Application for erection of 60 dwellings including engineering infill operation and associated works.
Members raised a number of concerns about the potential impact of the site. These included loss of open space, its non-viability, overdevelopment, loss of amenity, noise/vibration, unsustainability and several members indicated that they would propose refusal of the application.
In response, officers emphasised the following:
· That the site had an extant outline planning permission for residential development together with the infilling of the pit which had been granted on appeal in December 2014 and which was a significant material planning consideration which established the loss of the open space, along with the filling of the pit and redevelopment of the site for residential
· That Leicestershire County Council had refused the appealed application in 2014 and had had costs awarded against it for not pursuing one of the reasons for refusal in relation to flood risk
· That the main considerations relating to the development of the site, namely drainage and flooding, highway safety and traffic movement, nature conservation interests and amenity (as a result of the proposed engineering works) had been taken into account by the Inspector at the 2014 appeal who considered that, subject to appropriate safeguards and mitigation measures which would be secured by conditions, the development would not unacceptably worsen the living conditions of neighbours or future residents and it would not adversely affect nature conservation interests
· That these same considerations applied in relation to the current application and the same conditions imposed by the Inspector would be re-imposed leading to the same conclusion on the impact of the development
· That, specifically and significantly, no objections to the current proposal had been received (subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions) from the following statutory and other consultees:
o Environment Agency
o Leicestershire County Council (drainage)
o Leicestershire County Council (highways)
o Leicestershire County Council (Ecology)
o HBBC Environmental Health (pollution)
o HBBC Environmental Health (drainage)
· That the proposal was for the provision of 100% affordable housing which itself was a significant policy consideration for the committee
· That there were no substantive and material planning grounds for refusing the application and that a refusal would be likely to be lost on appeal with a consequent award of costs against the council.
Notwithstanding this advice from officers, refusal of the application was proposed by Councillor Kirby and seconded by Councillor Hodgkins. The committee was advised that, in accordance with paragraph 2.12 of the Planning Committee procedure rules, any such motion shall be deemed to be a motion of “minded to refuse” and that consideration of the application would be deferred to the next meeting of the committee.
Councillor Witherford, along with two other councillors, requested that voting on this motion be recorded.
The vote was taken as follows:
Councillors Boothby, Bray, Cook, Cope, Crooks, Hodgkins, Hollick, Kirby, Roberts, Smith, Witherford and Wright voted FOR the motion (12);
Councillors Ladkin, Surtees, Sutton and Ward voted AGAINST the motion (4).
The motion was therefore declared CARRIED and it was
RESOLVED – the committee be minded to refuse permission in accordance with paragraph 2.12 of the procedure rules.
Councillor Bray left the meeting at 7.55pm.