Agenda and minutes

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Illingworth. Councillor Douglas was appointed as his substitute.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 16 September 2021

(a)   20/01107/FUL– Land east of Wolds Farm, Landyke Lane, Scalford

Councillor Chandler requested that in the officer’s introduction, the word application be amended to applicant so that it reads ‘the applicant submitted’ and clarification be added as to the cost of agricultural land being £20k per acre.

It was noted that with regard to application 20/01157/OUT at Waltham on the Wolds, the access had been re-measured and would be reported to a future meeting of the Committee.

(b)  Subject to the foregoing the minutes of the meeting held on 16 September 2021 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 held a standing personal interest in any matters relating to the Leicestershire County Council due to her role as a County Councillor.

Land adjacent to Crompton Road, Asfordby Hill

The Assistant Director for Planning and Delivery addressed the Committee and provided a summary of the application and summarised that the recommendation was for approval with the conditions listed at Appendix A. He displayed a plan showing the access points and the issues that were raised at the last meeting and reported that the buffer had been reduced by 10 per cent to improve amenity on the site. The plans showed there was a turning area and access for emergency vehicles was sufficient.

There was concern at the width of the roads on the site and the Assistant Director responded that the roads within the new development would be wider than the existing road structure.

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 David Unwin

Dr Unwin responded to Member questions as follows:

·         The Assistant Director queried Dr Unwin’s claim that the traffic would be twice that that the applicant had stated. Dr Unwin explained that there was an expectation for at least 2 cars per household which increased the current position of 1.76 cars per household. Then there was family growth and he considered each household would eventually have 3 or 4 cars which would be more than double the number given in the application

·         2 way flow of traffic was currently impossible and there were already issues when passing anything larger than a car such as delivery vans and waste collection vehicles

·                Sam Silcocks of Harris Lamb

Mr Silcocks responded to Member questions as follows:

·           The Parish Council had been consulted on the application and had been involved in the workshops but had not made a formal submission

·           A statement including the impact on heritage assets had been submitted with the application

·           The highways consultant had checked vehicle movements and it was noted that car ownership was a different form of data

·           This was an allocated site for development and the highway impact had been accepted as environmentally sound as had access to facilities

·           With regard to the increase in vehicle ownership in growing families, this was a nationally accepted form of data taken into account in all planning applications

·                Councillor de Burle, Ward Councillor

Councillor de Burle responded to Member questions as follows:

·           The applicant had engaged since the last meeting but had not listened to the issues raised at the meeting

·           The people who lived there now would be most affected by the amount of new vehicles coming to the development

·           He represented the Parish Council’s view and both Ward Councillors were concerned and he could not offer an alternative or solution to the problems raised by the proposed development

·           The school was very busy and most families travelled to and from  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL38

Former Army Camp, Main Road, Redmile

The Planning Development Manager addressed the Committee and provided a summary of the application and summarised that the recommendation was for refusal. He advised that comments had been received from the Parish Council and the Ward Councillor. He referred to the isolated location and that paragraph 80 must be met to approve the application and it was a high bar test to meet both elements of paragraph 80(e).

It was noted that the application met the eco requirement as it had characteristics of a ‘passive’ house but determining whether the design was exceptional was subjective and there was no measure for this. The recommendation reflected the Officers’ view after reviewing other examples of paragraph 80 designs presented through the professional planning officer’s network.

With regard to determining whether the design was acceptable, Members felt some guidance was needed. However  it was understood that there was a judgement balance to be made in determining the application against the criteria of paragraph 80(e).

It was noted that the applicant had used the term nature reserve instead of the usual landscape plan which was felt to reinforce the ecological benefits.

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:

·          Richard Cooper of HSSP

 Mr Cooper responded to Member questions as follows:

•   Paragraph 80 could be interpreted in many forms, some were grand designs but this was holistic in that the building, landscape design and site and were integrally linked

•   The roof was made of metal sheeting which was common to industrial buildings in the area. There were solar panels on the roof also

During discussion the following points were noted:

·         There was support for this type of application due to the environmental benefits and it was felt such applications should be taken seriously as there had been missed opportunities in the past to approve such forward thinking development

·         The former army camp was an eyesore and this application would improve the site

·         Building materials to support environmental initiatives would only become more commercially available and less expensive if applications such as this were approved

·         Expensive contamination tests would be needed if the application was approved and the Council should back schemes where developers were willing to invest in sites such as this

·         Members were impressed by the ecological benefits but some were not so sure that the design had the wow factor

·         It was felt to be a rare opportunity to approve a passive house

·         There was concern as to the subjective decision-making of whether the design was exceptional and how this could be resolved. It was noted each person’s opinion was different but the design should be outstanding and enhance its setting

·         There was a feeling that more should be done in planning terms to meet the Council’s Climate Change Strategy  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL39

To consider any other business that the Chair considers urgent

There was no urgent business.