Agenda and minutes

Cllr Faulkner, who was substituted by Cllr Rhodes

Cllr Posnett, who was substituted by Cllr Higgins

Cllr Holmes was not present at the beginning of the meeting, whilst the Chair was making his housekeeping announcements (Cllr Holmes arrived at 6.06pm)

The Chair announced that this would be Cllr Chandlers last planning committee due to her being on leave for the next one and then taking up her new position as Mayor. He thanked her for her contribution to the planning committee and wished her well in her term as Mayor. Cllr Chandler thanked the committee members.

To confirm the minutes of the previous meeting on 15.03.18

Minutes of the meeting held on 15^th March 2018

Cllr Chandler noted that on page 8 of the minutes regarding item 86.2, application 17/01389/FUL, where a Cllr had asked whether there was a condition to remove personal development rights, should read as ‘permitted’ development rights.

Approval of the minutes was proposed by Cllr Chandler and seconded by Cllr Holmes. It was unanimously agreed that the Chair sign them as a true record, subject to the above amendment.

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

Cllr Rhodes noted that he is also a member of LCC and may have contributed to some information in the papers to be viewed at the meeting whilst in this role.

Land Adj Crompton Road, Asfordby Hill

Applicant:     Mr Jonathan Chastney – Talavera Estates

Location:      Land adjacent Crompton Road, Crompton Road, Asfordby Hill

Proposal:      Erection of 16 dwellings

(a)  The Applications And Advice Manager stated that:

The application before you seeks the full planning permission for 16 dwellings off Crompton Road, Asfordby Hill, the site forms part of ASFH1 which is an allocated site in the emerging Melton Local Plan.

There has been one additional representation received since the publishing of the report which are comments from the Parish Council, they read as follows:-

“The Parish Council object on the following grounds:

1. The site does not form part of the resubmitted Asfordby Neighbourhood Plan.  The Parish council believes this alone should mean the applications rejected.
2. The site is on greenfield prime agricultural land.
3. There is a surplus of brownfield land available in the area of Asfordby Hill which should be used for new developments.  The residents of Asfordby Hill would like to see tis brownfield land developed.
4. There are few amenities in the area which means for most things residents would need to drive even to avail themselves of quite rudimentary facilities.

I would like to remind members that the status of the Asfordby Neighbourhood Plan has changed, and there is now a revised version submitted to the council for consultation which is running until 1^st May .

The proposal is recommended for approval subject to conditions as set out in the report.

(b) Sam Silcocks, agent on behalf of the applicant, was invited to speak and stated that:

• Support the officers recommendation to permit.
• The site is part of a residential allocation identified in the emerging local plan which should be given significant weight.
• Committed to the housing allocation.
• It would form part of the 5 year land supply target.
• There would be no adverse impacts arising from this site.
• The possible benefits for the scheme have been maximised.

(c)  Cllr Ronnie de Burle, Ward Councillor for Asfordby, was invited to speak and stated that:

• Representing the residents of Asfordby Hill who are opposed to this application.
• Reject an application on agricultural land. Until recently it had been farmed.
• Outside of the village boundary.
• Although it is an allocated site in the emerging plan, it is unresolved.
• Objection from Historic England
• The report doesn’t highlight that it is in area of separation.
• Housing allocation should be given greater weight.
• There are more appropriate brown fields sites in the hamlet.
• Asfordy have resubmitted their neighbourhood plan on the advice of the LPA.
• Full support of the community to develop brown fields sites.
• Report says there are local amenities such as shops and a Dr’s surgery but this is incorrect.

Cllr Higgins asked for clarification regarding Historic England’s objection to the local plan, as they didn’t mention this particular site and wondered about the specifics.

Cllr de Burle responded that he couldn’t answer but that it is a fact.

Cllr Higgins asked officers for further information regarding the scheduled ancient monument.

The Assistant Director for  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL92.1

Land adjacent 51 Stathern Lane, Harby

Applicant:     Mr Daniel Parnham

Location:      Land adjacent to 51 Stathern Lane, Harby

Proposal:      Erection of three dwellings

(a)  The Planning Officer (GBA) stated that:

• Application for three dwelling off Stathern Lane, Harby
• Full application with materials and landscaping for consideration
• One update confirming distance to neighbours from development 17 not 15m
• Two points of clarification over permitted developments regulations and that the trees to the front of the site will be protected.

(b) Nick Bacon, agent on behalf of the applicant, was invited to speak and stated that:

• It is a small scheme which will benefit the village.
• Necessary for the 5 year land supply.
• There will be 3 small houses which would be suitable for young couples or elderly villagers who wish to downsize.
• The appearance has been designed so it’s not imposing.
• Two bedrooms in the roofs with dormer windows so as not to impose on the houses opposite.
• Harby neighbourhood plan should be given weight.
• Concluded that it is not a valuable open space.
• Three car parking spaces are required and they have been provided.
• It will not make green lane any worse.
• There are considerable benefits and it will supplement and complement the village of Harby.

Cllr Baguley proposed to permit the proposal with the added condition that any further permitted development rights are removed. She added that she is pleased to see the trees being retained.

Cllr Cumbers seconded the proposal and added that she would particularly like the condition regarding PD rights included. She felt that any further development would lead to more car ownership and noted that this doesn’t stop development but that they would just have to ask for planning permission first.

Some Cllrs noted that they were pleased to see smaller housing and the retention of the trees, and that it would meet the housing needs and the neighbourhood plan. They felt the parking was extremely important.

A Member raised concerns regarding the proposed materials of bricks and stone with the suggestion that bits of ironstone would be randomly placed amongst the bricks. They asked if the proposer and seconder would agree which materials are used as it is a prominent area and on the road.

There was a discussion regarding the merits and pitfalls of conditioning the materials.

A Member noted that condition 2 mentioned materials and the use of them being in strict accordance with those specified in the application.

The Planning Officer (GBA) stated that they could ask for more specific materials.

The Chair noted that the application is very specific and that they need to be more flexible with materials and asked officers to revise the wording of the condition as such.

The Assistant Director for Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services added that the wording could be amended to, not withstanding the plans submitted, materials to be agreed by Officers and Ward Cllrs.

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

Determination: PERMIT, subject to the conditions as set out in the report, but  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL92.2

Jubilee House, Station Road, John O Gaunt

Applicant:     Mr and Mrs Waldron

Location:      Jubilee House, Station Road, John O Gaunt

Proposal:      Conversion of existing stables and rear extension to form a new dwelling

(a)  The Applications And Advice Manager stated that:

The application before you seeks full planning permission for 1 dwelling in John o Gaunt by converting and extending an existing stable.

There has been 1 representation received since the publishing of the report which states

The planned conversion would appear to be a very good way of improving the future life-style of the occupants of jubilee House without having any adverse effects on the nature of the local countryside.

It is considered that this additional comment does not raise any further points that haven’t already been addressed with the report.

The proposal is recommended for refusal as per the 2 reasons in the officer report, which         consider design and sustainability.

(b) Cllr R S Johnson, on behalf of Twyford and Thorpe Satchville Parish Council, was invited to speak and stated that:

• The applicant has the unanimous support of the parish councillors and support from local residents.
• The house is currently too large for the applicants but they don’t wish to move away.
• They need ground floor accommodation due to ailing health and may need live in care in the future.
• Not visible from the road.
• The rear extension would only be visible to one neighbour who finds it sympathetic to the local surroundings.
• The turning circle would avoid the need to reverse in to the road.
• This would improve the lives of the applicants and release on to the market a 4 bedroom home for a family wishing to move to John O Gaunt.

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

• He was going to say a lot of what the parish council had said.
• The property is currently too large for the applicants needs and they don’t want to move away.
• The stables are redundant.
• There is a continuous footpath between John O Gaunt and Twyford which enables them to take advantage of the facilities of Twyford.
• It is not an unsustainable location and will not attract much additional traffic.
• Can’t be seen from the road.
• Only 50% of the extension is two storeys in height.
• It will enable the applicants to live longer in their community.
• It will provide another dwelling.
• It won’t damage the street scene or the amenity of neighbours.
• No up to date local plan.
• The benefits outweigh the harm.

Cllr Higgins asked for clarification as to why the design formed part of the recommendation for refusal and asked if the officer had come back to him about the design.

Mr Fairhurst responded that he was not sure why the officers think it is a poor design and it hadn’t been explained why it is inappropriate. The elevation shows that it would be of limited view to the public.

The Applications And Advice Manager advised that the recommendation for refusal  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL92.3

To consider any other items that the Chair considers urgent

None