaigns which had been undertaken in conjunction with the Police.  The schemes had recorded an average speed of 40.5 mph.  He made reference to the latest figures regarding the housing land supply which would enable the scheme to be refused.  He stated that if the Council was minded to approve the application, the Parish Council would welcome the Highways and access being considered under reserved matters.

Councillor J Legrys, as an objector, addressed the meeting.  He stated that although the application site was not located within his Ward, it would have an effect upon it.  He added that the Council was between a rock and a hard place in respect of this application.  He gave credit to the Parish Council for their efforts in trying to develop a dialogue with the developer, and felt that the work done must be commended, and commented that the Parish Council had tried very hard to achieve an acceptable access.  He stated that the development was not required, and added that the Council needed to move from piecemeal planning to proper planning.  He added that the acceptance of the SHMA figures meant that considerably less homes were required in the district and the target would be met without this application.  If Members were minded to approve the application, he asked that the access issue be placed as a reserved matter, which would enable the developers to get what they wanted, whilst allowing dialogue to continue, enabling a satisfactory conclusion for all parties.

Councillor J Legrys left the meeting on conclusion of his statement.

Mrs K Ventham, applicant’s agent, addressed the meeting.  She referred to the previous application which was currently the subject of an appeal and which had not been the subject to any objections from the statutory consultees.  She stated that the applicant had sought to make improvements in respect of the highways and flooding issues.  She pointed out that the proposed dwellings were confined to land in flood zone 1, and the Environment Agency had no objections to the proposals.  She advised that the alternative access had been put to the applicant at a very late stage and it was felt that this did not meet the design standards and had not been subject to a road safety audit.  She referred to the response provided in the update sheet.  She highlighted the developer contributions and the benefits of the scheme in respect of affordable housing, local schooling, health and civic amenities.  She stated that the developer was well equipped to making a swift start on the site.  She concluded that the developer had sought to listen to the comments made, however there were no objections from the statutory consultees, and if this application was granted, there would be no need to proceed with the appeal in respect of the previous application.

Councillor J Bridges moved that the application be permitted in accordance with the officer’s recommendation, and that the press and public be excluded for the remainder of the debate upon this item. 

The motion was seconded by Councillor G Jones.

Councillor T Neilson felt it would be helpful to state the reasons why this item needed to be discussed in private.

The Legal Advisor clarified for the benefit of the members of the public present that Members had before them a confidential legal opinion which was subject to legal professional privilege, which could not be released to the public as it contained information which may have an impact upon the appeal. 

The motion to exclude the press and public was put to the vote and declared CARRIED.

The Members retired to considered the legal advice at 5.00pm and reconvened at 5.21pm.

The motion to permit the application was then put to the vote and declared CARRIED.

RESOLVED THAT:

The application be permitted in accordance with the recommendation of the Director of Services.