Agenda item

Ashby Folville Manor, Gaddesby Lane, Ashby Folville

The Planning Officer (MK) addressed the Committee and provided a summary of the application. He recommended that item 10.9 is deleted, as the receipt of an Impact Assessment and Conservation Payment Certificate countersigned by Natural England has already been requested within the recommendations. Following the presentation, there were questions for clarification.

Pursuant to Chapter 2, Part 9, Paragraphs 2.8-2.28 of the Council’s Constitution in relation to public speaking at Planning Committee, the Chair allowed the following to give a three-minute presentation.

• John Simon – Parish Council
• Chris May – Agent
• Councillor Robert Child – Ward Councillor

The Chair read an email from Councillor Butcher, the Portfolio Holder for Regeneration, Economic Development and Heritage to say that she supports the application.

During the debate the following points were raised:

• It was felt it should be a condition if the application is approved, that water reports are obtained as there are big concerns regarding flooding. It was also said the fact that Severn Trent had not responded should not be taken as acceptance, an approved drainage scheme by Severn Trent should also be written into the conditions. A reference was made to the previous application regards sewage and water it was recommended that a small sewage treatment station was installed and to discharge the clean water into the ditch on the northern boundary.
• It was queried why planning policy can be overridden on this application; it is the professional opinion of the Officer that the benefits of the conservation improvements do outweigh the policy.
• It was said if the application was passed would it not encourage other builders to want to develop around this area, this has only been recommended due to the heritage conservation, so other building would not be permitted.
• The comment was made that if the application is refused, the existing application for the 2-5 bedroomed houses would impede the restoration of the Gatehouse.
• The comment was made that there is a neighbourhood plan and this development goes against this and there should be certainty around having a neighbourhood plan. It was also felt that the existing application would not stop the heritage conservation as funds would also be raised from this.
• It was felt the main benefit is to owner not the village and should the good of the heritage be balanced against the good to the village.
• The comment was made that the cottages should be seen as encouragement for future generations to stay in the village, especially as they are small homes, they aren’t in the conservation area and the benefits do outweigh the harm.
• The homes should not be allowed as holiday lets but kept for private dwellings.

Councillor Browne proposed the application be refused contrary to Officer recommendations. Councillor Sharp seconded the motion.

RESOLVED

The Planning Committee REFUSED the application contrary to Officer recommendation.

(For 7, Against 3, Abstentions 1)

Councillors Cumbers and Glancy requested that their votes against the motion were recorded.

REASONS

In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the proposal would, if approved, result in the provision of seven additional dwellings in an unsustainable location. The development occupies an unsustainable location where there are limited local amenities, facilities and jobs, and where future residents are likely to depend highly on the use of a private motor vehicle. The proposal does not meet an identified proven local need and would be contrary to Policies, SS1, SS2 and SS3 of the Local Plan which seeks to restrict development in such settlements to that which is based on a local proven need. The proposal would also be contrary to Policies HBE1 and HBE3 of the adopted Neighbourhood Plan. The limited heritage benefits of the proposal do not outweigh the significant harm that would be caused by the unsustainable location of the development.