Agenda item

Land To The Rear 31 The Green Thringstone Coalville Leicestershire

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report to Members.

Mr P Hordley, objector, addressed the meeting.  He noted the officer’s recommendation and stated that he was generally in agreement with it.  He stated that the proposals were contrary to policy E4 as ribbon development radiating from the village was a characteristic.  He added that the planting of trees and shrubs should be encouraged and the proposals would remove trees.  He felt that the proposals were not in keeping with the street scene and were also contrary to policies E20 and E26.  He added that the county geologist had not been consulted.  He stated that this was the last remaining area of the Thringstone fault and should be protected.  He stated that the unresolved sewerage works would mean further intrusion into a protected area.  He expressed amazement that anyone would think the access onto the main road was adequate as it came out by a bus stop, a hedge and a telegraph pole.  He added that there were parking issues.  He also made reference to the errors in the application submission.

Mr S Grant, applicant’s agent, addressed the meeting.  He stated that the scheme had been amended to address the issues and the development site was no longer situated within the green wedge.  He added that the access was now acceptable, as had been confirmed by the Highways Authority.  He pointed out that the principle of development on the site had been established and the only outstanding issue was design.  He highlighted the requirement for an accessible retirement dwelling which had been respectfully designed to blend with existing properties.  He stated that the site was unique and was the only white land remaining, which would therefore not set a precedent as there were no other similar sites.  He suggested that the design issue was not a robust reason for refusal and the proposals would make a positive contribution.

Councillor L Spence stated that he had called in the application as there was a degree of public interest.  He added that he had advised the applicant throughout the process and did not want to lead the Committee.  He made reference to the concluding paragraph of the executive summary which highlighted all the salient points of the application.  He felt that it was right that the application be discussed and reiterated that he would not participate in the vote as he felt this would lead to a perception of bias.

Councillor D Everitt moved that the application be refused in accordance with the officer’s recommendation.  He expressed concerns that the green wedge issue had not been addressed.  He stated that it was absolutely important that there was a clear yes or no to developments on the green wedge, as a little bit of a site protruding into it was exactly the sort of thing that developers would use in future.  He added that he did not want to see the protection of the green wedge thrown away on a little bit of land and added that this would be a nail in the coffin.  He stated that the countryside was disappearing, the environment was being destroyed bit by bit and these proposals were detrimental.  He added that the whole picture needed to be considered.  He felt that it was imperative to retain this part of Thringstone and felt that Members would regret it if this application was permitted.  He stated that there were traffic problems and the effects of this would be huge for the village.

The motion was seconded by Councillor R Woodward.

The Director of Services pointed out that Councillor D Everitt had spoken about the impact upon the green wedge and asked whether he wished to include in his motion that the proposals were therefore contrary to policy E20.  This was agreed by Councillor D Everitt and Councillor R Woodward as the seconder of the motion.

Councillor R Woodward stated that he knew the area as he was a former representative of Thringstone.  He added that the Council was committed to protecting the green wedge and there was a danger of encroachment.  He urged Members to protect it.

Councillor M Specht made reference to the green wedge study paper and the pending reclassification of the site.  He stated that the site was clearly outside of the green wedge and sought to move that the application be permitted.

The Legal Advisor clarified that the motion on the table needed to be voted upon before any further motion could be considered.

Councillor G Jones stated that he had visited the site and did not feel that the proposals would have any impact upon the street scene.  He added that he was not keen on the design, but felt it was acceptable given that it was custom built for a disabled person.  He believed that the site was outside the green wedge and he would be in favour of the development.

Councillor J Legrys expressed support for the officer’s recommendation in respect of policy E20.  He felt that policy E26 needed to be taken into account also.  He pointed out that the report stated that part of the site was within the green wedge, and he had to believe that the report was truthful in that respect.  He stated that he would be voting in favour of the officer’s recommendation in order to avoid setting a precedent for other wards.

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

RESOLVED THAT:

The application be refused on the basis of the proposed design and layout and on the basis of the site’s location within the Green Wedge.