75-home outline development at Land West Of Midland Road, Ellistown

What was proposed

An outline scheme proposed up to 75 homes with landscaping, open space, drainage and access from Midland Road, while other matters remained reserved.

“Development of site to provide for up to 75 dwellings with associated landscaping, open space, drainage infrastructure and associated works (outline, all matters reserved matters except for the principal means of access of vehicular access off Midland Road).”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

An earlier outline application for up to 185 homes on the site was withdrawn in November 2017.

“- 17/00181/OUTM – Erection of up to 185 dwellings with public open space, landscaping and sustainable urban drainage system and vehicular access points (outline – all matters reserved except for part access) – Withdrawn 28 th November 2017.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval subject to conditions and a Section 106 agreement securing affordable housing, infrastructure contributions, open space, play facilities and biodiversity measures.

“RECOMMENDATION – PERMIT, subject to the following conditions and the securing of a Section 106 Agreement to deliver the following;”

“(a) Affordable Housing – 30% of the total number of properties constructed (if 75 dwellings are constructed this would amount to 23 dwellings). (b) Education - £636,906.90. (c) Civic Amenity - £4,903.50. (d) Libraries - £2,264.83. (e) Transportation - £125,463.75. (f) Health - £58,080.00. (g) Police - £13,589.01.”

Officer report

Why officers supported it

Officers found policy conflict because the site was outside development limits, but considered the housing, affordable homes, sustainability and draft allocation benefits outweighed that conflict.

“It is also material that there were limited objections to the allocation of the site as set out above (with less third party representations received to this application) and that these objections can be considered as largely resolved.”

“The proposal would conflict with Policy S3 of the adopted Local Plan and Policy S2 of the made EBNP, in terms of being an unallocated site in the countryside outside the defined Limits to Development. Whilst significant weight is afforded to Policy S3 (as well as Policy S2 of the made EBNP), it is considered that the proposed development does not conflict with the criteria used to assess the suitability of development in the countryside.”

Officer report

What consultees said

Highways, flood-risk, ecology, archaeology and other consultees raised no objections subject to conditions, while the parish council objected over traffic, safety, development pressure and biodiversity.

“- The green space in the village will all have been utilised for development over the last 10 years. - The cumulative effect of extra traffic in the village will cause unnecessary harm. - There have been no improvements to traffic or pedestrian safety within the parish in the last 10 years despite the amount of development undertaken. - The identity of Ellistown as a village has been lost.”

“Leicestershire County Council – Archaeology. Leicestershire County Council – Developer Contributions. Leicestershire County Council – Ecology. Leicestershire County Council – Highways Authority. Leicestershire County Council – Lead Local Flood Authority. Leicestershire Police – Designing Out Crime Officer. Leicestershire Police – Section 106 Officer. National Forest Company. NHS Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland Integrated Care Board. NWLDC Affordable Housing Enabler.”

Officer report

Who spoke

An objector raised local concerns, the agent supported the proposal, and the Ward Member opposed it over safety, flooding and neighbourhood-plan issues.

What members discussed

Members discussed the Ward Member’s reasons, the emerging plan, affordable homes, highways, tree planting and surface-water flooding, including the Lead Local Flood Authority’s position.

“In determining the application some Members felt that the Ward Member had put forward compelling reasons as to why the application should be refused. Clarification was sought and provided on how much weight the Committee could give to the emerging Local Plan, how and when, during the process, the affordable homes would be built, that there had been no objections or requests for safety measures from the Local Highways Authority and that a note could be added to the applicant…”

“The Legal Advisor reminded the Committee that, should they be minded to refuse the application than strong reasons for refusal would be required.”

Minutes

The committee vote

The motion to permit the application under the officers’ recommendation was carried after a recorded vote.

“The Officers recommendation to permit the application was moved by Councillor R Morris and seconded by Councillor P Moult.”

“Motion to permit in accordance with officer's recommendation (Motion) Councillor Russell Boam For Councillor Ray Morris For Councillor Morgan Burke Against Councillor David Everitt Against Councillor Peter Moult For Councillor Carol Sewell For Councillor Jenny Simmons For Councillor Nigel Smith Against Councillor Doug Cooper For Councillor Michael Wyatt Against Councillor Anthony Barker For Carried…”

Minutes

The decision

The application was permitted in accordance with the officers’ recommendation.

“The application be permitted in accordance with the Officer’s recommendations.”

Minutes