Plan­ning in­spec­tor says yes to ‘re­jected’ flats plan

Hinckley Times - - NEWS - NI­CHOLAS DAW­SON ni­cholas.daw­son@reach­

A COUN­CIL­LOR has hit out af­ter plans were ap­proved for five blocks of flats on the fringes of the town.

Cllr David Bill rep­re­sents Claren­don ward on Hinck­ley and Bos­worth Bor­ough Coun­cil and was dis­mayed that the Plan­ning In­spec­tor al­lowed an ap­peal to build 55 one, two and three-bed­room flats off Pad­dock Way.

The coun­cil’s plan­ning com- mit­tee re­fused the plans from Cen­tre Es­tates Lim­ited in May 2017 on the grounds that the lay­out and mix of the prop­er­ties would not com­ple­ment or en­hance the char­ac­ter of the area.

There were also con­cerns it would over de­velop the site and fail to pro­vide a mix of hous­ing types and tenures suit­able to the lo­ca­tion.

Cllr Bill said: “This goes against ev­ery­thing we were led to ex­pect and is un­be­liev­able bear­ing in mind that the ap­prov- al for 10 de­tached prop­er­ties was it­self a com­pro­mise. “For over 15 years we have been ar­gu­ing that this one re­main­ing stretch of orig­i­nal coun­try­side the length of Coven­try Road should be re­tained.

“We ar­gued against the pro­posal to put 18 houses on the site and this was re­duced to 10 by the Plan­ning In­spec­tor.

The Lib Dem coun­cil­lor said: “I have asked the of­fi­cers to look care­fully to see if there are any grounds to chal­lenge the rul­ing and I have also asked the af­fected res­i­dents to do the same.

“One key as­pect is de­cides on good de­sign.

“Every­one in­volved, res­i­dents, plan­ners and coun­cil­lors came to the con­clu­sion that the de­sign is un­ac­cept­able and yet one per­son has the right to im­pose his view on every­one else.”

A spokesper­son for the coun­cil said: “The devel­oper ap­pealed to the Plan­ning In­spec­tor who sub­se­quently con­cluded the de­vel­op­ment who would not have a harm­ful ef­fect on the char­ac­ter and ap­pear­ance of the sur­round­ing area.

“The In­spec­tor al­lowed the ap­peal and granted plan­ning per­mis­sion.

“The devel­oper also ap­pealed to the In­spec­tor for its costs to be paid by the coun­cil.

“How­ever this was re­fused by the In­spec­tor who did not find the coun­cil had demon­strated un­rea­son­able be­hav­iour that had re­sulted in un­nec­es­sary or wasted ex­pense.”

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from UK

© PressReader. All rights reserved.