Agenda and minutes

None

To confirm the minutes of the previous special  meeting of  the planning committee on 29.06.2017 and the planning committee  on 06.07.2017.

Minutes of the meeting 29th June 2017

 

Cllr Holmes wished for the year at the bottom of page three to be changed from 1974 to 1972.

 

Cllr Posnett stated that she was not present at the meeting on the 29th June.

The Chair noted that the title should read Special Meeting of the Planning Committee not Meeting of the Special Planning Committee.

 

Approval of the Minutes was proposed by Cllr Holmes and seconded by Cllr Baguley.

 

The Committee voted in agreement. It was unanimously agreed that the Chair sign them as a true record.

 

Minutes of the meeting 6th July 2017

 

Cllr Posnett stated that she was not present at the meeting on the 6th July.

 

Approval of the minutes was proposed by Cllr Glancy and seconded by Cllr

Chandler.

 

The Committee voted in agreement. It was unanimously agreed that the Chair sign them as a true record.

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

Cllr Greenow declared an interest in application 16/00519/FUL as the applicant is a client of his.

Land South of Frisby on the Wreake, Leicester Road, Frisby on the Wreake

 

Applicant: Mr and Mrs Cook

Location: Land South of Frisby on the Wreake, Leicester Road,

Frisby on the Wreake

Proposal: Outline application, with all matters other than access to

be reserved for future approval, for the residential development of up to 48 dwellings with associated access, community uses, landscaping, open space and drainage infrastructure.

 

(a) The Regulatory Services Manager stated that:

A letter had been received only 24hrs previous and circulated the day of

Committee. Members may not have considered the letter and taken it into

account and therefore cannot make a judgement on the content.

Advised that it was best to defer the application until Members and officers had had a chance to digest the new information.

 

The Chair added that the Members had not had a chance to consider the new

information and he did not feel comfortable chairing the debate.

 

Cllr Wyatt proposed to defer to application.

 

The Chair seconded the proposal to defer.

 

A vote was taken and it was unanimously decided that the application would be deferred.

 

DETERMINATION: Defer, to allow consideration of the recently submitted

information.

Land at Water Lane, Frisby on the Wreake

Applicant: Ms Siobhan Noble

Location: Land at Water Lane, Frisby on the Wreake

Proposal: Residential development of up to 30 dwellings

 

(a) The Planning Officer stated that:

The letter from the solicitor advised about on the previous application relates

equally to this application, therefore the application should be similarly deferred.

The other reason for deferment is set out in the update report. In summary, this states that over a number of months various information has been exchanged, analysed and assessed, in the main this has been resolved but the key matter which remains unresolved is the status of the land in terms of which flood zone it is in and risks from ground water flooding. Those matters need to be resolved before the application can be determined.

 

Cllr Wyatt proposed to defer the application.

 

Cllr Holmes seconded the proposal to defer and asked that the infrastructure and drainage was looked into.

 

The Chair clarified that the reasons to defer were the needs to consider which flood zone the site would go into and issues relating to drainage.

 

A Member stated that this was no small matter; it needed more evidence and was happy to support the deferral.

 

A vote was taken and it was unanimously decided that the application would be deferred.

 

DETERMINATION: DEFER, to allow consideration of the status of the land in terms of which flood zone it is in and risks from ground water flooding, and the recently submitted information.

 

 

Cllr Greenow left the room at 6.15pm

Field OS 0044 Leicester Road, Frisby on the Wreake

 

Applicant: Mr Andy Gibson

Location: Field OS 0044 Leicester Road, Frisby on the Wreake

Proposal: Proposed livestock barn (total floor

 

(a) The Planning Officer stated that:

This application seeks full planning permission for the construction of an

agricultural livestock barn, to an isolated parcel of land being field OS 0044 which sits adjacent to the Main A607 Leicester Road served by an existing access on Great Lane Hill, Frisby on the Wreake.

 

The parcel of land to which the application relates, is the result of field having

recently been subdivided by a post and rail fence.

The application presents a balance of competing objectives, as proposals for

agricultural buildings are generally supported in terms by policy within the NPPF, OS2 and C3 of the Local Plan Whereby local planning authorities should support the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business and enterprise in rural areas, subject to the more detailed criteria within those policies, thus being reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture.

Concerns therefore remain that the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to prove that the proposed building is deemed to be sustainable and reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture and therefore an unjustified intrusion within the open countryside.

The balancing issues are considered to be primarily if the proposal is reasonably necessary to this isolated parcel of land, not being central to any core farm holding, the applicants own dwelling or contracts, which are remote from the site.

As such the application is recommended for refusal as set out in the report.

The Chair read out the applicant's speech and stated that:

Our business was established in 1995 on a four acre tenanted farm base and has sustained itself and a growing family until 2016. After 22years of contract calf rearing, cattle and sheep breeding, were given notice to move, through no fault of our own, due to a change in ownership.

In having to relocate we had the opportunity to buy land at Frisby with the

intention of making it our farm base. Our overall holding size has never

diminished and we still rent around 80 acres of grass land in the area on tenancy agreements which have been submitted.

We have made a considerable investment in purchasing the land and desperately need a building for the sake of the welfare of our animals and to safeguard our farming way of life for the future. Our daughter has just completed a Level 3 Extended Diploma in Agriculture at BMC with a triple Distinction star and this building will enable her to pursue a career in agriculture. We have provided substantial evidence to support our farming business, but we urge you to support us in ensuring that it can continue to grow, provide employment and sustain our business.

The officer considers that the building is too big for the site, but in discussions in the early stages of the application dismissed our suggestion of a reduction.

Please note that the building in agricultural  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL25.3

Field OS 6934, Bypass, Asfordby

 

Applicant: C/O Fairhurst Consultancy

Location: Field OS 6934, Bypass, Asfordby

Proposal: Outline application for 55 dwellings

 

(a) The Regulatory Services Manager stated that this is an application for outline

planning permission, with all matters reserved except for access. It relates to a number of paddocks situated between existing housing and the by-pass.

 

There are no technical objections to the application and is proposed for development in both the emerging local and neighbourhood plans. The Neighbourhood Plan can be given considerable weight because it is a post –examination plan, which will soon be subject to a referendum. The Local Plan can be given limited weight.

Note that the applicants have submitted a viability assessment which has been considered by the district valuer. This confirms that the development can deliver very little affordable housing.

Recommend that permission is granted subject to a section 106 and conditions as reported.

 

(b) Cllr de Burle, the head of the Parish Council, was invited to speak and stated that:

·         Support application

·         Key in Asfordby Neighbourhood Plan

·         Plan formally adopted by the REEA Committee

·         Developer should be required to incorporate traffic calming measures on

·         Saxby Road from the site entrance extending past the school to the junction

·         of the Loughborough Road

·         Special attention to be given to concerns of potential flooding from surface water

·          

Cllr Chandler asked if he meant speed bumps by traffic calming measures.

 

Cllr de Burle stated that the road is narrow with a school entrance and often cars parked either side of the road. The village is sometimes used as a race track by drivers so traffic calming measures are needed.

 

(c) Maurice Fairhurst, the agent, was invited to speak and stated that:

·         Low grade, unkempt agricultural land

·         2.4 hectares (5.9 acres)

·         Outline application for access only

·         Sustainable under the NPPF

·         Social and economic benefits not outweighed by adverse impacts

·         Site allocated for housing in Local Plan and Asfordby Neighbourhood Plan

·         Unobtrusive

·         Hedges retained and supplemented along bypass boundary

·         Close to facilities such as school, shops, pubs, church etc.

·         Pedestrian access

·         New accesses and traffic calming measures provided

·         Footpaths into Regency Road and playing fields

·         Agreed conditions with Highways Authority

 

Cllr Wyatt asked what the proportion of bungalows is.

 

The Agent stated there would be 11.

 

Cllr Chandler asked if there could be an access brought to Regency Road.

 

The Agent stated that this had been thought about however the Highways Authority was keen to keep vehicular traffic on Saxelby Road. There is not enough visibility emerging from Regency Road. Used instead as cycle way and pedestrian access.

 

(d) Cllr Sheldon, the Ward Councillor, was invited to speak and stated that:

·         Flooding issue

·         Drain provided when the bypass was built no longer works

·         Maintenance of drainage needs to be addressed

·         Flooding previously occurred and flooded Prince Charles Square, Bradgate Lane and an old people's home

·          

Cllr Wyatt asked which home was flooded and stated that no flooding had occurred recently.

 

Cllr Sheldon stated that it was Bradgate Lane Flats. The  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL25.4

Recreation Area, Melton Road, Asfordby Hill

 

Applicant: Andrew Granger & Co. Ltd

Location: Recreation Area, Melton Road, Asfordby Hill

Proposal: Outline application for the development of 14 dwellings with associated vehicular access and public open space.

 

(a) The Regulatory Services Manager stated that this application seeks outline planning permission with all matters reserved except for access.

The site is partially open space and overgrown allotments. The proposal would provide 14 dwellings and a play area larger than the existing play area. The provision of the new access would require the relocation of the existing bus stop. There is no objection from the Highway Authority.

There are no technical objections to the application and is proposed for development in the emerging Neighbourhood Plan. It does not feature in the emerging Local Plan. The Neighbourhood Plan can be given considerable weight because it is a post – examination plan, which will soon be subject to a referendum.

Recommend that permission is granted subject to a section 106 and conditions as reported.

 

(b) Cllr de Burle, head of the Parish Council, was invited to speak and stated that:

·         Support application

·         Key element to neighbourhood plan submission

·         Provision for traffic calming measure on approach road of Melton side

·         Tidies up area of woodland

·          

(c) Adam Murray, the agent, was invited to speak and stated that:

·         14 new houses including affordable housing

·         In the context of surrounding properties

·         Public open space

·         Sympathetic to existing amenity

·         Sustainable

·         Benefits outweigh harm

·         Improves open space provision

·         Sufficient space for enhanced play area

·         Tidies up overgrown area

·         Allocated for residential development

·         Supported by range of technical consultees

·          

(d) Cllr Sheldon, the ward councillor, was invited to speak and stated that:

·         Stanton Road properties have suffered from water flooding

·         Treatment of concrete and SUDs is a concern

·         If the bus stops are relocated past the boundary they are the responsibility of Melton

·          

The Regulatory Services Manager stated that drainage is covered by condition 7. The bus stops will be relocated in a safe, appropriate position regardless of boundary. Highways Authority do not refer to any traffic calming measures.

 

Cllr Chandler proposed to permit the application and stated that it is a good

scheme provided the conditions are adhered to.

 

Cllr Posnett seconded the proposal to permit and stated that the relocation of the bus stop is necessary as the traffic is bad at the roundabout.

 

A vote was taken and it was unanimously decided that the application should be approved.

 

DETERMINATION: PERMIT subject to:

(i) The conditions as set out in the report and;

(ii) The completion of an s106 agreement as set out in the report

For the following reasons:

The application seeks outline consent for a residential development of 14 dwellings and a new area of public open space. Approval is sought for the access into the site and the principle of residential development. It is considered that the application presents a balance of competing objectives and the Committee is invited to reconcile these in reaching its conclusion.

The site is considered  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL25.5

Longcliffe Hill House, Longcliff Hill, Old Dalby

 

Applicant: Mr D Benbow and Mrs H Swale

Location: Longcliff Hill House, Longcliffe Hill, Old Dalby

Proposal: Outline planning approval for the erection of up to 8 dwellings with associated vehicular access.

 

(a) The Planning Officer stated that:

Additional information had been presented the morning of Committee and may not have been considered. Members were asked if they were happy to determine the application.

The Chair stated that matters in the new information may influence a decision

and therefore any decision made without the new information being considered may not be sound.

 

The Chair proposed to defer the application.

 

Cllr Wyatt seconded the proposal to defer.

 

A vote was taken and it was unanimously decided that the application be

deferred.

 

The Chair stated that it was frustrating when last minute information is supplied.

 

DETERMINATION: DEFER, to allow consideration of the late representation.

The Wicket, 7 Granby Lane, Plungar

 

Applicant: Mr Leon Dolby

Location: The Wicket, 7 Granby Lane, Plungar

Proposal: Change of use of paddock to garden use (retrospective)

 

(a)  The Planning Officer stated that:

 

The following application is a change of use from paddock to residential.

The land is to the west and south of the host dwelling and is allocated as open

space under the old local plan policy BE12.

The site has however been reassessed in a landscape study of 2015 as having limited public visibility and does not relate to the settlement character.

For this reason it is considered an acceptable change and therefore

recommended for approval.

In addition there has been a concern about the motor cross use at the site and it remains that there is no evidence to suggest a material change of use exists.

Any noise issues need to be taken up with the MBC environmental health team where a diary account of when this takes place is needed.

 

(b) Cllr Ian Lowther, a parish councillor, was invited to speak and stated that:

·         Residents upset about motor cross activities

·         Motor cross track not permitted and no action taken

·         Environmental nuisance

·         Smoke and noise issues

·         Affects landscape quality

·         Development not approved in old Local Plan

·         Adverse impact on landscape character

·         Rural village scheme disappears

·         If changed to garden more likely to be developed as housing

·         Should be enforceable conditions that no housing can be built on land and

·         motocross course removed

·          

The Head of Regulatory Services sought clarification whether the site was used for motor cross competitions.

 

Cllr Lowther confirmed that it was not but said that the owner competed in

competitions.

 

The Head of Regulatory Services asked if it could be explained how using the site as a garden instead of it being a field detracts from its open character.

 

Cllr Lowther stated that the use would possibly be the same however there are concerns that a garden may be considered ‘fair game’ for development whereas protected open land may not.

 

Cllr Chandler asked if there was a Contravention Order.

 

Cllr Lowther stated that a Notice had been issued.

 

(c) Margaret Adams, an objector, was invited to speak and stated that:

·         Owner of adjacent garden to site

·         Change of use eases way for residential development

·         Motorcycle use should only be 14 days of the year

·         Potential to exceed 14 days if paddock is changed to a garden

·         Needs enforcing

·         Previous complaint registered has not been resolved

·         Noise and smell impacts

·         Adverse impact on residential amenities

 

 

(d) Leon Dolby, the applicant, was invited to speak and stated that:

·         No development on land

·         Opportunity to make garden as good as possible for family

·         Use of motor cross course 20 minutes at a time

·          

The Head of Regulatory Services stated that residents had supplied a list of dates and times of use that convey different accounts that were conveyed in the report.

 

The Applicant stated that he also had a diary of dates and times, and the noise is similar to that of  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL25.7

The Head of Regulatory Services to submit a report to establish the Council’s position at the forthcoming appeal Hearing.

The Regulatory Services Manager stated that:

Ecology have concerns on 44 dwellings. At the time of consideration by the

planning inspectorate it was based on an audit of 2011. New hierarchy in

settlements of local plan, Queensway is some way down the ranking. More

recent work investigates sustainability.

 

A Member stated that ecology say the land is not suitable however the land beyond is similar.

 

Cllr Chandler proposed to move the officer’s recommendation.

 

The Chair seconded the proposal.

 

Cllr Posnett stated that she was not at the original hearing.

 

A vote was taken. 4 Members voted in favour of the proposal. 3 Members voted against. 1 Member abstained.

 

Cllrs Botterill and Holmes were not present for the vote.

 

DETERMINATION:

The basis of the Council’s case is:

1. In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the proposal would, if

approved, result in the erection of residential dwellings in an

unsustainable location. The development in an unsustainable location

where there are limited local amenities, facilities and bus services and

where future residents are likely to depend on the use of the car,

contrary to the advice contained in NPPF in promoting sustainable

development. It is considered that there is insufficient benefits arising

from the proposal to outweigh the guidance given in the NPPF on

sustainable development in this location and would therefore be

contrary to the "core planning principles" contained within Para 17 of

the NPPF.

2. The development would result in the loss of a 4ha area proposed for the

management of ecology in accordance with condition 9 of planning

permission ref.15/00017/OUT. In the absence of the provision of an area

of equal scale and ecological value it is considered that the proposed

development would have a detrimental impact upon the natural

environment. It would be contrary to the “core planning principles” and

para 109 of the NPPF which seeks to minimise the impact of

development on bio-diversity.

To consider any other items that the Chair considers urgent

 

 

None

 

A vote was taken for the press and public to be dismissed for the next item. It was unanimously decided that they would be excluded.

 

 

The Head of Regulatory Services stated that:

The purpose of the report is to consider the applicant’s willingness to submit a further application in lieu of pursuing the appeal.

 

The Chair proposed to accept the recommendation.

 

Cllr Wyatt seconded the proposal.

 

A vote was taken and it was unanimously decided that the report would be accepted.

 

DETERMINATION: That the Committee request the appeal to be held in

abeyance pending the invitation and subsequent determination of a further

application.