Agenda item

Land At Leicester Road Ashby De La Zouch Leicestershire

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

Mr C Tandy, objector, addressed the meeting.  He stated that Ashby had exceeded its housing allocation in all respects and there were sites in Ashby that had already been put forward.  He felt that the proposed highways mitigation measures were not sufficient and highlighted that 32% of all traffic accidents in Ashby took place in this area.  He stated that the traffic on Wood Street continued to grow and the junction had been shown to be over capacity.  He added that development commitments of over 600 houses had not been taken into account.  He urged Members to refuse the application on the grounds of excessive housing and severe congestion.

The Legal Advisor explained that as Councillor R Adams had left the meeting during the presentation, he would be unable to take part in the voting thereon.

Mrs H Bareford, applicant, addressed the meeting.  She stated that David Wilson Homes was a major local business with a commitment to building high quality homes.  She pointed out that the site was allocated for residential development and therefore the principal of development was acceptable.  She added that the development would not adversely impact upon the housing land supply and there were a number of positive local benefits and the development offered a diverse mix of homes including affordable housing.  She stated that the development was sustainable with good transport links, and of high quality design, reflecting the traditional characteristics of the surroundings.  She made reference to the Section 106 agreement and the fact that there were no technical objections to the scheme, including no highways impact.  She added that approval was awaited from Leicestershire County Council on the works to the Wood Street junction.  She respectfully requested that Members give due consideration to supporting the application in accordance with the adopted local plan, the NPPF and the officer’s recommendation.

Councillor J G Coxon stated that the Wood Street junction was chaotic and choked up at certain times of the day.  He pointed out that the developers had not installed traffic lights on the previous phase of the development as they had promised.  He felt that congestion was increasing and he could not support the application.  He added that the Town Council were not in favour of the application.  He concluded that one solution would be to defer the application until the traffic lights were installed.

The Planning and Development Team Manager stated that this was a fair comment, as the Wood Street signalised improvements had not yet been carried out, which was a condition of phase 1 of the development.  He felt however that this was no reason not to approve this application as a condition could be imposed that the dwellings remain unoccupied until the traffic lights were installed.  He understood that there could be further delays in completing the signalised improvements.

Councillor J Legrys expressed support for the views of Councillor J G Coxon.  He stated that he understood the reason for the delay in the signalised works was that the applicant had not undertaken satisfactory underground investigations prior to submitting the application and equipment had been found which would be expensive to move.  He expressed concerns that it was currently unknown whether or not the signalisation would improve the traffic situation.  He added that the Corkscrew Lane junction was not good and there had been a number of accidents there, and this situation should not be exacerbated.  He added that his main concern was the housing land supply, as permission had already been given for 5,500 dwellings, and the Council would probably soon be able to demonstrate a 10 year housing land supply at this rate.  He added that there would soon be no land under the SHMA upon which to grant permissions.  He expressed concerns about prematurity and felt that he would want to see the local plan resolved first.

Councillor J G Coxon moved that the application be deferred until the traffic lights were installed. 

The motion was seconded by Councillor J Legrys.

The Chairman reminded Members that if the application was now deferred, the members of the public would be unable to speak again.

The Director of Services advised that an open-ended deferral would be very risky and difficult to sustain as the applicant would likely appeal against non-determination.  He stated that if Members were minded to defer the application, it should be to seek further advice from the Highways Authority on the transport assessment.  He strongly advised against an open-ended deferral.

The moved and seconder of the motion indicated that they were happy with this advice, subject to the application being deferred for a sufficient amount of time for the proper and considered advice to be sought.

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

Councillor M Specht stated that the land had been allocated for development and he could see no reason to refuse the application.  He moved that the application be permitted in accordance with the officer’s recommendation.

The motion was seconded by Councillor M B Wyatt.

The motion was then put to the vote and it was

RESOLVED THAT:

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