Agenda item

Land At The Junction Of Melbourne Road And Gelsmoor Road Newbold Leicestershire

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report to Members.

Mrs C Walmsley, supporter, addressed the meeting.  She stated that the benefits of the scheme would far outweigh any disadvantages.  She explained that the site had been scrubland for over 40 years and was not fit to use for agricultural purposes.  She felt that granting the application would support economic growth in the village and support community facilities, including Newbold School which was growing in size.  She concluded that the development would enhance village growth in general.

Mr A Large, the applicant’s agent, addressed the meeting.  He explained how the 3 reasons for refusal of the application could be mitigated.  He stated that the loss of the veteran tree could be mitigated by way of conditions and the tree officer had no objections.  He made reference to the relationship with the existing dwellings and pointed out that the development was a stone’s throw from the school and bus stop, and was surrounded by existing developments.  He added that the site nestled in a hollow, would enhance the village, and would be a wholly positive addition to the street scene.  He highlighted that there were 17 letters of support for the scheme and only 1 letter of objection.  He pointed out that the school had previously suffered from a lack of pupil numbers, and this facility could only be maintained with growth.  He concluded that it was appropriate for small, well planned developments such as this to go ahead.

Councillor J Bridges moved that the application be permitted.  He took on board the issues regarding the loss of the tree but felt that these could be overcome.  He stated that under the NPPF, it was important to find suitable and sustainable pieces of land.  He added that if any better land was available, he was not aware of it.  He felt that the proposals were deliverable and sustainable, and the village itself would not be sustainable without a small, controlled amount of growth.  He added that the land was not suitable for farming and this was an ideal use of the site.

The motion was seconded by Councillor G Jones.

Councillor T Neilson concurred with the officer’s recommendation.  He stated that having visited the site, he felt that it was too much out on a limb and the relationship with the village was not as good as was being put forward.  He also felt that pieces of countryside did not have to have some practical use to be valuable.  He stated that the development would look like a sore thumb.

Councillor R Woodward expressed concerns that the site was outside the limits to development and this could set a precedent.  He stated that he supported the idea of small developments in villages, however he expressed concerns and stated that he could not support the proposals.

Councillor D Howe stated that if not for the few weeds, this site would be classified as brownfield.  He felt that this was a very good location for development and expressed support for the proposals.

Councillor J Legrys stated that he would be voting against the motion.  He asked if the Parish Council had made any comment on the proposals.

The Chairman clarified that they had made no comment, however they had discussed the application.

Councillor J Legrys made reference to the list of representations in support of the application and asked if this was a change of policy as he understood that names were not usually listed in the report.  He also sought clarification on who or what Newbold Homes Ltd were.  He felt that there was also an issue regarding setting a precedent as the site was outside the limits to development.  He added that it was a matter of conjecture whether this site was greenfield or brownfield.  He stated that the site was quite distant from the developed part of the village and he felt strongly about that issue.  He made reference to the hourly bus service which had been reduced, and he stated that he could not see how the development would add to the sustainability of the village.  He added that he was very disappointed that Members were minded to permit the application.

The Senior Planning Officer advised that he could not provide the details regarding Newbold Homes Ltd, however a representation had been received from the owner.

The Chairman made reference to a previous application at Oakthorpe which was outside the limits to development, which was permitted due to the local support for the scheme.  He clarified that the bus service remained an hourly service and had not been reduced as indicated.  He concluded that there was nowhere to build in Newbold, and if there was no development, the village could die.  He concluded that the development was sustainable and asked Members to support it.

Councillor R Woodward asked the Chairman to withdraw his statement about how Members had or hadn’t voted at the previous meeting.  He pointed out that Members were asked to consider each application on its own merits.

The Chairman stated that he would not withdraw his statement as it was a fact.

Councillor L Spence commented that the village had a strange layout, as Melbourne Road ran along the outside, yet was clearly part of the village as well.  He added that there were houses which under normal circumstances would be classified as being outside the limits to development, but they utilised the services in the village and there were other houses close by.  He felt that the site was part of the village and as such he was more than happy to support the proposals.  He felt that this was a good development and the issues could be circumvented.

Councillor V Richichi stated that he would support the proposals as they were wanted by the people of Newbold.  He added that this was a breath of fresh air.

Councillor J Hoult stated that he would support the proposals in order to keep the school alive.

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

RESOLVED THAT:

The application be permitted on the grounds that the proposals represented sustainable development.