Agenda and minutes

The Chair welcomed everyone to the Planning Committee meeting. She introduced Members and Officers as well as referred to the public speakers who would be speaking on individual applications.

It was confirmed that all Members present could hear and see the proceedings and Members could also see the Chair and each other. The Chair explained that Members would use the functionality of the software to raise their hands to speak and each Member would be asked in turn for their vote at the appropriate time.

The Chair explained that should the remote conferencing connection be lost there would be an adjournment. She advised that the meeting would be recorded and live-streamed on You Tube.

There were no apologies for absence.

(a)  To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 25 June 2020

(b)  To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 2 July 2020

(a)       The minutes of the meeting held on 25 June 2020 were confirmed and authorised to be signed by the Chair.

(b)     The minutes of the meeting held on 2 July 2020 were confirmed and authorised to be signed by the Chair.

Members to declare any interest as appropriate in respect of items to be considered at this meeting.

Councillor Posnett declared a personal interest in any matters relating to the Leicestershire County Council due to her role as a County Councillor. 

Minute PL35 : Planning Appeal: 19/00741/FUL - Field OS 4011, Tofts Hill, Stathern

Councillor Browne declared a personal interest in this item as the objector speaking on the application at the meeting was employed by the same organisation as himself. 

Minute PL35 : Planning Appeal: 19/00741/FUL - Field OS 4011, Tofts Hill, Stathern

Councillor Steadman confirmed that she would be representing her ward on this item by making a representation to the Committee. She would therefore leave the meeting during debate and voting on this item in accordance with the Council’s Procedure Rules.

Field OS 4011, Toft’s Hill, Stathern

(Councillor Steadman declared her intention to speak as Ward Councillor on this application and here left the Committee and moved into the public speaking gallery.)

The Assistant Director for Planning and Delivery addressed the Committee and provided a summary of the current position relating to the planning appeal. He explained that although there was no application to consider, the Committee’s view was needed on whether or not the Council was to contest  the appeal and if so planning reasons and evidence were needed to support  the Council’s case. It was mentioned that the costs regime would apply therefore it was important to provide valid reasons and evidence.

It was mentioned that the issues of concern were detailed at page 18 of the report.  A cross section of the slope across the hill was also suggested to provide a better understanding of the topography of the site. Mr Worley advised that this information was not currently available.

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 3 minute presentation:

·         Councillor Ken Bray, Chair, Stathern Parish Council

In response to Member questions, Councillor Bray advised there was no approved Neighbourhood Plan as yet and there were photographs available to evidence land slippage relating to the site.

·         David Mell, Objector

·         Helen Broadhurst, Agent, Vale Planning Consultants

In response to Member questions, Ms Broadhurst advised that

·         the terracing and works identified in the independent report enabled the drainage of the site to be managed

·         the development was on the flatter part of the site

·         the development did not extend beyond the line of the existing buildings on the other side of the road

·         the allocation of 3 minutes was not long enough to address all the technical queries and details relating to the site but referred the Committee to the independent review of the ground conditions report for such information

·         the independent report outlined a safe and deliverable strategy for dealing with the land matters raised

·         the developer did not have permission to take samples from neighbouring sites and had to rely on ground samples from the site in question and she felt these provided a good representation of the site and surrounding land

·         the independent report had been commissioned in February and had been delayed due to the lockdown and had not been  available until June

·         the report contained all the information needed to enable the development of the site to go ahead

·         the report took into account variable weather conditions and the water movement solutions which had been carefully designed to manage the drainage of the site

·         Dr Cooper’s objection being received on the day of the February Committee meeting did not allow her client the opportunity to respond  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL35

Field OS6260, Canal Lane, Hose

The Planning Officer addressed the Committee and provided a summary of the application.

It was noted that the 5 metre buffer to the hedgerow was outside the boundary.

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 3 minute presentation:

·         Councillor Jenny McCulloch, Clawson, Hose and Harby Parish Council

In response to Member questions, Councillor McCulloch responded that

·         She was not aware whether or not a Housing Needs Survey had been completed but added that this was the first of 3 developments in Hose which would bring 107 houses in total if all sites were developed

·         The road narrowing feature (‘pinch point’) of the road layout was the biggest issue for the village and it would mean that some farm vehicles may not be able to get through

·         She advised that the road was only 4 metres and narrowing together with the hard curbs would create a ‘pinch point’ with no flexibility for wider vehicles. She felt line markings on the road would be a better approach to reduce speed

·         Helen Cheetham

In response to Member questions, she advised that the traffic calming measures proposed would mean she would not be able to access her own driveway with her caravan and trailer

·         Adrian Kerrison, Agent, Plumtree Homes LLP

In response to Member questions, Mr Kerrison advised that

·         The proposed road layout was driven by Leicestershire County Council and was in accordance with the Local Plan which explained that the road had to be widened and then narrowed on entry to the village, creating the ‘pinch point’

·         The road was current 4 metres and would be widened to 5 metres for approximately 100 metres when it would reduce to 3 metres and 1 lane on entry to the village

·         He would accept any change to the relevant condition to satisfy the Committee’s concerns but would not wish to have the application deferred

The Assistant Director for Planning and Delivery advised that the condition could be deleted or amended to reflect a different layout design depending on the Committee’s view.

(Councillor Chandler was away from the meeting for some of the speaker presentations due to remote connectivity issues and re-joined the meeting at this point.  It was confirmed that Councillor Chandler could hear the proceedings although she was not on video.)

The Assistant Director for Planning and Delivery advised that the Parish Councillor’s request for a  S106 in respect of play equipment would not be possible as it could not be assessed as to whether it complied with CIL regulations at such a late stage in the application’s journey and the absence of any detail explaining its relationship with the proposal, therefore this request would have to be declined.

The Assistant Director for Planning and Delivery advised that officers could work with the Leicestershire County Council for a  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL36

To consider any other items that the Chair considers urgent

There was no urgent business.