Agenda item

Land At Measham Waterside Burton Road Measham Derby

The Planning and Development Team Manager presented the report to Members.

Mrs G Banton, objector, addressed the meeting on behalf of a large group of objectors.  She stated that the proposals would bring an additional 1000 people to the village that the already stretched surgery would have to accommodate.  She added that the increased pressure on services and the highways would be intolerable.  She felt that the canal refurbishment was just a dangled carrot as it would now never join the rest of the canal.  She referred to issues with sewerage which were unresolved and expressed concerns in respect of the River Mease.  She stated that Measham had become a dormitory village with shops closing as no one used them.  She stated that there had been so many developments in the last few years that Measham was becoming a small town and the heart of the village was being ripped out.  She urged Members to take a common sense approach in making their decision.

Mr B Wilson, applicant’s agent, addressed the meeting.  He reminded Members of the commitment made by the developer in respect of affordable housing and the canal.  He referred to the Section 106 agreement and the additional requirements in respect of affordable housing and education.  He added that an option to review clause would also be included.  He stated that the developer would construct an access road and a canal bridge to protect the route of the canal, and waste would be removed from the canal bed at a cost of £3.8 million.  He added that the construction of the canal was the responsibility of Leicestershire County Council and the developer would continue to work with them to secure funding for this.  He advised that he was on the board of directors of the Ashby Canal Trust and it had been his wish to see an aqueduct over Measham High Street.  He trusted that Members would now feel able to support the scheme and provide Measham with the regeneration opportunity it deserved.

Councillor T Neilson thanked the Legal Advisor for the response to his point of order raised at the previous meeting.  He expressed concern that this application was now being discussed in full for the third time.  He made reference to the current position in respect of the SHMA and the surplus housing land supply, meaning that the Committee was not obliged to permit development that was unsustainable and outside the limits to development, as this application was.  He stated that the applicant had failed to meet all of the Section 106 obligations which would normally be a requirement for an application of this size.  He moved that the application be refused on the grounds that the development was not sustainable due to the applicant not meeting the Section 106 obligations, and the development site was outside the limits to development, which should now have some weight.  He stated that Measham had reached its allocation for development, given the reduced overall requirement in the district.  He added that if this application was submitted today, he would argue that it was premature as the local plan was still being developed.  He stated that Measham was his home and he was proud to represent it, and he also had an ambition to see the aqueduct over the high street, along with a fully extended canal.  He therefore felt confused that this application did not support that, as the stretch of canal would not be developed, and would bring no tourism benefits as it would not connect to the canal.  He concluded that all of the benefit had been stripped out and he felt that at this time, this application was not right for Measham.

The motion was seconded by Councillor J Legrys.

Councillor J Legrys stated he shared the concerns regarding the prematurity of the application and made reference to the current position regarding the local plan and the housing figures.  He stated that he would argue that the application should not be considered as the infrastructure requirements were unknown.  He added that there had to be an element of trust between the developer and local people.  He felt that the officers had to be congratulated for the negotiation which had taken place, however he sought assurances that this was not heading towards the same situation as the previous application.  He highlighted a number of errors in the report and sought clarification on these.

The Legal Advisor stated that these were typographical errors.

Councillor J Legrys emphasised the importance of addressing mistakes in the report, as Members had to trust the information within them to make their decision.  He stated that the trust had gone due to silly mistakes.

The Legal Advisor reminded Members that the reports were prepared and published in advance and he invited Members to bring any errors to the attention of officers in advance of the meeting.

The Chairman concurred that there were far too many errors in the report.

Councillor G Jones stated that he had had a business in Measham in the 1980’s and it had been a struggle to make any money.  He added that he trusted Mr Wilson with the regeneration of Measham and he was confident that more regeneration would come forward following the proposals. 

Councillor V Richichi stated that he had moved approval of the previous application which was rejected.  He added that the reason he had supported the application was that the canal would be completely regenerated.  He pointed out that that opportunity had been lost and as far as he was concerned, this application should be approved as the offer was lessened with each rejection.

Councillor A Bridges stated that she was confused by Councillor T Neilson’s remarks as at the last meeting he had commented that the canal regeneration would not bring that much tourism into the area.  She added that she had spoken in support of the application at the last meeting, although she was disappointed that the canal was not going to be fully restored.

Councillor T Neilson made a point of personal explanation and clarified that he had commented that 1.1km of canal which was not connected to anything would bring less tourism into the area.

The motion to refuse the application was then put to the vote and declared LOST.

It was then moved by Councillor D J Stevenson, seconded by Councillor G Jones and

RESOLVED THAT:

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