Venue: Parkside, Station Approach, Burton Street, Melton Mowbray, Leicestershire, LE13 1GH
Contact: Email: democracy@melton.gov.uk
Link: View Planning Committee
No. | Item | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Apologies for Absence Minutes: An apology for absence was received from Councillor Illingworth. |
|||||||
To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 19 August 2021 Minutes: (a)
20/01233/FUL –
Somerby Methodist Church, High Street Somerby Councillor Higgins referred to his
submission as Ward Councillor and in his response to Member questions, there
should be an addition which reflected that he had asked that the item be
deferred. Also where the minutes referred to the
Planning Officer stating that all parties had been involved in the
consultation, he had not been contacted as Ward Councillor for his view on the
application therefore that sentence be amended to read: ‘The Planning Officer (TE) added that no
information was withheld during the consultation process and although he
considered all parties had been involved, he apologised that the Ward
Councillor had not been contacted.’ (b) Subject to
the foregoing the minutes of the meeting held on 19 August 2021 were confirmed
and authorised to be signed by the Chair.
|
|||||||
Declarations of Interest PDF 85 KB Members to declare any
interest as appropriate in respect of items to be considered at this meeting. Minutes: 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. |
|||||||
Schedule of Applications Minutes: The Chair announced that application 19/01303/FUL (Land at Holme Farm, Rearsby Lane, Gaddesby) had been withdrawn from this meeting as further representations had been received. |
|||||||
Application 20/01107/FUL PDF 1 MB Land east of Wolds Farm, Landyke Lane, Scalford Minutes:
(Councillors Holmes and Steadman here left the meeting and took no part in the debate nor voted on this application.) The Assistant Director for Planning and Delivery addressed the Committee and provided a summary of the application and summarised that the application had returned following its deferral at the last meeting. As requested the economic development aspect, traffic movements, parking had been reviewed and the applicant had submitted a statement about amenity and lighting. There was one change in the application relating to perspective on how the car parking could be reconfigured should consent be forthcoming. Further information had been supplied to Members since the briefing and the recommendation remained for approval with the condition as to parking arrangements and Members would need to consider also how this would be discharged eg. Member/Officer group. 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, Neighbour Mr Hobill responded to Member questions as follows: ·
The
other businesses that he had contacted were willing to speak with the applicant
and the cost of industrial land was £250k per acre and this was £20k per acre ·
Stephen Mair, Agent, Andrew
Grainger and Co Limited Mr Mair responded to Member
questions as follows: ·
He had provided information to the Planning
Officer following the last Committee meeting ·
He had not spoken with the Economic Development
Officer · Notice had been served on the applicant at their current premises in November 2019 and they should have left in November 2020 and since then the applicant had been paying compensation to the landlord. The landlord had agreed to continue until Spring 2022 to allow the applicant the time to move on · They had received a list of approximately 10 properties from the Planning Officer last year and following assessment, for various reasons the sites were found to not be appropriate. He referred to Policy EC2 which allowed for a new business proposal to save jobs and retain employment that the Borough struggled to attract. This was not a new business but was about safeguarding existing jobs in a rural location · This assessment was carried out from November 2019 to March 2020 and was included in the planning and design statement. They were not in a position to assess other options whilst the application was under consideration · He explained that the business was rural based on a rural site and the application included significant wildlife practice elements, tree planting etc which would not be achieved if the site was in an industrial location on the edge of town or elsewhere. · He advised that several sites were assessed and there was a willingness to engage with Planning Officers and they were supportive of this proposal/location from the ... view the full minutes text for item PL29 |
|||||||
Application 20/00295/FUL PDF 416 KB Easthorpe Lodge, Manor Road, Easthorpe Minutes:
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. He reported that there had been many requests for community benefits to be included in the s106 agreement. 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 Bob Bayman, Bottesford Parish Council Councillor Bayman responded to Member questions as follows: · His preference for the s106 agreement would be access from the site into the village, widening the path and putting in a cycle path and to exclude bus passes as there were no buses to Easthorpe · There was not enough supply to the area in terms of Severn Trent Water and he understood this was not a flood zone. · Joe Taylor, Gusto Group, Agent Mr Taylor responded to Member questions as follows: · It was confirmed as part of the workshop consultation with Councillors that affordable homes were not required on the site and this was also confirmed with the Housing Officer · The same principle on affordable housing applied at their Lincoln site · A late response had been received from the LFA and the developers’ engineers were looking at the discharge of the water course to the south · They had looked into the discount model and shared ownership until they received the view from the Ward Councillor that due to provision in other areas, affordable housing was not needed for this development · Workshop meetings with Planning Officers and Councillors had been set up by the Planning Officers · They had liaised with the Housing Officer and Planning Officers regarding affordable homes and due to the balance and provision in the local area, Officers had accepted their proposal · They supported working with the Parish Council and the Highway Authority on traffic issues but nothing in the responses led them to a requirement for the widening of the footpath but they were prepared to work with and help wherever possible although much of the land in question was outside their ownership and they would need to work with third parties on these matters · Councillor Don Pritchett, Ward Councillor The Assistant Director for Planning and Delivery commented as follows: · On affordable housing, the report did not state there was no demand, it said there was good supply in the pipeline · The workshops referred to were started in 2019 and had been an integral part of major schemes and had been so successful that they formed part of the planning review requested by Members. They were frequently held and were helpful to all parties. Members expressed support for the workshops · Easthorpe was considered sustainable enough to attract housing development such that it attracted housing allocations in the Local Plan · There was a list of desirables for the ... view the full minutes text for item PL30 |
|||||||
Application 19/01303/FUL PDF 387 KB Land at Holme Farm, Rearsby Lane, Gaddesby Minutes: This application was withdrawn from the agenda. |
|||||||
Application 20/01157/OUT PDF 440 KB 19B High Street, Waltham on the Wolds Minutes:
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. 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
Chris Gray, Waltham Parish Council ·
Miranda
Pilkington for the applicant Mrs Pilkington responded to Member questions as follows: · With regard to the overhanging canopies on the access road, the photograph made the access look obscure but that was not accurate as they did not restrict access · There were 3 properties serviced by the access road · The narrowest point of the access road was 3.65m which was understood to have been measured by the Planning Consultant The Assistant Director for Planning and Delivery advised that Neighbourhood Planning policy H8 supported infill development which met housing need for the parish and in this case the guidance was 3 beds or fewer and single storey. During discussion the following points were noted: ·
The
application should not be refused on parking issues and waste collection
arrangements ·
There
was concern at emergency service vehicle access and the guidance on this should
be followed ·
There
was also concern as to whether there was sufficient space to turnaround ·
The
measurement of the narrowest point of the access road was questioned as to
whether this was correct and there was a request for this to be re-measured ·
It was
mentioned that compensatory measures could be installed in the properties such
as a sprinkler system ·
It was
noted that the Building Control function covered emergency vehicle access not
the planning regime and the standard was for a 3.7m access without compensatory
measures ·
The
Severn Trent Water issues were raised around sewage, water pressure and smell
and it was felt that the application should be deferred until after the meeting
with Severn Trent Water which was in 3 weeks ·
It was
noted that the Planning Committee was to determine the principle of development
and whether it met the policies and not the detail of emergency vehicle access Councillor Steadman proposed that the application be deferred until after
the meeting with Severn Trent Water. It was also requested that the road width
be re-measured for emergency services access and whether the design could
accommodate a turning area. Councillor Holmes seconded the motion. RESOLVED That application 20/01157/OUT be
DEFERRED until after the meeting with Severn Trent Water. It was also requested
that the road width be re-measured for emergency services access and whether
the design could accommodate a turning area. (8 for, 2 abstentions) |
|||||||
Urgent Business To consider any other business that the
Chair considers urgent Minutes: There was no urgent business. |