Agenda and minutes

Cllr Glancy (Substituted by Cllr Higgins)

To confirm the minutes of the previous meeting on 07.09.2017.

Minutes of the meeting held on 9th September 2017

Approval of the minutes was proposed by Cllr Homes and seconded by Cllr Greenow. It was unanimously agreed, by the Members who were in attendance at the previous meeting, 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 Chandler declared a prejudicial interest in applications 17/00641/OUT OS Fields 8456, 7946 and 9744, Normanton Lane, Bottesford and 17/00800/FUL Barn Lodge Cottage, Saltby Road, Croxton Kerrial

Cllr Botterill declared a prejudicial interest in application 17/00800/FUL Barn Lodge Cottage, Saltby Road, Croxton Kerrial

Cllr Greenow declared a personal interest in application 16/00519/FUL Field OS 0044, Leicester Road, Frisby on the Wreake

OS Fields 8456, 7946 and 9744, Normanton Lane, Bottesford

Cllr Chandler left the room for the duration of application 17/00641/OUT at 6.07pm

Applicant:      Richborough Estates LLP

Location:        OS Fields 8456, 7946 and 9744 Normanton Lane, Bottesford

Proposal:      Outline application, with all matters other than access to be reserved for future approval, for residential development with associated access, community uses, landscaping, open space, drainage infrastructure and surface car park.

(a)       The Regulatory Services Manager stated that: Update

1. LCC Highways

Standard conditions and S106:

Conds – sep farm access to the north

a.    Travel Packs; to inform new residents from first occupation what sustainable travel choices are in the surrounding area (can be supplied by LCC at £52.85 per pack).

b.    6 month bus passes, two per dwelling (2 application forms to be included in Travel Packs and funded by the developer); to encourage new residents to use bus services, to establish changes in travel behaviour from first occupation and promote usage of sustainable travel modes other than the car (can be supplied through LCC at (average) £360.00 per pass).

c.    Raised kerb provision at the nearest bus stop at a cost of £3,500 to support modern bus fleets with low floor capabilities.

d.    STARSfor (Sustainable Travel Accreditation and Recognition Scheme) monitoring fee of £6,000.

II.   e) A contribution toward the consultation process for implementing a 40mph speed limit, prior to the existing 30mph speed limit on Normanton Lane at a total of £7,500.  (gateway feature to village – 30mph to north of site access) needs 40 mph buffer.

2. Letter from Bottesford Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group

Presentation from applicants addressed where practicable previous comments and genuine attempt to make attractive proposition. If pp granted design (indicative layout) can be preserved by conditions:

response -Landscaping and biodiversity – conditions can only relate to the whole principle of development

Low ridge heights to north of site to reduce visual impact from the Beacon and from existing village response - 

Set development back from Normanton Lane with adequate screening to reduce visual impact on approach to Bottesford. response - landscaping – conds 5 & 6; ecology (sth and nth boundaries) conds.12 & 15.

3. Clarification from applicants on details in committee report

- S106    will not refer to closure of level crossing. It is a separate process to surrender crossing licences (material consideration – condition that it should be closed of within a specified period) - applicants will pay £12,000 to improve boards at this crossing – via S106

- new car park will not be managed by Network Rail – Management Company will look after this and all POS on the application site

- Network Rail expect to see, as part of benefits, £112,000 to improve existing railway car park – do so via S106

The application

This application seeks outline planning permission for 88 dwellings and associated infrastructure. In line with local planning policy, the site will deliver affordable housing. In addition to the usual facilities and infrastructure required by this scale of development it is proposed that a new  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL42.1

Field OS 0044, Leicester Road, Frisby on the Wreake

Cllr Chandler returned to the meeting at 6.44pm and Cllr Greenow left the meeting for the duration of application 16/00519/FUL.

Applicant:      Mr Andy Gibson

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

Proposal:       Proposed Livestock Barn (Total floor area 450m2)

(a)  The Head of Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services stated that: A last minute letter had arrived concerning the application.

A Cllr raised a question regarding the Farm Business Tenancy.

The Chair suggested that Members should read the letter and then hear the rest of the information and the speakers comments before further debate as the new information may answer this.

The meeting was adjourned at 6.49pm and reconvened at 6.53pm.

It was deemed that the contents of the letter overcame any concerns.

(b)  Edward Hutchison, Ward Cllr for Frisby Ward, was invited to speak and stated that: The piece of land is 12 acres and 4 acres of this is fully owned by the applicant not rented. Remaining 8 acres are rolling grazing. The applicant has other land with an FBT for 5 years but not on this parcel of land. The applicant is looking to keep around 200 sheep and 20 cattle and is happy to sign a clause not to keep pigs on the land or anything that would create unpleasant smells. He is on good terms with the nearby dogs home and they have no concerns regarding the proposed barn. He has been farming for over 22 years and has been forced to move from existing farm. He bought this piece of land and the barn is being recycled from the old farm. It is essential to the business. It won’t add to transport. The lane is designed for farm traffic. It is well supported and recommend permit.

There was a discussion regarding the size of the proposed barn and this was clarified by officers and the applicant.

Cllr Posnett proposed to permit the application and added that she was pleased to see the late letter and is a supporter of rural businesses. There are no objections from the local community.

Cllr Botterill seconded the proposal.

The Head of Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services reminded Members that approval would also be subject to the blessing of environmental health.

The proposer and seconder agreed with this.

A Cllr noted that within a 400 yard radius the proposal incorporates a lot of other housing and that the Ward Cllr should be informed of that.

The Chair noted that it can be achieved.

A Cllr asked if someone would be on site at all times, possibly in a caravan, as someone would need to be there in lambing season.

The Chair responded that he understand the concerns regarding animal welfare however they were not a planning consideration and would be a matter for environmental health.

A vote was taken. 8 Members voted for approval, 1 Member voted against and there was 1 abstention. Cllr Chandler asked for her vote against to be recorded.

Determination: PERMIT, subject to:  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL42.2

Barn Lodge Cottage, Saltby Road, Croxton Kerrial

Cllr Greenow returned to the meeting at 7.10pm and Cllr Chandler and Cllr Botterill left the meeting for the duration of application 17/00800/FUL.

Applicant:      Rutland Property Company Ltd – Mr Mark Woods

Location:        Barn Lodge Cottage, Saltby Road, Croxton Kerrial NG32 1QG

Proposal:       Erection of four poultry buildings

(a)          The Head of Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services stated that:

Various responses from agencies:

• Ecology; The report (Emms and Barnett, May 2017) is acceptable, there were no habitats of importance recorded on the site. No protected species were recorded although there are several ponds within 500m of the site with varying degrees of habitat suitability, the application site is of suboptimal habitat and is therefore of low potential to support Great crested newts. 
• Historic England : no comment – rely on local advice.
• Highways: Access and sightline improvements required under the 2012 permission have not yet been implemented and a can be the subject of enforcement (details supplied). Propose and additional new condition to capture this and require improvement now:

Prior to first use of the development hereby permitted, a scheme of access improvements including visibility splays shall be constructed in accordance with a drawing that shall have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

• Archaeology: not satisfied with the extent of arch. investigations to date. Request trial trenching and analysis of the results before deciding whether to proceed with conditions r oppose.

In the light of these comments recommend we proceed as drafted, plus the highways condition recommended, but subject to the completion of trial trenching and the archaeological advisors confirming the findings show it is satisfactory to proceed (otherwise return to Committee).

(b)          Sam Harrison, agent on behalf of the applicant, was invited to speak and stated that: assured Members that the application would be managed to the highest standards of food safety animal welfare. No detrimental impact for birds or local residents. Birds would have freedom to move within the barn and their bedding would be frequently replenished. The barns are low in height to limit visual intrusion.

A Cllr asked for the current storage method for removing soiled bedding.

Sam Harrison responded that there is no permanent storage on site as the applicant doesn’t have requirement for it. It is removed by another company. There are 8 flocks per annum, so it is cleaned 8 times per year.

Cllr Holmes proposed to permit the application, subject to archaeology  and delegate to officers recommendations.

Cllr Higgins seconded the proposal and noted how well the food hygiene and safety standards were upheld during the site visit.

A vote was taken and the Members voted unanimously to permit.

Determination: PERMIT, subject to:

(a) The results of trial trenching being received and consultation with archaeological advisors resulting in no objection.

(b) The conditions as set out in the report with an amended condition as follows:

Prior to first use of the development hereby permitted, a scheme of access improvements including visibility splays shall be  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL42.3

Land Between Saxons Lea and 18 Leesthorpe Road, Pickwell

Cllr Botterill and Cllr Chandler returned to the meeting at 7.24pm

Applicant:      Mr Mark Gale

Location:        Land Between Saxons Lea and 18 Leesthorpe Road, Pickwell

Proposal:       Residential development of five terraced cottages and single detached dwelling

(a)       The Planning Officer (JL) stated that: Late representations: (Some of these are repeated from the original comments).

•           Concerns re parking – only 2 spaces per dwelling proposed, no provision for third vehicle or visitor parking.

•           Development is too large for the site.

•           Increase in traffic is a serious hazard – recent head on collision.

•           PC demonstrated need for 2 bed, not 3 bed properties.

•           Affordable housing appears to have been withdrawn from the application.

•           No indication that materials to be used will be in keeping with the village.

•           Applicant aware of the objections and emphasised should revert back to original plans.

•           Although no of bedrooms reduced from 19 to 15, don’t think this will have any impact on no. of vehicles.

•           Visibility difficult with hedges.

•           Car parking spaces are too narrow.

•           Want the mature ash trees in the boundary hedge retained.

PC comments –

The Parish Council objected to the first draft of 17/00527/REM  due to the unacceptable increase in bedroom numbers.  We are satisfied with the amendments made in the revised application and hence we have voted to approve it, on the understanding that one of the houses is to be an ‘affordable’ property.                

As the developer has made alterations to the scheme since, it is the Parish Council’s desire that the REM application only be granted permission if certain design constraints are to be met.

•           Satisfied with the proposed external and internal layouts.

•           Wish to seek that existing trees in the site boundaries are retained – want additional protection and include TPO on all trees within the site .

•           Application shows no detailed design. Wish to see more design detail prior to approval of the design and also want it to be possible for the PC to give approval . Want the development to be “cottage” in design.

•           Wish to roof pitch altered from 45 – 40 degrees.

•           Design is monolithic and unimaginative. Lacks chimneys and form of detail.

•           No mention of materials and conditioned that LPA approves materials in report. This is insufficient and would like to engage with the applicant prior to the submission of materials for LPA and PC approval.

•           We would wish to see a rubble stone façade with brick on the side and rear elevations, roofing should be welsh slate or clay pantiles (new or reclaimed) with ridge tiles to match, rainwater goods to have a traditional appearance and include detailing such as hoppers on the front elevations.

•           Whilst the proposal conforms with the CHA’s 6C’s guidance in respect of parking, we are informed that Parishioners would wish to have a parking space per bedroom Furthermore, there is no visitor parking included within the scheme.  We would  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL42.4

91 Grantham Road, Bottesford, Nottingham

Applicant:      Mr Ross Whiting

Location:        Eastcote, 91 Grantham Road, Bottesford

Proposal:       Proposed Garage (Part Retrospective) (Resubmission of 17/00047/FUL)

(a)  The Head of Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services stated that: there are no updates to the report.

(b)  Mrs Shelagh Woollard, on behalf of the objectors, was invited to speak and stated that:

• the garage is the same size and in  the same place as the one previously refused. The only difference is that conifers rather than laurels have been planted on the southern side.
• the strong building line has not changed.
• the garage protrudes 10 metres in front of this building line.
• the conifers are already above the height of the ground floor windows.
• the trees and hedgerows were conditioned to remain but were grubbed up.
• visible from the road, farm track and service road.
• would not improve the character and quality of the area.
• roof not covered in sedum. Covered in astro turf instead.
• Unauthorised development.
• does not comply with the NPPF.

(c)  George Machin, agent on behalf of the applicant, was invited to speak and stated that:

• the garage is not visible as there is planting round it.
• lower than a boundary fence.
• a larger garage would have been visible.
• it will have a sedum roof when fully complete.
• the garage is a significant distance away from neighbouring properties  and modest in comparison to the house.
• the garage is necessary and needed. Providing essential storage for lawnmowers, bbq’s etc.
• libellous reports by the immediate neighbours.
• the application is retrospective as the applicant thought it was covered by permitted development rights.

A Cllr commented that there have been numerous applications and enforcement cases for this property and wanted clarification that this would be the end of it.

George Machin responded that the most recent enforcement case had been quashed and there had been a lot of complaints which have been unwarranted or exaggerated.

A Cllr asked George Machin to go on the record that it wouldn’t come back to committee again.

Mr Machin agreed.

The Head of Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services reminded Members of the enforcement history.

A Cllr commented that it was planning by stealth. There have been numerous complaints and not just from the immediate neighbours. The drains are higher so that water couldn’t get in them. Concerned regarding access to plot 2. They could take away trees when they like. An orangery was built on the back which was retrospective as they had assumed it was permitted development again.

Cllr Greenow proposed to permit that application as there is no planning  reason to refuse.

Cllr Posnett  seconded the proposal.

A Cllr asked for more information on the previous appeal.

The Head of Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services noted that it is in the report. Differences in the size of the garage, screening  and it is set further back.

A vote was taken.  4 Members voted for permit and 2 voted against permit. There were 5 abstentions. Cllrs Cumbers, Higgins, Holmes, Botterill and Baguley asked  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL42.5

To consider any other items that the Chair considers urgent

None