Venue: By remote video conference
Contact: Email: democracy@melton.gov.uk
Link: View Planning Committee
No. | Item | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Apologies for Absence Minutes: An apology for absence was received from Councillor Wood. |
|||||||
To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 1 April 2021 Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on 1 April 2021 were confirmed and
authorised to be signed by the Chair. |
|||||||
Declarations of Interest PDF 51 KB Members to declare any
interest as appropriate in respect of items to be considered at this meeting. Minutes: Councillor Posnett held a standing personal
interest in any matters relating to the Leicestershire County Council, due to
her role as a County Councillor. Application 20/00811/REM - Land
South of Frisby on the Wreake, Leicester Road, Frisby
on the Wreake Councillor Browne confirmed that he would be representing his ward on this application by making a representation to the Committee. He would therefore leave the meeting during debate and not vote on this item in accordance with the Council’s Procedure Rules. Further to the recent High Court case for remote meetings to continue being dismissed, Councillor Higgins requested that full representations on the concerns relating to individual circumstances of Members be made to the Government. |
|||||||
Schedule of Applications Minutes: Due to technical functionality issues that prevented public participation in the meeting, no planning applications were determined and it was agreed that the meeting be adjourned. |
|||||||
Reconvened Meeting Minutes: The meeting was reconvened on 4 May 2021 at 6 pm following
an adjournment of the Planning Committee held on 29 April 2021 due to technical
functionality issues which prohibited the participation of public speakers. |
|||||||
Schedule of Applications Minutes: The Chair advised
that agenda item 4.2 would be taken first to allow the Frisby Parish Councillor
to make a representation to the Committee before the Parish Council’s meeting
at 7 pm on the same evening. |
|||||||
Application 20/00811/REM PDF 2 MB Land south of Frisby on the Wreake, Leicester Road, Frisby on the Wreake Minutes:
(Councillor Browne declared his intention to speak as Ward
Councillor on this application and here left the Committee and moved into the
public speaking gallery.) The Planning Development Manager addressed the
Committee and read out the following updates received since despatch of the
agenda: Ward Member comments ‘Over the past nine
months I have worked with the Parish Council and listening also to residents
about their concerns in relation to this development. The main concern raised
has been the road and that fact it is outside the agreed limits to development
in the neighbourhood plan. Over the past months there has been much negotiation
and through dialogue a compromise position has been agreed that I can accept.
The reason for this is that from an engineering perspective there would be
greater ecological damage and visual impact due to the way the road would have
to be built. A good compromise has been achieved. In addition to the road
the developer has listened to concerns about layout, ecology and lack of a
small play area and addressed these issues in consultation with me and the
Parish Council. Concerns were also
raised about access to the primary school from the new development in order to
address concerns of additional traffic in the village and this has been taken
on board with an access being created into the rear of the school playing
fields. Some residents have raised concerns and the developer has further moved
the path away from their properties. Finally a concern of
the village has been addressed on Gaddesby Lane with
regard to pedestrians with the developer agreeing to install a footpath inside
the hedge row from the road access which will be adopted by the Parish Council. Overall I feel that we
have nearly managed to achieve full compliance with the neighbourhood plan but
due to constraints with the site and ground levels it has not been possible to
have the road completely inside the limits to development. I am therefore happy
to support this revised reserved matters application.’ Parish Council comments ‘This was discussed at
the Parish Council meeting of 22nd April 2021. It was noted that the access
road has now been moved to a new, 'compromise' position within the first field.
In addition, it was noted that a new footpath is shown going up to the A607.
Matters relating to the school access, the footpath to Rotherby Lane, and the
attenuation pond, all of which had now been discussed with residents, are also
now agreed, save fine detail. On this basis, it was unanimously agreed that
this application can now be supported.’ Further Representation (Reiteration of comments
previously made) ‘Please find attached document which suggests alternatives for the siting of the School path from the Bowbridge Estate to ... view the full minutes text for item PL110 |
|||||||
Application 20/00466/FULHH PDF 2 MB 2 Vaughan Avenue, Bottesford Minutes:
The Assistant Director of Planning and Delivery addressed the Committee
and provided a summary of the report regarding the retrospective application to
authorise development which was built at variance with approved plans. He reminded the
Committee of the requirement to treat retrospective applications the same as
any other on normal planning merits 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 Bob Bayman, Bottesford Parish Council It was ascertained from Councillor Bayman that he
considered the most significant policy breach related to the insufficient parking
available on the site which would impact onto the street ·
Richard Colchester It was ascertained from Mr Colchester that the
lack of parking would have an impact on a busy route between Grantham Road and
the train station ·
Malcolm Bunn, Agent, Hana & Co It was
ascertained from Mr Bunn that Planning Officers were aware of the reason for
the development which was to support a family member and that when they started
to build at a different place to the plans a phone call was made at that time The Assistant Director for
Planning and Delivery drew Members’ attention to the site layouts and the
comparison of the changes made in the report. Mr Worley advised that he could
not confirm or otherwise whether a call was received however the development
proceeded without awaiting the outcome and that the Building Control service
may have been provided by a private contractor. During discussion the following
points were noted: ·
Why have a planning system if people built
something different ·
There was not enough space at the side of the
property for a motorised wheelchair ·
Neighbours and Ward Councillors let down by
planning rules not followed ·
There was a cost to the tax payer in processing
a retrospective application ·
A
refusal could be considered under Local Plan Policy D1 and H6 of the Bottesford
Neighbourhood Plan ·
The
property was considered to be of poor design with inadequate car parking and
being contrary to policies D1 of the Local Plan and H6 of the Bottesford
Neighbourhood Plan ·
Should
the application be approved, permitted development rights be removed Councillor Steadman proposed to
refuse the application on the grounds of being in conflict with policies D1
of the Local Plan and H6 of the Bottesford Neighbourhood Plan and due to the
limited space around the building and inadequate parking provision. Councillor Chandler seconded the motion. RESOLVED That application
20/00466/FULHH be REFUSED, contrary to the Officer recommendation, on
the grounds of being in conflict with policies D1 of the Local Plan and H6
of the Bottesford Neighbourhood Plan and due to the limited space around the
building and inadequate parking provision. (10 for, 1 abstention) |
|||||||
Application 20/01512/FUL PDF 5 MB Orchard House, 161 Scalford Road, Melton Mowbray Minutes:
The Assistant Director for Planning and
Delivery addressed the Committee and provided a summary of the report. He
updated the Committee on a further consultation response received as follows: ‘171a Scalford Road
are at the back of the development (north) The upper windows will look straight into
our lounge, conservatory and bedroom windows, therefore losing all of our
privacy This is also the bee flight out from our
hives, which we will lose, and will have to try and find new places to
relocate, this being in an already bad time for bees. The soakaways when full will naturally drain
down onto our property, therefore flooding us.’ 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: ·
Dr Jessie Harris, Applicant ·
Councillor Jacob Wilkinson, Ward Councillor It was noted that the separation distance between the
adjacent wall to the Balmoral Road properties was 3 metres. During
discussion the following points were noted: ·
It was considered that to build a 10 feet high
wall 3 metres from existing properties was not acceptable ·
It was felt that the wall would be overbearing
and take away light and amenity from neighbouring residents ·
Plot 2 was considered to be too much development
for the site ·
There
was a suggestion that the properties could be turned around however it was
pointed out that the application for consideration was as submitted ·
There
were reservations expressed on backland development,
the impact on neighbours’ privacy, noise and land values ·
It was
questioned as to whether the Committee was so desperate for two houses as to
compromise other people’s living standards ·
Due to
the additional vehicle movements that would be associated with the site and it
being a busy road at that point, there were concerns for pedestrian safety ·
There
was also concern for schoolchildren’s safety walking to and from the John Ferneley School Councillor
Faulkner proposed to refuse the application on the grounds of being in conflict
with policy D1 of the Local Plan and due to the wall adjacent to the
Balmoral Road properties being overbearing. Councillor Holmes seconded the motion. RESOLVED That
application 20/01512/FUL be REFUSED, contrary to the Officer recommendation, on
the grounds of being in conflict with policy D1 of the Local Plan and
due to the wall adjacent to the Balmoral Road properties being overbearing. (Unanimous) |
|||||||
Urgent Business To consider any other items that the Chair
considers urgent Minutes: The Chair thanked Members and the Planning Team for their
commitment and contribution to the work of the Committee over the past year.
She also referred to Councillor Faulkner’s proposed change in civic role at the
Annual Meeting and wished him well. Councillor Higgins responded and paid
tribute to the Chair’s leadership. |