Agenda and minutes

An apology for late attendance was received from Councillor Webster.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 12 January 2023

The minutes of the meeting held on 12 January 2023 were confirmed as a true record.

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.

OS 480625 329088, Branston Road, Eaton

The Planning Policy Officer (HW) addressed the Committee and provided a summary of the application and advised the application was recommended for approval subject to conditions set out in Appendix C. The Planning Officer advised that the development would comply with DEFRA standards for animal welfare and there were conditions to secure lighting arrangements, ecology and protection of wildlife and to ensure the site was for the private use of the landowner only.

Members raised concerns and the Planning Officer responded as follows:

·       The reference to ‘urban character assessment’ on page 11, paragraph 4.3.2 of the report was correct

·       There was a landscaping condition which included type and location of hedges and trees and these would be species that were appropriate for an equine setting

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:

Simon Tong, Objector

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

·       A footpath diversion request had been submitted to the Leicestershire County Council for a neighbouring piece of land however this was outside of the application site and was therefore not a consideration for this application

·       It was noted that people previously walked across the site in question rather than use the longer route of the public footpath hence the application for a footpath diversion to follow a more direct pathway

Anthony Haslam, on behalf of the applicant

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

·       The proposal was for the private use of the applicant and was not intended to be operated as a business

·       The Solicitor explained that there was a formal process for a footpath diversion but as far as the Council was aware there was no application for a diversion on the site

·       The Planning Development Manager confirmed that there was no footpath across the application site therefore this matter was not relevant to this application 

·       The applicant was aware of the safety and security risks involved in such a development that was located in the open countryside

During debate the following points were noted:

·       There was concern for security of such a development in the open countryside and the Solicitor advised that this was not a planning consideration

·       There was concern as to lighting the site in the open countryside to the  detriment of the well-being of wildlife and light pollution

·       It was noted that there was a specific condition relating to lighting

·       It was reiterated that the development was for the personal use of the applicant and a further application would be required should the applicant wish to run the site for a commercial purpose

Councillor Evans proposed that the application be approved. Councillor Smith seconded the motion.

RESOLVED

That the application be  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL75

To consider any other business that the Chair considers urgent

There was no urgent business.