Agenda item

Ashby Folville Manor, Gaddesby Lane, Ashby Folville

Location:     Ashby Folville Manor, Gaddesby Lane, Ashby Folville, LE14 2TG

Proposal:     Partial demolition and remodelling of derelict lodge to create annex to the Manor including access works; erection of 5no. cottages; reinstatement of the former driveway and gates to the Manor and reinstatement of parkland in place of modern driveway; resurfacing of driveway and hardstanding surrounding the Manor; and restoration of bridge

 

The Planning Officer (MK) addressed the Committee and provided a summary of the application. Members asked 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, Gaddesby Parish Council

-        Parish Council opposes application as it is contrary to Local Plan and the Gaddesby Neighbourhood Plan.

-        Location is unsustainable and lacks amenities.

-        No proven need for development within parish.

-        Two-bedroom houses but with rooms that can be converted into an additional bedroom which would exacerbate parking provision.

·       Sharon Butcher, Supporter

-        Applicant has done all they can to comply.

-        Applicant wants to rebuild the gate house and enhance the heritage.

·       Chris May, Agent

-        Applicant has listened to concerns and amended accordingly.

-        Few objections out of a population of 800.

-        Scheme delivers heritage benefits.

-        Replacement of two five-bedroom cottages and with five cottages is more in keeping with the area.

-        Lodge has deteriorated and needs urgent restoration.

·       Councillor Child, Ward Councillor

-        Only element that would bring a benefit is the partial demolition of the lodge.

-        Rest of the planning would have a detriment to the area.

-        New housing would be contrary to local plan and Neighbourhood Plan.

-        Proposed development is neither necessary or appropriate.

 

A Member commented that they were unsure how to balance up the policies with the heritage benefit.

 

The comment was made that the Committee are informed that they have to adhere to the policies and the application is contrary to the policies SS1, SS2 and SS3.

 

It was noted that the application is in an unsustainable location and that there is limited heritage to be gained.

 

Councillor Browne proposed to refuse the application and Councillor Pritchett seconded the motion.

 

RESOLVED

 

That the application be REFUSED.

 

(For 7, Against 2, Abstentions 0)

 

Pursuant to the Constitution, Chapter 3, Part 1, Procedure Rule 17.6, Councillor Glancy indicated that her vote against the motion be recorded.

 

REASONS

In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the proposal would, if approved, result in the provision of five 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.