Agenda item

67 Station Road Hugglescote Coalville Leicestershire LE67 2GB

The Interim Principal Planning Officer presented the report to members.

Mr M Miller, objector, addressed the committee highlighting the application did not make sense to the local community and should remain a green space. He advised that the area was an important archaeology site and other important sites in the area had already been lost to development. He expressed concerns over the additional traffic on the roads especially when an application for two houses on the site had previously been refused on highways grounds.

Mr A Large, agent, addressed the committee highlighting that the applicant had  engaged with both residents and the Parish Council, that the officer’s report made reference thatthe proposal included for bungalows and the application also included a footpath and areas for open space. He added that 50% or more of the development would be affordable homes, the site was inside the Limits to Development and there were no objections from statutory consultees.

Mr T Rose, flood-engineering consultant, addressed the committee highlighting that the drainage provision proposed would control the flow of water into the River Sence via a large attenuation pond that would be on site. He noted that the Lead Local Flood Authority had raised no objections to the application and that Severn Trent Water had put in infrastructure to mitigate against flooding and had ensured the system had sufficient capacity.

Councillor R Johnson, Ward Member, addressed the committee highlighting that the site in question had always flooded and,  with the building of 30 dwellings pursuant to this application, there would be no soakaway, but adjoining existing properties would be affected. He drew attention to the sewerage system that was already overburdened, the site being a greenfield site not in the Local Plan, the parish council’s un-adopted neighbourhood plan which seeks to retain the site as open space and that previous planning applications for the site had been refused on highways grounds. He added that the application was inappropriate and urged members to refuse.

In determining the application, many Members expressed deep concerns over the continual flooding in the area and that the sewer system could not cope with any further development in the village. They also expressed concerns over the access to site and that, again, the highways infrastructure in the area was already at capacity. The future management of the proposed SuDS scheme was also a concern. However, it was noted by some Members that there were no objections from any of the statutory consultees and that the flooding issues that had occurred previously had resulted from other developments and infrastructure was now in place.

A motion to permit the application in accordance with the officer’s recommendation was moved by Councillor J Hoult and seconded by Councillor A Bridgen.

The Chairman put the motion to the vote. A recorded vote being required, the voting was as detailed below.

The motion was declared LOST.

A motion to refuse the application, on the grounds that it was contrary to policies Cc2 and Cc3, there were highways safety concerns, and that there was insufficient information surrounding the proposed management of the SuDS following completion of the development was moved by Councillor J Geary and seconded by Councillor J Legrys.

The Chairman put the motion to the vote. A recorded vote being required, the voting was as detailed below.

RESOLVED THAT:

The application be refused on the grounds that it was contrary to policies Cc2 and Cc3, there were highways safety concerns, and that there was insufficient information surrounding the proposed management of the SuDS following completion of the development.

The committee adjourned at 7.50pm and reconvened at 7.57pm.