Agenda and minutes

Cllr Faulkner

To confirm the minutes of the previous meeting.

Minutes of the meeting held on 16^th August 2018

 

The Chair advised that a member of the public had commented that the minutes do not accurately record the meeting. Members agreed that the minutes were correct.

 

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

Cllrs Rhodes and Posnett declared an interest in matters which may arise in relation to the County Council.

 

The Chair advised that ordinarily Cllr Orson would speak on application 18/00633/FUL as he is Ward Councillor; however he declared a disclosable pecuniary interest.

The Red Lion, Grantham Road, Bottesford

Applicant:     WTF Projects Ltd

Location:      The Red Lion, Grantham Road, Bottesford

Proposal:   Change of use and alterations (including demolition of rear extension and erection of new single storey rear extension) of existing public house building to form 2 dwellings, and erection of 1(No.) 3- bedroom dwelling.

 

The Chair advised that both applications had been withdrawn from the agenda.

 

The Assistant Director of Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services explained that this was because further information had been received and more time was needed to provide an updated report.

 

Field 6967, Grantham Road, Bottesford

Applicant:     Penland Estates Ltd

Location:      Field 6967, Grantham Road, Bottesford

Proposal:     Residential development for up to 60 dwellings with access from Grantham Road and associated drainage infrastructure and public open space.

 

(a)  The Development Manager (LP) presented the report and stated that:

The application seeks outline planning permission for up to 60 dwellings with only details of access being considered at this stage, all other details are to be considered at Reserved Matters stage.

The application form part of the proposed allocated site BOT2 in the emerging Local Plan along with the recently permitted 17/01577/OUT, discussions with the agent have confirmed that as per the second part of the allocation a link can be provided between the two sites and members are encouraged within the report to consider whether this should be conditioned accordingly.

It should also be noted by members as per the report that the capacity number given in the emerging Local Plan is an estimated number only and is not a fixed amount, a minimum nor a maximum.  The indicative layout shows how the 60 dwellings could satisfactorily be accommodated on the site.

Since the publishing of the report, Archaeology comments have been received from the County Council who raise no objections to the proposal following on from the additional information received.

There are no further updates to the report and the application is recommended for approval subject to Section 106 requirements and conditions as set out in the report.

 

(b)  Cllr Chandler, the Ward Cllr, was invited to speak and stated that:

·         Affordable housing included

·         No traffic concerns

·         106 payment is acceptable

·         Poor quality pasture land

·         Ragwort present but can be treated

·         Station improvements welcome

 

A Cllr asked if the contribution to health services was requested by the LPA, the NHS, or the local CCG.

 

The Development Manager confirmed that NHS England requested the s106 contribution.

 

The Chair asked Members if they would suspend standing orders to allow the agent, who arrived late, to speak. All Members were in favour.

 

(c)  Andrew Gore, the agent, was invited the speak and stated that:

·         Allocated site in the Local Plan

·         No technical issues

·         No objection from consultees

·         Layout informed through meetings with Bottesford Parish Council and Bottesford Neighbourhood Plan steering group

·         Respects Local Plan policy

·         Pedestrian connectivity between 2 sites by condition

 

A Cllr noted that there was no play area included and that it is Council Policy for a development of this size to include a play area.

 

Mr Gore stated that it is an outline application and therefore flexible. A public open space is provided and a play area could be included, however the Davidson’s site nearby does have a playground.

 

A Cllr stated that there was no condition for pedestrian connectivity.

 

The Development Manager advised that the report leaves this up to the Members to decide.

 

A Cllr asked how many houses there are to the acre.

 

Mr Gore stated that the layout shows slightly less than 60. An upper limit had been set to  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL36.2

Reservoir at Six Hills Lane, Old Dalby

Applicant:     Mr Scott Jones

Location:      Reservoir at Six Hills Lane, OId Dalby

Proposal:      Proposed conversion of Reservoir to one dwelling.

 

 

(a)  The Development Manager (LP) presented the report and stated that:

The application seeks full planning permission to convert an underground reservoir to one dwelling.  The NPPF is considered to form the policy basis for decision making in this instance and of particular importance to this application is paragraph 79 and 131 which allow for development in isolated locations in exceptional circumstances which this is considered to be.

There are no updates to the report and the application is recommended for approval subject to conditions as set out in the report.

 

A Cllr was concerned that the Saltway is a dangerous and busy road.

 

Cllr Greenow proposed to permit the application as per the recommendation.

 

Cllr Bains seconded the proposal.

 

A Cllr stated that it is a good scheme but the road is busy and fatalities have occurred. Asked if the road could be widened,

 

The Assistant Director of Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services stated that the proposal has sizeable site lines of 90m.

 

A vote was taken. It was unanimously decided that the application be permitted.

 

Determination: It is considered that given the provisions of paragraphs 79 and 131 of the NPPF and the proposed design of the building, sustainability credentials, limited extension and the reuse of an existing building, that the principle of the dwelling is acceptable in these circumstances.

 

The Hollies, 6 Cross Street, Gaddesby

Applicant:     Mr Jamieson

Location:      The Hollies, 6 Cross Street, Gaddesby

Proposal:      Proposed two storey dwelling

 

 

(a)  The Development Manager (LP) presented the report and stated that:

The proposal seeks full permission for the erection of a two storey three bedroom dwelling which has been amended during the application process. 

Since the publishing of the report three further representations have been received, no additional issues have been raised within those representations from those discussed within the report.

There are no further updates to the report and the application is recommended for approval subject to conditions as set out in the report.

 

(a)  Gary Fox, on behalf of the Parish Council, was invited to speak and stated that:

·         Housing Need Survey concludes a requirement for housing is 2 Affordable Housing, 8 Shared Ownership and 8 Open Market

·         Planning permission given to 14 homes and considered for 11 dwellings

·         Proposal does not satisfy requirement for housing need

·         Not an extension to or enhancement of existing dwelling

·         Conservation area

·         Attractive, historical and peaceful setting

·         Detracts from setting

·         Loss of privacy for immediate neighbour

·         Parking issues

·         Pedestrian access issues

·         Change to streetscene

·         Not in keeping with area

 

(b)  Austin Healey, an objector, was invited to speak and stated that:

·         Dust and noise issues

·         Overbearing

·         Overdevelopment

·         Overlooks property, privacy issues

·         Hedging removal not possible – will struggle to keep alive

·         Parking lots go over boundary into neighbouring property

 

A Cllr stated that the 2012 NPPF discouraged inappropriate development in a residential garden and asked what the policy is in the current version.

 

The Development Manager stated that it is the policy making that indicates the residential development within existing gardens. There is nothing to specifically state new development.

 

A Cllr stated that a development elsewhere had previously been refused for this reason.

 

Cllr Holmes proposed to refuse the application as it would be bad planning. The Silver Birch Trees should not be taken down. It is overdevelopment in a village, impacts negatively on the streetscene, and there are parking issues.                    

 

Cllr Baguley seconded the proposal to refuse due to loss of trees and changes to streetscene in a conservation area. A development should improve not harm to conservation area.

 

A Cllr stated that there would be an impact on the streetscene, changes to a conservation area and there are highways problems.

 

A Cllr stated that it would damage the rural character and asked if the proposer and seconder would include inappropriate development of a residential garden as a reason to refuse.

 

The proposer and seconder accepted the reason.

 

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

 

Determination: Refused for the following reasons:

 

The proposed erection of a new dwelling in this location is considered to represent overdevelopment of the site.  Accordingly, the proposal is considered to conflict with Policy D1 a) of the emerging Local Plan, BE1 of the Melton Local Plan 1999 and the NPPF paragraphs 127 b) and 131.

 

The proposed erection of a new  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL36.4

To consider any other items that the Chair considers urgent

 

None