Venue: By remote video conference
Contact: Democratic Services Team
Link: View Planning Committee Meeting
No. | Item | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Apologies for Absence Minutes: An apology for absence was received from Councillor Bindloss. Councillor Smedley attended as his substitute. |
|||||||
Declarations of Interest PDF 51 KB Members to declare any
interest as appropriate in respect of items to be considered at this meeting. Minutes: Councillor Posnett declared a personal interest in any matters relating to the Leicestershire County Council due to her role as a County Councillor. Minute PL41 : 19/01113/FUL – Field OS 8695, Brooksby Road, Hoby Councillor Holmes
stated that although it had been suggested that she had an interest in this
application due her son in law being a Hoby with Rotherby Parish Councillor,
she had no personal interest in this application and would therefore take part
in the usual way. Minute PL42: 20/00102/FUL
- Former Southfields Farm, Church Lane, Somerby Councillor Higgins confirmed that he would be representing his ward on this application by making a representation to the Committee. He would therefore leave the meeting during debate and not vote on this item in accordance with the Council’s Procedure Rules. |
|||||||
Schedule of Applications Minutes: (Councillor Chandler here left meeting due to loss of remote connection.) |
|||||||
Application 19/01113/FUL PDF 274 KB Field OS 8695, Brooksby Road, Hoby Minutes:
The Assistant Director for Planning and Delivery addressed the Committee and provided a summary of the application. 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: · Councillor Stuart Robinson, Chair, Hoby with Rotherby Parish Council (Councillor Chandler here re-joined the meeting. The Legal Advisor explained that Councillor Chandler could not take part in the debate nor vote as she had not been present for the whole application.) · Colin Wilkinson, Agent, Planit-X Town and Country Planning Services Limited It was noted that this and the planning application relating
to Brooksby College were following independent
courses and were not connected. With regard to there being limited access to public transport, it was advised that the criteria for affordable housing, although desirable, was not reliant on the provision of public transport. During discussion the following points were noted: ·
Members
felt the affordable housing was a positive scheme but the relocation of the
children’s play area was a negative for the development and it was the balance
between the two which was the main subject of discussion ·
The
relocation of the play area was felt to be detrimental to the application being
nearest to the sewage works and in a notoriously wet area of the site and made
the development contrary to policy D1 ·
It was
felt that the developer needed to review the needs of the village and the
environmental impact of the play area’s relocation in liaison with the Parish
Council, Ward Councillor and local community and return with an improved scheme ·
Members
were in agreement with the officer recommendation to refuse the application and
were minded to include other policies that they felt were in conflict with the
application, being policies D1, C7 and C9 and SS3 ·
The
Assistant Director advised that robust planning reasons were needed for adding
each extra policy to the refusal and they needed to be defendable at appeal ·
It was
felt that policy D1 was not an appropriate reason for refusal in this case ·
There
was concern that there could be too many affordable homes in Brooksby Councillor Holmes proposed that the application be refused in accordance with the recommendation and also being in conflict with policies C7, C9 and SS3. Councillor Steadman seconded the motion. RESOLVED That application
19/01113/FUL be REFUSED in accordance with the recommendation and also being in
conflict with policies C7, C9 on the basis of the impact on the play
area as a community facility and feature of the village, and SS3 with respect
to the ‘proven need’ for the dwellings. (9 for, 1 against,
1 abstention) REASONS 1. The proposal comprised the provision of four affordable houses where a need had been identified for the type of housing proposed. However permission existed which was deliverable ... view the full minutes text for item PL41 |
|||||||
Application 20/00102/FUL PDF 504 KB Former Southfields Farm, Church Lane, Somerby Minutes:
(Councillor Higgins declared his intention speak as Ward Councillor on this application and here left the Committee and moved into the public speaking gallery.) The Planning Officer addressed the Committee and provided a summary of application. 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: · Councillor Carl Powell, Somerby Parish Council · Barbara Yandell, Objector In response to a Member question on the rewilding area, Ms Yandell responded
that although unsure how this would be managed, she considered the developer or
Parish Council could maintain the rewilding area in the scheme. · Richard Cooper, Agent, HSSP In response to Member questions, Mr Cooper advised that ·
The
intention of the developer was to offer the rewilding paddock to the 2 largest
plots and the maintenance would fall to those owners ·
The
management of the shared green areas
would be the responsibility of the whole development and would be included by
legal agreement when the plots were sold ·
As the
rewilding area adjoined the 2 largest plots and they had access, view and most
benefitted from the rewilding area, it was most logical for these plots to be
offered sole custody of the paddock and not be subject to the development’s
green area management agreement ·
The
developer had right of access via Owston Road to the
site during the construction of the development only · Councillor Leigh Higgins – Ward Councillor With regard to emergency
services access to the site, the Planning Officer advised that this was covered
at page 23 of the report and the requisite access was available. He also
advised there were 2 bungalows on the development not 3 as mentioned by the
agent. The Assistant
Director responded to the request for a condition relating to the protection of
the rewilding area against a future planning application and advised that a
condition didn’t offer the security sought as the Council could not prevent a
planning application in the future for any site and only a S106 agreement had
such powers. There was concern
that the owners of plots 8 and 9 would be able to landscape the rewilding area
to their own design. The Assistant Director advised that that would constitute
a change of use and be the subject of the usual planning controls. During discussion the following points were noted: ·
There
was a turning area included in the layout of the development which meant
residents would be able to enter and leave in a forward direction which would
assist road movements for neighbours and other users on Church Lane ·
The
affordable housing provision was felt to be generous as was the S106 agreement
to contribute to local education ·
The
rewilding area would enhance the development · There was concern as to what would happen to the rewilding areas if the purchasers ... view the full minutes text for item PL42 |
|||||||
Application 20/00433/OUT PDF 271 KB Proposed apartment block, 16 Dalby Road, Melton Mowbray Minutes:
The Assistant Director for Planning and Delivery addressed
the Committee and provided a summary of the report. He referred to a petition
signed by 38 residents who objected to the development. These concerns as well
as several other submissions related to the density of the development,
overshadowing, overlooking as well as
insufficient parking provision and drainage issues. 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: · Karen Matthews, Objector · Laura McMullan, Agent, Hayward McMullan In response to Member questions, Ms McMullan advised that ·
The
application was at the outline stage and if required the landscaping scheme
could be reviewed with Council Officers to provide a more environmentally
friendly scheme including outside space for residents ·
The
development was an investment to help finance the charity and would not
directly benefit those who were the subject of the charity’s work · Councillor Alan Pearson – Ward Councillor Members felt there
was an opportunity to improve the development
and make it work for the area and the local residents as well as review
the parking provision. The Assistant Director for Planning and Delivery reiterated that this was an outline application and there was the opportunity to improve the layout and design when the detailed application was submitted. Some Members felt they had taken that advice previously and then not been able to amend plans at the detailed stage and been informed that such matters should have been raised at the outline stage. During discussion the following points were noted: ·
It was
considered that the design needed to be more sympathetic to the street scene
and have more emphasis on quality of life for the occupants, less units,
landscaping and green open space and sufficient parking for residents and guests ·
It was
felt that the current design was over-intensive and more suited to the city and
did not fit in with the surrounding Dalby Road properties ·
Members
were minded to refuse on the grounds of being in conflict with policy EN1 and
D1 ·
It was
felt there should be discussions between local residents, the Ward Councillors
and Planning Officers to agree a more sustainable development which met the
needs of the community, using Dorian
Court as a model ·
The
Assistant Director advised that policy EN1 did not fit as a reason for refusal
therefore Members were in agreement to use policy D1 only It was reported that Councillor Wood had lost his internet connection during consideration of this application and was not present for the vote. Councillor Holmes proposed to refuse the application on the grounds of over-development of the site and being in conflict with policy D1. Councillor Glancy seconded the motion. RESOLVED,
contrary to the Officer recommendation, That application 20/00433/OUT be REFUSED on the
following grounds: The proposed development, by virtue of its scale ... view the full minutes text for item PL43 |
|||||||
Urgent Business To consider any other items that the Chair
considers urgent Minutes: (a) Planning for the Future – Government White
Paper – Consultation commenced on 6 August 2020 It was noted that the above document would be circulated to the Committee
and Members would be involved in a workshop to understand the implications of
the proposed new legislation and develop the Council’s response. (b) Affordable Housing Workshop An Affordable Housing Workshop was being arranged and details would follow
in due course. |