Agenda and minutes

There were no apologies for absence.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 12 November 2020.

The minutes of the meeting held on 12 November 2020 were confirmed and authorised to be signed by the Chair.

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

Councillor Posnett declared a personal interest in any matters relating to the Leicestershire County Council due to her role as a County Councillor. 

Minute PL76 : 20/01095/FUL – Tofts Hill, Stathern

Councillor Steadman confirmed that she would be representing her ward on this application by making a representation to the Committee. She would therefore leave the meeting during debate and not vote on this item in accordance with the Council’s Procedure Rules.

Tofts Hill, Stathern

(Councillor Steadman declared her intention to speak as Ward Councillor on this application and here left the Committee and moved into the public speaking gallery.)

The Planning Development Manager addressed the Committee and provided a summary of the application and summarised that the  recommendation was for refusal.

Pursuant to Chapter 2, Part 9, Paragraphs 2.8-2.28 of the Council’s Constitution in relation to  public speaking at Planning Committee, the Chair allowed the following to give a 3 minute presentation:

·         Kenneth Bray, Stathern Parish Council

In response to a Member question on whether the village would accept the existing barns falling into disrepair and how would this affect the landscape. Mr Bray responded that the barns were currently not in disrepair and were part of the landscape.

The Legal Advisor added that the local authority could serve notice if the condition of the of a building had a harmful effect on the surrounding area.

A Member pointed out that although the village had the view of Tofts Hill, it did not own the area.

·         Rob Hughes, Hughes Planning

There was a Member query as to potential for more than two vehicles using the forecourt. Mr Hughes responded that it could take additional vehicles should this be needed in the future. He referred to the forecourt as a turning area so that vehicles could drive in and out forward facing and there were no highway issues raised.

A Member asked how the development could bring economic and other benefits to Stathern above and beyond any other development. Mr Hughes responded that it would contribute to economic investment to the Council as well as create jobs in the construction phase, contribute to Council tax, use of the village school and being a part of the local community, save on commuter travel as the applicant already lived in Stathern and there were wider economic benefits too.

·         Councillor Steadman, Ward Councillor

At a Member’s request, the Planning Development Officer recapped on the presentation and development proposals.

During discussion the following points were noted:

·         Should the development be exceptional, how would the Council view the application in light of previous appeal dismissals. It was noted that the Committee could only consider the proposal before them. Also the category of a building of exceptional quality was one which was of outstanding or innovative design which would significantly enhance the local area. A Councillor felt this design enhanced the local area more than what was there however the Legal Advisor disagreed and considered the application did not meet the exceptional development criteria

·         There was mention of light intrusion and the impact of domestication and urbanisation of the site on the village

·         It was noted that agricultural barns could be distracting and become an eyesore on the landscape and there was a balance to be made on saving the barns or the landscape

·         It  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL76

Field OS 5629, Holwell Lane, Melton Mowbray

The Development Planning Manager addressed the Committee and provided a summary of the application. She advised that the application was recommended for refusal.

Pursuant to Chapter 2, Part 9, Paragraphs 2.8-2.28 of the Council’s Constitution in relation to  public speaking at Planning Committee, the Chair allowed the following to give a 3 minute presentation:

·         Jason Tearne, Applicant

In response to Member queries on how long the applicant intended to run the business from the location, how it would enhance employment and growth in the area other than for him and his family, Mr Tearne responded that he intended to remain there for 30 years and recruit staff to pass on skills and experience to enable the business to grow and continue.

Mr Tearne also advised that security had been an issue and he needed to live on site to protect his plant and equipment.

·         Councillor Orson, Ward Councillor

Councillor Orson spoke in support of permitting the application and felt it was important to support business growth in the rural areas.

The Planning Development Manager referred to relevant policies especially on the question of a work related dwelling and it was felt this application did not meet policy D3 nor was security of the site a criteria in determining whether a dwelling was needed on a site. She also referred to the report which explained the reasoning for the recommendation and advised that Members needed to add weight to their concerns and balance these against the policies.

During discussion the following points were noted:

·         It was considered that rural businesses should be supported and policies reviewed to accommodate these with an understanding for a tied dwelling if required to help with security and sustainability

·         There was other Member agreement to support accommodation on site with flexibility on any tie to the dwelling so that the applicant was not financially penalised should they need to diversify arrangements

·         The Planning Development Manager advised that a suitable condition to reflect Members’ wishes could be included

·         It was noted that rural crime was an issue for farms and rural businesses and insurance premiums were high if there wasn’t enough security in place

·         The historic logging and hedge laying skills presented in the application were essential to retain and pass on to future generations

·         It was noted this was not an agricultural business and conditions around the dwelling should be varied accordingly

·         It was considered a noisy business which was best placed in the open countryside so as not to interfere with neighbour amenity and should be supported

·         It was considered a  profitable and sustainable  business that would enhance the rural economy and be there for years to come

·         It was felt the application did meet policy D3 and was supported by the NPPF and the Local Plan

·         It was noted that the application met NNPF  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL77

To consider any other items that the Chair considers urgent

There was no urgent business.