Agenda item

Land South Of Babelake Street Packington Ashby De La Zouch

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report to Members.

Mr T Collins, objector, addressed the meeting. He advised Members that the application was contary to the Local Plan and NPPF, and that brownfield sites should be considered first. He stated that there was no justification to permitting the application and that it would be the size of seventy five football pitches. He informed Members that no impact assessment had been carried out on Champneys Health Resort as this was the single largest development next to the site and it was bad planning to consider developing next to the resort.

Mr S Purdue, objector, addressed the meeting. He advised the Committee that he had owned Springs for 25 years and they were proud to have played host to Olympic teams. He stated that he employed 250 people and that they were responsible to for protecting local jobs for local people. He highlighted that the site would be seen from the resort and urged Members to refuse the application so that a more suitable site could be considered.

Mr S Plummer, objector, addressed the meeting. He advised Members that he had lived in the area for 20 years and urged the Committee to defer the application to allow further consideration to be given to the location of the access to the site. He stated that Babelake Street would be unsuitable for lorries to travel along and that there would be up to 500 HGV movements during the construction period. He informed Members that there was a more suitable entrance along a B road and that would avoid danger to the users of Babelake Street. He urged Members to oppose the application.

Professor T Marmont, supporter, addressed the meeting. He advised Members that he was in support of renewable energy and that the development of Solar Panel farms was essential to provide the country with energy security due to climate change as it was becoming more difficult to rely on other energy suppliers.

Mr G Maruca, applicant, addressed the meeting. He advised Members that they had worked hard to ensure community involvement in the application, that the Parish Councils were in favour and that 30 letters of support had been received. He stated that there were no objections from the highways authority in relation to the access and that he had been in direct contact with the owners of Springs, and had tried to address all their concerns as they had progressed. He informed Members that it was proposed that 3,900 homes would be powered by the energy that would be produced.

Councillor N Smith stated that he had been lobbied intensely on the application and all had been in relation to the access of the site. He moved that the application be deferred so that access could be discussed further.

There was no seconder.

Councillor D Everitt stated that there would be a need for other energy sources when fossil fuel ran out and that a solar farm would be more suitable than windmills. He moved the officer recommendations. This was seconded by Councillor M Specht.

Councillor J Legrys stated that he understood where Councillor N Smith was coming from and that he would have seconded the deferral had the highway authority not said they had no objections. He added that Members may wish to consider adding a condition to the permission restricting traffic movements during peak times and mature planting in the bund. He highlighted that the farm would only be there for 25 years and that the site was in an area that could be permitted for open cast mines, which would be objected to. He asked for an explanation on the right of a view and overbearing applications.

The Senior Planning Officer advised Members that there would be no right to a view on this application.

Councillor M Specht stated that he had listened to the speakers, that neither of the Parish Councils who speak for the residents had any objections and none of the consultees had objected. He felt that Babelake Street was adequate to drive down with some areas to pull over, whereas Gallows Lane had limited view for traffic leaving the site. He added that the noise and disturbance would last for 2 to 3 months and that the solar panels would be removed after 25 years, and that he would be supporting the application.

Councillor D J Stevenson asked for an update on the Secretary of State Call-In.

The Director of Services advised Members that the National Planning Casework Unit was considering the Call-In and that Members could resolve to permit the application but the authority to would not be in a position to issue the permission, if the Call-In was to be determined by the Secretary of State.

Councillor J Bridges suggested that if the application was approved a condition be added to restrict the construction traffic movements until after 9am.

The Planning and Development Team Manager informed the Committee that it was not normal practice to impose traffic movement conditions on developers.

Councillor J Bridges advised Members that it was normal practice to restrict deliveries to construction sites and that it would be nice if the applicant agreed.

RESOLVED THAT:

The application be permitted in accordance with the recommendation of the Director of Services and the inclusion of a construction traffic condition.