One self-build dwelling at Land Rear Of 71 Main Street, Osgathorpe

What was proposed

Permission in principle was sought for one self-build dwelling on land behind 71 Main Street.

“Permission in principle for 1 self-build dwelling…”

Officer report

The site and its history

The greenfield site lies outside development limits on Osgathorpe’s edge, and an earlier single-dwelling application was refused in 2001.

“The site is located outside Limits to Development, as defined by the Policy Map to the adopted North West Leicestershire Local Plan (2021). The site is located in on the edge of Osgathorpe to the south west of the village. The application site comprises undeveloped land located to the rear (south) of No. Main Street. It is made up predominantly of grassland with hedgerows to the south and mature trees to the north.”

“The site is outside the Limits to Development as defined by the deposit North West Leicestershire Local Plan (as proposed to modified). Policy H2 presumes against new residential development outside the Limits to Development unless it is essential for the efficieint long term operation of agriculture or forestry or other exceptional criteria. Similar principles are contained with Planning Policy Guidance Note 7 (PPG7).”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The parish council and five objectors raised concerns about countryside development, ecology, access, flooding, drainage, amenities and neighbouring effects, while consultees raised no objections.

“Objection from: Osgathorpe Parish Council object to the application on the following summarised grounds: - The application site is outside the limits to development; - The restricted size of the application area means that any development would either be out of scale with surrounding properties or within its own plot; - Development of the site would result in an avoidable loss of an important local habitat; - The site is on a slope and the development of the site will…”

“No Objections from: Leicestershire County Council – Ecology Team. Leicestershire County Council - Highway Authority. Leicestershire County Council – Lead Local Flood Authority NWLDC Environmental Protection Team.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The agent supported the application, an objector opposed it, and the ward member opposed it over location, character, amenities and policy conflict.

What members debated

Members questioned the site’s location, policy conflict, lack of amenities, flooding issues and whether the self-build shortfall should be considered.

“During discussion, members noted the application was outside the limits of development, as it was contrary to Policies S2 and S3 in the Local Plan which promote sustainable development, and the location was unsuitable due to a lack of amenities. Possible issues related to flooding were also highlighted which members believed could have occurred beyond the Planning in Principle (PIP) stage of the application.”

“A member also commented that there was no need to take into account the undersupply of self-build properties at this stage, as the rate at which the requirement was being fulfilled was sufficient.”

Minutes

The votes

The motion to approve was lost, while the motion to refuse was carried.

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

“Motion to permit the application in accordance with the officer's recommendations. (Motion) Councillor Ray Morris Against Councillor Dave Bigby Against Councillor Rachel Canny Against Councillor David Everitt Against Councillor John Legrys Against Councillor Peter Moult For Councillor Jenny Simmons Against Councillor Anthony Barker For Councillor Michael Wyatt Against Rejected Motion to refuse the application on the grounds that it would conflict with Policies S2 and S3 in…”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The application was refused because it conflicted with Policies S2 and S3 and would have a visual impact on the area.

“Councillor D Bigby moved to refuse the application on the grounds that it would conflict with Policies S2 and S3 in the Local Plan and would have a visual impact on the area. It was seconded by Councillor R Canny.”

“The application be refused on the grounds that it would conflict with Policies S2 and S3 in the Local Plan and would have a visual impact on the area.”

Minutes