Plans turned down to build 120 homes in village
Village has grown substantially in last five years says resident
ROAD SAFETY DANGERS CITED AS ONE REASON FOR REFUSAL
PLANS for 120 homes in Desford have been refused over concerns they would have a “severe impact” on road safety.
The proposal for land off Kirkby Road, near Desford Primary School, was brought forward by Davidsons Homes, which first filed plans in 2014.
Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council said in its decision notice: “The development would create an increase in vehicular movements adjacent to a school and recreation ground which, along with the residual cumulative impacts in Kirkby Road, a narrow approach road where on-street car parking is prevalent, would result in the development having a severe impact on highway safety.”
Many residents opposed the plans.
Dad Graham Cole said the village could not cope with so many more new homes.
He has said: “Desford has satisfied its obligations and grown substantially in the past five years, way in excess of its obligations, with almost all development on green fields.
“There has been little or no increase in Hinckley and Bosworth sponsored investment.
“We have no proposals for increased footpaths or cycle paths to connect us to Leicester and, indeed, our bus service is likely to diminish.
“Connectivity to Hinckley is very bad. Our traffic levels have increased substantially, with Manor Road now splitting the village with no pedestrian crossings despite there being in excess of 1,500 schoolchildren in the village schools every day.
“I understand the pressures on the council to build houses, but why are so many in Desford with its oversubscribed schools and doctors?
“Surely a bypass should be a non-negotiable condition for further development.”
A Facebook group opposing the plans was set up when the application was submitted previously, so villagers could share updates.
Planners also refused the application over concerns about the impact on the landscape.
The council’s decision notice said: “The application proposes development in the countryside, where its built form would be at odds with the site’s current open character.
“The development does not protect the intrinsic value, beauty and open character of this countryside location.”