Agenda and minutes

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Browne and Councillor Smith was appointed as his substitute. An apology for late arrival was received from Councillor Wood.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 22 July 2021

The minutes of the meeting held on 22 July 2021 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 held a standing personal interest in any matters relating to the Leicestershire County Council due to her role as a County Councillor.

Application 20/01107/FUL - Land East of Wolds Farm, Landyke Lane, Scalford

Councillor Holmes declared a personal interest in this application due to a family connection and advised she would move into the public gallery for its consideration and take no part in the debate nor vote.

Councillor Steadman declared a personal interest in this application and advised she would move into the public gallery for its consideration and take no part in the debate nor vote.

20/01233/FUL – Somerby Methodist Church High Street Somerby

Councillor Higgins advised that he would be representing his ward on this application by making a representation to the Committee. He would therefore take no part in the debate nor vote on this item in accordance with the Council’s Procedure Rules.

The Chair announced a change to the order of business and that application 20/01233/FUL (Somerby) be considered first to allow the public speakers to leave immediately after.

Somerby Methodist Church, High Street, Somerby

(Councillor Higgins declared his intention to speak as Ward Councillor and took no part in the debate nor voted on this application.)

The Planning Officer (TE) addressed the Committee and provided a summary of the application and summarised that the recommendation was for approval. He advised that there was an error in the report that indicated that the building was an asset of community value and it should read that the building no longer held that status.

The Planning Officer explained that the time limit had expired for receiving community comments and no further comments had been received from those who had objected. The Parish Council’s view had been received after the report was published and the Chair of the Parish Council would be speaking at the meeting. It was noted that the £10,000 allocated for the s106 agreement would be ring-fenced and the Committee could determine the content and terms of the s106 at this meeting.

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 David Powell, Somerby Parish Council

Councillor Powell responded to Member questions as follows:

·           There was an opportunity for match funding the £10k with the County Council or the lottery but this would not be enough for the village hall storage extension that was planned to help replace the loss of the Methodist Church as a community space. There would be a shortfall of at least 50% of the build cost estimate being £40-50k

·           Other options had been considered such as dividing up the existing village hall space

·           There was flexibility on the time limit for completing the s106

·           The church building had been the subject of an unsuccessful community bid process and had therefore been sold on the open market

·           The suggestion of developer contributions had only been raised in July 2021

·                Davina Bates, spokesperson for Somerby Parish Council Community Hub

·                Jonathan Weekes, Agent, Aitchison Rafferty

Mr Weekes responded to Member questions as follows:

·           The property was no longer on the register as an asset of community value as no bid had been received

·           They would give the £10k without a time limit within the terms of the s106 which would provide a meaningful benefit to the village

·           They Could not commit to building the village hall extension or providing a quotation for this work

·                Councillor Higgins, Ward Councillor

Councillor Higgins responded to Member questions as follows:

·           The Methodist Church was built with community funding

·           The application did not meet policies C7 nor CF7 and suggested that the application be deferred

·           He was in discussions with the community groups who were displaced by the closure of the church

·           The applicant had not been in touch with him as Ward Councillor

·           The CofE Church was not an option as a community hub  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL20

Land adjacent Crompton Road, Asfordby Hill

The Assistant Director for Planning and Delivery addressed the Committee and provided a summary of the application and summarised that the recommendation was for approval.

Members raised the following and officers responded :

·         Concern at the Severn Trent Water (STW) position and had they made any comments.

Response: STW had submitted a late response and was satisfied with the proposal and they raised no issues.

·         It was felt that before approving this large application, STW needed to explain the water supply and sewage position for the Borough particularly for villages and those in the vale.

Response: A meeting had been arranged for the following week with Councillors, Officers and STW to discuss the issues.

·         Concern as to access and cars parked on Crompton Road and the need for a link road and could this be included in the outline application

Response: This could be included in the outline 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:

·                Dr David Unwin

·                Adrian Stevenson, Lead consultant on behalf of the Agent

Mr Stevenson responded to Member questions as follows:

·           The statutory consultees had responded on flood risk and surface water rates. There were sustainable drainage solutions on the site as well as attenuation ponds included in the development which would guard against flood risk. The sensitivity around car parking was understood and the County Highways had approved the scheme and they would comply with the relevant conditions and policies.  

·           The first homes would be ready for sale by next spring.

·           The integrated parking on the site for generally 2 car parking spaces per property would mean less risk for roadside parking. Turning heads would be incorporated in the plans which were not there now therefore this would be betterment as well as visitor parking.

·           Site traffic would use both access road for a balanced approach to any disruption.

·                Councillor de Burle, Ward Councillor

Councillor de Burle responded to Member questions as follows:

·           There had been no request for a s106 agreement by the community although he would like to see a retail outlet

·           There was concern at the number of properties

·           There was already a small play area at Crompton Road and this would be expanded with this application and that would be adequate

·           He would like to see a wider buffer with the countryside to blend the landscape with the development

·           It was noted that sewage issues were not anticipated due to the closeness of the sewage plant nearby in Melton Mowbray

The Assistant Director confirmed that there would be a 10 metre planting buffer around the periphery of the site to follow the existing hedgerow.

During discussion the following points were noted:

·         Highway safety, access and deliveries  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL21

Land east of Wolds Farm, Landyke Lane, Scalford

(Councillors Holmes and Steadman here left the meeting due to their personal interests declared at Minute PL18.)

The Assistant Director for Planning and Delivery addressed the Committee and provided a summary of the application and summarised that the recommendation was for approval.

There was mention of the economic benefits for the Borough to the application and that a wide range of jobs were involved in the business.

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:

·                Max Hobill, Objector

In response to Member queries, Mr Hobill said that he owned the land to the west of the site and had control of the gated road which was a potential access road to the site

·                James Lloyd, Applicant

Mr Lloyd responded to Member queries as follows:

·           Access to the site would be at the current entrance to the site which was approximately 25 yards from the junction with Eastwell Road and traffic would use Clawson Lane from the east of the site and not the single track to the west, being Landyke Lane

·           There were approx. 70 jobs and employees’ salaries typically ranged from £25k to £48k per annum, often with benefits such as overtime and company vehicles. He had invested in training such as nvqs and trade specific skills for the workforce to progress and develop

·           The business currently operated close by from a farm off Eastwell Road therefore the traffic infrastructure was already in place for the business

·           The business typically involved 3-5 wagons a week as deliveries. Most of the work was vehicles going from site to site rather than back to the yard. HGVs would not be parked, they were only used for collection and delivery

·           Noise surveys had been carried out on the existing site and were documented in the application

·           There was extensive screening for visual and noise purposes included in the landscape plan of the application

·           The business operated mainly from 7 am to 5 pm Monday to Friday with occasional weekend presence. Encourages work/life balance for employees

·           There had been occasions for early starts but that was for a specific project that had ended 18 months previously

·           Workshop was insulated to help with noise pollution

·           Had considered industrial sites in the Borough and small holding farms but they had not been able to accommodate all the requirements of the business including access, HGV movements, secure storage, workshop and office space

·           Employees were Melton based and he did not want to move the business out of the area and risk losing the investment already made in a good workforce

·           The application included infrared all night cameras for security as well as specific downlighters on timers and floodlighting as needed

In accordance with the Council’s  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL22

To consider a report that advises the Committee of current national performance indicator outcomes related to the determination of planning applications for April 2021 to June 2021.  It also reports on details relating to Corporate Performance Indicators and additional information on other aspects of the performance and delivery of Development Management work and outcomes.

The Committee considered a report that advised on current national performance indicator outcomes related to the determination of planning applications for April 2021 to June 2021. It also reported on details relating to Corporate Performance Indicators and additional information on other aspects of the performance and delivery of Development Management work and outcomes.

The Chair thanked the team for all the changes in systems and software that had been put in place and congratulated them on a good job.

RESOLVED that the current performance data be noted.

To consider any other business that the Chair considers urgent

There was no urgent business.