Agenda and minutes
PDF 81 KBVenue: Parkside, Station Approach, Burton Street, Melton Mowbray, Leicestershire, LE13 1GH
Contact: Development Control
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
Apologies for Absence Minutes: There were no apologies for absence. |
|
|
To confirm the minutes of the previous meeting. Minutes: The members reviewed the minutes of the previous meeting. Cllr Holmes proposed
to approve the minutes of the previous meeting. Cllr Greenow seconded
the motion to approve the minutes of the previous meeting. A Vote was taken to
approve the previous minutes. 11 Councillors
supported the motion. 0 Councillors opposed
the motion. 0 Councillors
abstained from the vote. The minutes were unanimously approved. |
|
|
Declarations of Interest Members to declare any
interest as appropriate in respect of items to be considered at this meeting. Minutes: Cllr Botterill declared a prejudicial and pecuniary interest in agenda item 4.7 – 17/01253/FUL. |
|
|
Schedule of Applications |
|
|
Field 3957, Manor Road, Easthorpe Minutes: Applicant: Mr Andy
Norris Location: Field 3957,
Manor Road, Easthorpe Proposal: Proposed
residential development. The case officer (JL) stated that:
Councillor Bayman was invited to speak, but was not present. Ian Sparrow, as an objector, was invited to speak, and
stated that: ·
He is a resident of Muston Lane, which is lane
serving the application site ·
Access to the site is off Muston Lane ·
The new development would overshadow Muston
Lane, and ruin all views ·
In response, all residents would build large
fences to create privacy from the new development ·
The development is outside the village curtilage ·
There is no need for local housing in the area ·
Wildlife in the area will suffer ·
There is a sewage issue in Easthorpe, and in
Muston Lane in particular ·
Muston Lane is very narrow and not suitable for
development ·
There are highways and traffic issues with the
site ·
Muston Lane has flooded, and this new
development will only make that worse A Cllr sought clarification on the fencing issue. Mr Sparrow responded that neighbours to the development will
be forced to build large fences to protect their privacy from the overshadowing
from the new development. A Cllr queried how often the site flooded. Mr Sparrow responded that Muston Lane has flooded twice in
the last 20 years. Clive Wicks, as the agent, was invited to speak and stated
that: ·
The development is of very high quality ·
The scheme has the support of both the LLFA and
Highways Authority ·
Environment Agency have no issues with the
scheme ·
New hedgerows will be planted on the site, and
the original hedgerow will be retained ·
2 starter homes are within the scheme ·
The scheme is close to the village ·
The houses are only two stories with roof space ·
The floor levels on the site are higher to
reduce flood risk on site ·
There is no contamination risk from this site,
unlike other local sites ·
The scheme will redirect water from the village ·
The scheme is sustainable, and encourages
members to support officer recommendation for approval Cllrs had no questions for Mr Wicks. The Case Officer responded to matters raised: ·
The height and number of storeys can be limited
through conditions of approval ·
This is an outline application; elevation and siting
are only indicative and would be the subject of reserved matters if approved. · There are no objections raised ... view the full minutes text for item PL86.1 |
|
|
Butlers Cottage, 11 Somerby Road, Pickwell Minutes: Applicant: Mr &
Mrs Kavan Brook Shanahan Location: Butlers
Cottage, 11 Somerby Road, Pickwell Proposal: Demolition
of dwelling and the construction of 5 "Alms Style" 2 storey dwellings
and associated gardens and garaging off a new single access from Somerby Road. The Case officer (JL) stated that: 2 further comments have been
received in support of the application. Much of the comments raised are already
covered in the report. Pickwell is the
adjacent village to Somerby a Tier-2 village which has a variety of local
resources including a Shop, Pub, Dr's Surgery, and a school. Somerby would
easily be able to support the needs of these new home-owners in Pickwell. A
variety of Somerby local businesses would also benefit significantly from
increased local revenues. Application is proposed to demolish 1 dwelling and erect 5 dwellings, just outside the conservation area. The applicant has proposed that one will be provided at 80% Market rental value, however it would be difficult for the council to have control over this.
· This is a welcome development in the area · The scheme is to a high specification and integrates with the village · It will not disturb local wildlife · It creates a new footpath to the village centre · No detriment to anybody locally · Impacts do not outweigh the benefits · Pickwell is not an unsustainable village · Disagree with recommendation to refuse the scheme · In the neighbourhood plan, there is support for local small schemes and small units · There is proven local demand in the area · Local support for the scheme in the village A Cllr asked if there had been any comments against the scheme. Cllr Fynn responded that there had been no objections to the application. A Cllr asked that the potential harm of the scheme was. Cllr Fynn responded that there was no foreseeable harm to the scheme Maurice Fairhurst, the agent, was invited to speak and stated that: · The applicant currently lives at Pickwell Manor · There is proven local demand for housing · The village and scheme is connected to Somerby, it is less that 1km · The village is not unsustainable · The scheme is for traditional Alms housing · This is not a significant development · Lots of care and thought within the application · The scheme will maintain highway safety · The scheme will offer competitive local rents · One of the houses will be offered for 80% market rent value to local people · Parish Council support the application · Conservation officer supports the application · There are no objections to the scheme · The benefits of the scheme outweigh the harm Cllrs had no questions for Mr Fairhurst Cllr Higgins, local Ward Councillor, requested to address the committee. As Cllr Higgins was not registered to speak, Cllrs held a vote on whether to allow a new speaker. Cllrs voted unanimously to allow Cllr Higgins to address the committee. Cllr Higgins, the Ward Councillor, was invited to speak, and stated that: · The scheme contains very high quality housing ... view the full minutes text for item PL86.2 |
|
|
Field Nos 1586 and 9982, Washstones Lane, Frisby On The Wreake Minutes: Applicant: Mr &
Mrs Simon Read Location: Field Nos
1586 And 9982, Washstones Lane, Frisby On The Wreake Proposal: New
dwelling and outbuilding. The Case Officer (GBA) stated that: This is a full planning application for one house on land
off Washstones Lane, Frisby on the Wreake. There are no updates to the report This is an application for a single dwelling proposal with
all matters of design, access and landscaping for consideration. Whilst located
in a sustainable village and therefore being acceptable in principle the
specific location on this site is deemed to be too remote from the village to
be classed as part of the village. Walking to the centre of the village to access its services
is challenging and therefore this further means that the development is
difficult to describe as sustainable. Finally, there are unresolved concerns of flooding as an
acceptable sequential test is yet to be provided. As such the application is recommended for refusal. Members agree unanimously to let the Ward Councillor address
the committee, despite not being a registered speaker. Cllr Baxter, on behalf of the Parish Council, was invited to
speak and stated that: ·
Frisby is a small and rural village ·
This application is outside the village envelope ·
The neighbourhood plan is past examination and
is going to referendum, so has significant weight ·
The local plan says that Frisby needs to take an
allocation of 68 dwellings, and the neighbourhood plan allocated 78. ·
98 permissions have already been granted within
the village ·
There is the risk of urban sprawl across Frisby ·
The original consent for the site has not been
adhered to ·
This development is for another new dwelling ·
This application should be refused with the
officers recommendation Councillors had no questions for Cllr Baxter. Jonathon Ball, as an objector, was invited to speak and
stated that: ·
This is a countryside development ·
This application will set a precedent within the
village ·
The site is within flood zone 2 ·
High risk of flooding, so a sequential test is
required ·
The sequential test with this application is not
sufficient ·
It is near the railway line, which cannot be
mitigated against ·
There are highways issues on site, and it is
near a blind bend and within a 60mph limit ·
Location is too remote to the village Councillors had no questions for Mr Ball Liam Doherty, as the agent, was invited to speak and stated
that: ·
This is a brownfield site ·
It is on the edge of the village ·
Previous permission for barn was granted in 2013 ·
This will be a carbon neutral home ·
Sequential test is sufficient ·
Gate and footpath link to the village ·
The development is sustainable ·
This is an exceptional design ·
The benefits outweigh the harm for this
application A Cllr questioned the increase in hardstanding area on site
for the increasing flood risk. Mr Doherty replied that it was not significant as it is a
brownfield site. Cllr Hutchinson, as Ward Councillor, was invited to speak
and stated that: · There used to be ... view the full minutes text for item PL86.3 |
|
|
Bottesford Filling Station, Grantham Road, Bottesford Minutes: Applicant: PDRH
Limited - Peter Dunn Location: Bottesford
Filling Station, Grantham Road, Bottesford Proposal: Proposed
retail convenience store, associated external works and access alteration. The Assistant Director of Strategic Planning and Regulatory
Services stated that the recommendation for this application had changed to a
recommendation to defer due to the number of late representations and new
information that had come forward, that needed time to be considered, so should
be deferred. The Chair proposed a
deferral of the application. Cllr Posnett seconded
the motion for deferral. A vote was taken on
the motion to defer. 11 Councillors
supported the motion. 0 Councillors opposed
the motion. 0 Councillors
abstained from the vote. The motion passed
unanimously. The application was deferred. DETERMINATION: DEFERRED in order to consider the content of the recently submitted representations. |
|
|
Field 7900, Wartnaby Road, Ab Kettleby Minutes: Applicant: Chris
& Ian Carr Location: Field 7900,
Wartnaby Road, Ab Kettleby Proposal:
Construction of 10 new dwellings with community carpark and bus turning area. The Case officer (JL) stated that: The agent states that they can provide a footway on the
North side of the road but it will not meet 6c’s guidance of 2m width – but neither
do most footways in the village. Notwithstanding this the applicant would agree
to using the Southern footway if more acceptable to the Highways Authority. The agent highlights the Parish Council’s comment was
relating to dwellings “to attract young families as the plot is adjacent to the
school” – the outline mix of houses is for two 2 bed, six 3 bed & two 4bed
– this meets the requirement. There is no policy requirement for “affordable”
social housing to be provided on a site of this size. The application seeks outline permission, however access and
flooding issues have been resolved. The site is not allocated in the local plan
and does not form an exception site (as not providing affordable housing). The
site is outside the village envelope. Richard Cooper, as the agent, was invited to speak and
stated that: ·
Ab Kettleby is a rural hub in the local plan ·
Allocation site ABK1 is on the wrong side of the
A606 ·
This site has support from the Parish Council ·
Neighbourhood plan research shows that the village
needs more housing ·
The village is sustainable, as it is a rural hub ·
Additional housing will improve the viability of
the village ·
This site provides a play area and a bus turning
area ·
This is only an outline application ·
Impacts do not outweigh the benefits A Cllr queried the bus turning area Mr Cooper responded that it is designed for the local school
bus, which currently turns in a dangerous spot near to the school itself. A Cllr stated that Ab Kettleby needs more housing or the
village will die out. There is no bus service in the village but there are a
lot of traffic issues and parking is problematic. This application has a lot of
both positives and negatives. A Cllr reiterated that there is no bus service within the
village, but there is a bus organised four days a week by County Hall, that
visits the village and Melton Mowbray town centre. A Cllr queried how many dwellings have already been approved
within the village. The Applications and Advice Manager responded that 3
dwellings had been approved. A Cllr stated that the current bus turning area is very
dangerous, and that this scheme has a lot of positives and negatives. A Cllr commented that this site is not allocated in the
local plan, so cannot support the application. The Assistant Director of Strategic Planning and Regulatory
Services commented that the relevant Neighbourhood Plan is at the very early
stages. A Cllr commented that the neighbourhood plan should have no weight and that the local plan still only has limited weight, and this type ... view the full minutes text for item PL86.5 |
|
|
37 Main Street, Great Dalby Minutes: Applicant: Mr Robert Bindloss Location: 37 Main
Street, Great Dalby Proposal: Erection of
one three bedroom bungalow with additional detached garage. The Case Officer (JL) reported that there were no late items
to report. Cllr Johnson, on behalf of the Parish Council, was invited
to speak and stated that: ·
There are concerns about this site ·
There are a change in ground levels on the site ·
There are surface water issues within the
village ·
There are right of way and footpath issues on
this site ·
This site is outside the village envelope ·
Support the officer’s recommendation for refusal
of application ·
This site used to be paddock land ·
This is a greenfield site Councillors had no questions for Cllr Johnson. Robert Bindloss, the applicant, was invited to speak and
stated that: ·
There were five years of negotiation before
buying this land ·
Wife suffers from progressive Arthritis, so
needs a bungalow ·
Want to remain part of the village ·
There was lots of rubbish and fly tipping on the
site ·
The footpath was previously unpassable ·
Pond on site will be cleaned ·
Footpath will be far larger than it is now ·
The drainage and flooding issues nearby will be
relieved ·
The site is not overlooking neighbours ·
There are no highways or traffic issues ·
The two traffic issues on site were caused by drunk-driving
and not due to other issues A Cllr asked how the flooding issues would be relieved. Mr Bindloss responded that there will be a land drain
created and a new drainage system. The Case Officer (JL) stated that there were no further
updates. A Cllr stated that there is a lot of back land development
within the village, which is supported by PINS, and there has been a lot of
appeals recently in the area. A Cllr stated that in this application, the benefits do not
outweigh the impacts. A Cllr stated that if the scheme is well designed, it may
not damage the conservation area, and that the current application is only an
outline. Cllr Wyatt proposed
to permit the development, as there is no substantial harm from the site. Cllr Posnett seconded
the motion to permit, as there were no objections from any statutory
consultees, the land is within their ownership and the footpath will not be an
issue. A Cllr raised concerns about the footpath width, as it looks
quite narrow. A Cllr responded that the footpath will now be alongside and
the length of the driveway. A Cllr stated that they cannot support the motion to permit,
as it is against the officer’s recommendation. A Cllr stated that this application is only an outline application,
so need more information before the impact on the conservation area can be
accurately assessed. The Case Officer (JL) stated that the conservation area is
for a linear village, a fact which has been repeatedly been mentioned in
appeals and appeal decisions. A Cllr stated that they had concerns about the site access
and the footpath. A Vote was taken on the motion ... view the full minutes text for item PL86.6 |
|
|
Church End, 29 Middle Street, Croxton Kerrial Minutes: Applicant: Mr &
Mrs Richard Botterill Location: Church End, 29 Middle Street, 29 Middle
Street, Croxton Kerrial Proposal:
Construction of new dwelling and alterations to existing access. The
Case Officer (GBA) reported that: This is a full planning application for one house on land
off Middle Street, Croxton Kerrial. Two updates following the publication of the report:- a) Two further
separate representations from the residents of 27 Middle Street who maintain
concern of how the size and position of the proposed building would be an
overbearing impact on their home and view of the village from the approach.
There is also concern of the windows of the proposed building will be directly
visible to and from bedroom windows. As previously commented, there is no objection to the
principle of the building, rather the current size in relation to our home and
the remainder of the village with suggested changes. b) The parish
council have responded showing an appreciation for the reduced the height of
the house and the scale by removing the garage and changing the overall design.
They have no objection to the house in principal but are concerned about the
height, relationship to the Grade II* listed church and the impact on the
northern entrance to the village. Consider it needs to be ‘hankered down into
the landscape with other suggestions made which align with the views of the MBC
planning department. Despite this the applicant wishes to have determination as
the house currently sits and is designed. This is a single dwelling proposal with all matters of
design, access and landscaping for consideration. Whilst located in a
sustainable village and therefore being acceptable in principle the specific
location on this site is deemed to have an impact on the conservation area and
the grade II* listed church. The development of this site would result in the
loss of what is considered one of the most important aspects of green
infrastructure within the conservation area, where the open, undeveloped nature
of the site accommodates expansive views from the approach / departure into the
village, and most significantly towards the adjacent Grade II* listed St John
the Baptist Church. For this reason on balance, it is considered that the
benefits of one house in an area where there is many allocations for housing
already does not outweigh the impacts of
impact to the conservation area and listed building. In reference to the concerns over neighbour amenity it is
viewed that the 8.6m distance is sufficient for a one and half storey
extension. There is also no window proposed on this side to be
considered an impact in terms of privacy. However owing to the concerns of heritage impact, the
application is recommended for refusal. Richard Botterill, the applicant, was invited to speak and
stated that: ·
There is no adverse effect on the church ·
No adverse effect on the conservation area ·
No views of church from the proposal site ·
72m from site to the church · Other approved applications have had a ... view the full minutes text for item PL86.7 |
|
|
Brook House, 6 Main Road, Twyford Minutes: Applicant: Mr Michael
Jackson Location: Brook House, 6 Main Road, Twyford Proposal: Storage
Building The Case Officer (JL) stated that: No late items to report. Proposal is for a storage building,
located in Flood Zone 3. The building is not within the residential curtilage
of the property for which it is associated with and it is proposed that the
building will be used to store general maintenance equipment. The application
is before the committee as it is contrary to planning policy as it is outside
the village envelope. Mr Jackson was invited to speak, but was not present. Cllr Holmes proposed
to approve the application, in line with the Officer’s recommendation. Cllr Wyatt seconded
the motion to approve the application, in line with the Officer’s
recommendation. A Vote was taken on
the motion to approve the application. 11 Councillors
supported the motion. 0 Councillors opposed
the motion. 0 Councillors
abstained from the vote. The motion passed
unanimously. The application was approved. DETERMINATION:
APPROVED subject to the conditions as set out in the Committee report, for the following
reasons: The adjacent land is
used for recreation by the applicant, and the building is required for storage
of equipment used to maintain the land.
It is considered that given the relationship with the applicants
dwelling, and the proposed siting, with adequate access from Main Street, that
the proposed storage building for personal use is acceptable in this location.
It has been demonstrated that there has not been a detrimental impact upon the
countryside resulting from small scale development which is considered to be of
appropriate design. Likewise the sensitive siting set well back from the
highway ensures that the intrinsic character of the area is not harmed. |
|
|
Appeal Update for 16/00100/OUT White Paper presented by the Assistant Director of Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services for the planning appeal for 16/00100/OUT – Field 3300, Oakham Road, Somerby Minutes: Update for Appeal for application 16/00100/OUT The Assistant Director of Strategic Planning and Regulatory
Services distributed a new report for the appeal update for application
16/00100/OUT. A Recess was taken at 20:29 to allow Councillors to read and
take in the new report. The meeting continued at 20:35. Councillors are asked to note the findings from the report. DETERMINATION: the content of the report was
noted. |
|
|
Urgent Business To consider any other items that the Chair
considers urgent Minutes: A Cllr queried the timing of the next site visit, as it is
scheduled to take place on Easter Monday. The Applications and Advice Manager responded that the site
visit will take place on Tuesday 3rd April instead of Easter Monday. A Cllr stated that the Ward Councillor should be called on
first in the debate, as they are often more knowledgeable of the application
and the area. |