Venue: Parkside, Station Approach, Burton Street, Melton Mowbray, Leicestershire, LE13 1GH
Contact: Development Control
No. | Item |
---|---|
Apologies for Absence Minutes: Cllr Posnett |
|
To confirm the minutes of the previous meeting on 9th November 2017 Minutes: Minutes of the meeting held
on 9th November 2017. Approval of the minutes was
proposed by Cllr Holmes and seconded by Cllr Botterill. It was unanimously
agreed that the Chair sign them as a true record. |
|
Declarations of Interest Members to declare any
interest as appropriate in respect of items to be considered at this meeting. Minutes: The Chair (Cllr Illingworth) declared a personal and non-pecuniary interest in application 17/00596/FUL but had been legally advised this did not prohibit his participation in the discussion. The Chair advised that Cllr Orson would ordinarily speak on application 17/00596/FUL as the Ward Councillor but has a disclosable pecuniary interest. |
|
Schedule of Applications |
|
Field OS 3300, Oakham Road, Somerby Minutes: Applicant: Hazelton Homes And Mark Curtis Bennett - Mr
Tom Hazelton Location: Field OS 3300, Oakham Road, Somerby Proposal: Residential development for up to 31no
dwellings (re-submission of 16/00100/OUT). (a) The Head of
Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services stated that: We have received a request for deferral from the applicant
on the grounds: • Absence of
a response of the LLFA in terms of establishing any existing flood risk from
ground water and surface water at the site. Given that the issues revolve
around whether or not the Site is at any existing flood risk with regard to
surface water and/or groundwater (and therefore whether the Sequential Test is
potentially applicable), it is clearly important for the LLFA’s position on
that point to be known as they are statutory body responsible for managing the
risk of flooding from surface water and groundwater in the area. • To consider
the wider implication for the Emerging Local Plan if allocated sites are
vulnerable failure of any Sequential Test not just in the Somerby site but
potentially other sites within the Borough. An objector has responded expressing the view that we have
had sufficient time to consider the application, sufficient information has
been provided and we are able to make a fully informed decision. The HoRS expressed the view that
it is a close cut case. Whilst the LLFA would bring a further perspective we do
not consider we are lacking in understanding, otherwise the report would not
have been published. He commented that if we proceed: • Applicants
consultants advise that the site is not at risk of flooding from any source.
This is a view shared by both the EA and the LLFA. On the basis that the site
is not a risk of flooding, it clearly would pass any sequential test or
approach applied to it. • Application
of the Sequential Test: The starting point is the NPPF, being a statement of
government policy which was subject to consultation prior to its publication
and, before amendment, requires consultation. PPG (which of course can be
changed at any time), cannot usurp the NPPF; it is a guide to the application
of the NPPF. • We are
dealing with “decision-taking” rather than plan-making. On “Avoiding risk” PPG states that, in decision-taking,
LPAs should apply the “sequential approach” which “involves applying the
Sequential Test for specific development proposals and, if needed, the
Exception Test for specific development proposals, to steer development to
areas with the lowest probability of flooding”. Clearly, on any interpretation
of that paragraph, if the development passes the Sequential Test it accords
with the sequential approach. This should be conclusive. • “This general approach is designed to ensure that areas at little or no risk of flooding from any source are developed in preference to areas at higher risk”. Even if this is applicable to decision-taking the site is clearly, at worse and on the basis of the Third Parties evidence comprising photographs, at “little” risk of flooding from any ... view the full minutes text for item PL62.1 |
|
Land at Cottage Farm, 36 Main Road, Kirby Bellars Minutes: Applicant: Mr R Ogleby Location: Land
At Cottage Farm, 36 Main Road, Kirby Bellars Proposal: Demolition of agricultural buildings and
the erection of 3 dwellings. (a) The Planning
Officer (JL) stated that: No additional representations/ late items received for the
application. The application seeks planning permission to erect three
dwellings on the site. This will replace the existing agricultural building on
the site, which is currently the subject of an abatement notice with MBC’s
Environmental Health. It is proposed that access to the site will be achieved from
Station Road. LCC Highways have raised no objection to the proposed development
(subject to condition). MBC Environmental Health have also raised no objection,
subject to the inclusion of a contamination condition (as included in the
recommendation). Whilst the location of the proposed development is not one
that would usually be appropriate, it is considered that the removal of the
buildings (as a result of this development ) would be of an exceptional
circumstance to warrant the approval of the application. The Chair asked for Members to suspend standing orders to
allow a supported to speak. It was unanimously decided that standing orders
would be suspended. (b) Mr Paul
Osmond, a supporter, was invited to speak and stated that: • Intolerable
living with current smell and waste • Prefer
dwellings that won’t affect quality of life • Residents
support application A Cllr asked if Mr Osmond knew the smell could be removed
would he still support the houses. Mr Osmond stated that the houses would not affect him at
all. A Cllr asked how far the agricultural buildings are from Mr
Osmond’s house. Mr Osmond stated they are 50m away, therefore very close and
intense. The Chair asked Members if they would suspend standing orders
to allow a second supporter to speak. Cllr Holmes proposed to allow and was
seconded by Cllr Botterill. It was unanimously decided that standing orders
would be suspended. (c) Tina Mist, a
supporter, was invited to speak, and stated that: • Home is 40m
away from agricultural buildings • Neighbours
were not consulted on application for livestock • No
objections to building to store farm machinery • High hedge
and low ground therefore houses not an impact • Currently
impacts quality of life • No objection
to three houses A Cllr asked if the original application was not for
livestock. Ms Mist stated that neighbours were not consulted on an
application for livestock as there is a highway between them. The Head of Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services
stated that an application was dealt with in 2014 for agricultural buildings
but this has a broad scope. The Environmental Health Officer (VC) stated that the first neighbour complaint was submitted in February 2016. 58 visits to the site were taken and 64% of the time there was an odour. A nuisance notice was served in September 2016 and there have been legal circumstances since trying to resolve the matter. Mechanical ventilation had been looked at to ensure the smell ... view the full minutes text for item PL62.2 |
|
10 Church Lane, Redmile Minutes: Applicant: Dr and
Mrs Ben Lobo Location: The
Byre, 10 Church Lane, Redmile Proposal: First
floor extension (a) The
Applications and Advice Manager advised that: The application seeks planning permission for a first floor
extension to form master bedroom/en-suite and
dressing room. The proposal as amended measures 0.8 metres in height and spans
10.2 metres across the existing dwelling, providing 2.3 metre high living
accommodation at ground floor and 2.2 metre high living accommodation at first
floor. The proposed materials are red
reclaimed brick to walls, and existing pantiles will be used for the roof. The site is located within Redmile and forms
part of the designated Conservation Area. It is considered that the main issues relating to the
application are: • The impact of the proposal on the
residential amenities of neighbouring properties • The visual impact of the proposal on
the character and appearance of the settlement The impact on
neighbours has been reduced by an amendment which reduced the height of
the proposal by 0.5m. It is considered that while there may be some impact upon
neighbours to the east ,particularly No.8,this would not have a significantly
adverse impact upon the amenities of these neighbours. There would be some impact upon the character and appearance
of the area. The application is
re-presented following deferment on 9 November 2017, the application was
deferred in order to re-examine potential conservation issues, these are
addressed within the report which concludes that there is no adverse impact
upon the surrounding Conservation Area. (b) Cllr Ian Lowther, from the Parish
Council, was invited to speak and stated that: • Overdeveloped • Impact on
Conservation Area • Not
currently 3 bed, at least 4 bed • More
parking needed than 2 spaces • Street
parking already under pressure on Narrow Lane • Impact on
conservation area substantial • Proposal hasn’t changed however harm
has changed from less than substantial to non substantial • Increase in
street parking • Adverse
affect on neighbours – number 8 most affected • Blocks out
light • NPPF states
harm should be weighed against benefits – no benefits A Cllr asked if there was a problem for ambulances etc. to
access. Cllr Lowther stated that a resident had a heart attack and
it took the ambulance approximately 20 minutes to get to them as it had to
reverse down the street. (c) Clare Chantrey, an objector, was invited to speak, and stated
that: • Anomaly to report – previously
reported less than substantial harm and now reports no harm, but the
application has not changed • Harm should
be balanced against benefits – there are no benefits • Harm to
historic building and heritage asset • Residential
amenity affected • Height
affects access to natural light • Overbearing • Not enough
car parking spaces • Strain on
already insufficient situation • Worsen
character of conservation area • Impact on
all neighbours (d) Mr Ben Lobo,
the applicant, was invited to speak and stated that: |
|
Friars Well Farm, North Drive, Wartnaby Minutes: Applicant: Friars
Well Farm Business Park - Mr Geoffrey Johnson Location: Friars
Well Farm, North Drive, Wartnaby Proposal: Construction of 3 commercial buildings for
B1 and B8 uses, associated access delivery tuning areas and landscaping. (a) The
Applications and Advice Manager (LP) stated that: This application is for full
planning permission for the construction of 3 independent commercial buildings
for B1 and B8 uses, measuring 24.6 metres by 46 metres floor area. Total floor space 3395 square metres. The 3 buildings will be sited next to each
other with gables facing south outwards the access road. There will be 12.2 metres gaps between them
to allow for rear accessed and staff parking.
The buildings each measure 4.57 metres to eaves and 6.9 metres to ridge. The application site is adjacent an existing business estate
on the edge of the village of Wartnaby and seeks
consent for the principle of additional employment land with the Borough. Consideration to material and design have
been given in relation to its semi-rural nature and also the use of existing
mature screening, along with details of design, layout and appearance, it is
considered that the principles of the development is acceptable in this
location. Despite concerns regarding highways issues, no evidence has
been put forward that any such increase would significantly harm road safety
interests and the Highways Authority have confirmed that the roads serving the
site do not have a capacity issue and neither is there a traffic accident
issue. Accordingly, it is not considered
that these concerns can be substantiated and withstand challenge. Details of Conservation have been considered and the
separation afforded from the application site to the Conservation Area is
considered acceptable in this instance. For these reasons the proposals are considered in accordance
with local and national planning policy (NPPF) and no other material
considerations indicate it should depart from these. The application is recommended to be
conditionally approved. (b) Wilson Boardman, the Chairman of the
Parish Council, was invited to speak and stated that: • Additional
traffic • Commercial
vans/lorries go through Ab Kettleby • Parking and
speed problems • Inconvenience
to pedestrians, horse riders and bikes • Emergency
services would not get through • Inappropriate
– there are more sites for this development • Concerns on
loss of amenity A Cllr asked if there was signage on the village road. Mr Boardman stated that there had been efforts from the
applicant to reroute traffic to not go through the village however this cannot
be controlled. Cllr Holmes left the meeting at 8.18pm. (c) William
Musson, an objector, was invited to speak and stated that: • Larger
development • Overcapacity
of storage facilities • Traffic
concerns • Damage to
road • Close to
conservation area and will harm rural setting • Less than
substantial harm • Visual
impact • Detract
from attractiveness of landscape – trees removed • Loss of
recreational activity • Loss of
residential amenity – noise issue • Few
benefits • No new jobs
created |
|
Owl End, 24 Mill Lane, Frisby on the Wreake Minutes: Applicant: Mr
& Mrs Halford Location: Owl
End, 24 Mill Lane, Frisby Proposal: Single, self-build dwelling (resubmission
of application 17/00477/FUL) (a) The
Applications and Advice Manager (LP) stated that: The application site comprises 0.16 hectares on the northern
edge of Frisby on the Wreake. The site is currently utilised as associated
with Owl End positioned to the south of Mill Lane, the southern boundary of the
site adjoins 22 Mill lane, to the east of the site is arable land. This application proposes a dwelling in a
sustainable location with a reasonable range of facilities and capacity to
accommodate some growth. It is considered
that there are material considerations of weight in favour of the application. The site is considered to perform reasonably well in terms
of access to facilities and transport links. It is considered that balanced against the positive elements
are the specific concerns raised in representations, particularly the development
of the site from its garden state, additional traffic and the impact on the
character of the village and conflict with Policy H3 of the emerging
Neighbourhood Plan. In conclusion it is considered that, on the balance of the
issues, there are benefits accruing from the proposal when assessed as required
under the guidance in the NPPF in terms of housing supply. The balancing issues are considered to be of
limited harm given their scale, significance and in the case of the
Neighbourhood Plan, the relative weight it can carry in its current
circumstances. Applying the ‘test’ required by the NPPF that permission
should be granted unless the impacts would “significantly and demonstrably”
outweigh the benefits; it is considered that permission can be granted. (b) Kathy Ford, from the Parish Council, was
invited to speak and stated that: • New
application does not address or mitigate previous concerns • Safety on
Mill Lane and threat of flooding • Outside
limits to developments and village envelope • Within conservation
area • To not
refuse would set a dangerous precedent for further development • Driveway
would destroy verge and cobbles and change street view • Close to
listed buildings and conservation area (c) Brian Howes,
an objector, was invited to speak and stated that: • Flooding
and road safety concerns • Drive
entrance is in Flood Zone 2 • No change
to flooding issues in new application • Removed smaller house represented
only approximately 15% of total plot • Amount of
hardstanding remains almost unchanged • Water from
hardstanding will overflow into the lane • Mill Lane
regularly used by pedestrians, horse riders and bicycles • Large
vehicles have to reverse up the lane • Close to a
blind bend (d) Colin
Wilkinson, the agent, was invited to speak and stated that: • Single
dwelling • Efficient
and low maintenance • Surrounding
embankments reduce impact of development • Design
sympathetic to village • Variations
of heights typical of Frisby • Overcame concerns
on refused application • Reduced from 2 dwellings to 1,
reduced in length and granny annex removed |
|
Urgent Business To consider any other items that the Chair
considers urgent Minutes: None |