Agenda and minutes

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Pritchett.

(a)  To confirm the minutes of the special meeting held on 11 August 2022

(b)  To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 29 September 2022 (To follow)

(a)  The minutes of the special meeting held on 11 August 2022 were confirmed as a true record.

(b)  Due to the minutes of 29 September 2022 being circulated at the meeting, it was felt Members had not had enough time to consider these and therefore it was agreed these minutes be presented at the next meeting for approval.

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.

Application 21/00836/FUL - Land At 36 Main Road, Kirby Bellars

Councillor Browne declared a personal interest in this application as he felt he had had significant involvement in discussions with officers, the agent and the parish council on this matter and therefore advised he would not take part in this application and would leave the meeting.

Application 22/00944/GDOAGR - Land south of Crossroads Farm, Scalford Road, Eastwell

Councillor Holmes queried whether she had an interest in this item as she was a neighbour to the property. The Solicitor advised that being a neighbour did not constitute an interest.

Councillor Webster queried whether he had an interest in any of the applications at this meeting as through his work he had been involved in selling cattle at auction on behalf of the applicants/landowners. The Solicitor advised that as this connection was through his employment and was not for personal gain there was no interest.

36 Main Road, Kirby Bellars

(Councillor Browne here left the meeting due to his interest declared at minute PL41.)

The Planning Officer (HW) addressed the Committee and provided a summary of the application and advised the application was recommended for refusal for the reason given in Appendix A.

Members raised concerns and the Planning Officer responded as follows:

·       The circumstances that existed for granting the previous planning application no longer existed and officers could not comment further on that position.

·       Paragraph 1.7 of the report for the previous application referred to the restriction on the keeping of livestock.

·       Although the proposal was for self build homes, the layout and design had already been submitted and therefore the homes would be built as presented and submitted as part of this application.

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:

·       James Beverly, Agent, Fisher German

Following the speaker’s presentation the following points were noted:

·       The proposed dwellings were intended for family members to be able to support adult social care and childcare requirements

·       Family members desired to return to the village where they grew up

·       The application did not include for the family members to be involved in the working of the farm although they would be available to help out when needed

·       The original application was focussed on open market homes to pay for the loss of the pig sheds

·       Should this application be refused, the applicant would revert back to the original application for the 3 open market homes to recoup the money lost for the pig sheds

During debate the following points were noted:

·       It was understood by a Member that self build homes were to be encouraged and it was questioned whether there was a shortfall of self build homes

·       With regard to the nuisance factor in approving the previous application for 3 homes, the applicant had commenced development in demolishing the  pig sheds and therefore the same nuisance issue could not be a factor in this application

·       Members also questioned if the applicant could still go ahead with the approved application

·       It was questioned as to what could be the justification for increasing the number of homes on the site

·       The Planning Officer explained that there did not need to be a shortfall to approve a planning application for self build homes. This application was being considered under the policy SS3 which required an identified need for the housing proposed. An argument had been put forward for self build plots as justification to meet policy SS3. The officers’ view was as there was no identified shortfall for self build plots neither in the parish nor the borough then there was no justification in accordance with policy SS3  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL43

Saltby Airfield, Skillington Road, Sproxton

The Planning Officer (HW) addressed the Committee and provided a summary of the application and advised that further representations had been received following publication of the agenda however they did not raise any new concerns that were not already covered in the report. The application was recommended for approval subject to conditions.

Should the application be approved, an amendment to condition 6 was recommended which stated the hours of operation as being between 0700 and 1900 hours Monday to Friday and no vehicle movements on Sundays and bank holidays, and the second part should be replaced to state, no vehicle movements on weekends and bank holidays.

Members raised concerns and the Planning Officer responded as follows:

·       With regard to the number of vehicle movements, these were 2 way vehicle movements, 40 movements would likely equate to 20 vehicles into the site and 20 leaving the site in one day

·       Although the applicant had provided weights of the HGVs both empty and at capacity, there were no weight or length limitations placed on the operation by the Highways Authority

·       The application had been assessed by the Leicestershire and Lincolnshire Highways Authorities and was deemed acceptable

·       The accumulative effect of vehicles on the roads had formed part of the assessment including the nearby poultry farm which generated 34 x 2 way HGV movements

·       There had been no weight applied to the report in terms of the environmental impact of renewable energy

·       There was a condition which limited the operation to 40 vehicle movements. This would be recorded by a weighbridge on the site which kept records of vehicle weights and movements and should there be any concerns that the restriction was exceeded then the Council could use enforcement powers to investigate

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 Joey Newton, Sproxton Parish Council

Following the speaker’s presentation the following points were noted:

·       The application only conditioned the entrance and exit to the site within the application

·       The Planning Officer advised that there was no mechanism for routing the vehicles outside the application site as there were no concerns raised by either of the Highway Authorities and they were not able to control vehicles beyond the site. The entry and exit points were to reduce the impact on neighbouring properties and were not due to highway concerns

·       There had been some consultation with the parish council 

Tricia Laurance, Objector

Following the speaker’s presentation the following points were noted:

·       The Hungerton Farms Road Traffic Assessment had had to be completed  after the school holidays and was issued on 6 October. It had been forwarded to both the Leicestershire and Lincolnshire Highway  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL44

Crossroads Farm, Scalford Road, Eastwell

The Planning Officer (AC) addressed the Committee and provided a summary of the application and advised the application was recommended for approval subject to conditions.

The notification was required to be considered by the Committee because it was submitted by a Member of the Council, Councillor Hewson.

There were no public speakers.

Councillor Holmes proposed that the application be approved. Councillor Chandler seconded the motion.

RESOLVED

That no prior approval of the matters listed in Part 6, Class 6 are required (section 7 of the report referred).

(Unanimous)

(Councillor Evans left the meeting during the officer presentation and before the vote at 8.12 pm.)

REASONS

The proposed development accords with all of the criteria set by Part 6, Class A of the Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended) and the matters subject of conditions specified by part A.2 of this legislation are not applicable to the circumstances of the case.

To consider any other business that the Chair considers urgent

There was no urgent business.