Agenda and minutes

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Steadman.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 3 March 2022.

The minutes of the meeting held on 3 March 2022 were confirmed as a true record.

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.

 

21/01213/VAC -  Field OS 6934, Bypass Road,  Asfordby

Councillor Browne declared a personal interest in this item due to the company he worked for being involved with managing and leasing housing properties and he did not feel it appropriate to be involved in the Committee’s consideration of this application and therefore would not take part in the debate on this application.

 

21/00947/FUL - Deben Farm, Scalford

Councillor Holmes advised that although this site was in her ward, she had no interest in this application.

Land between existing housing on Regency Road and the A6006 Asfordby bypass

Application:	21/01213/VAC
Location:	Field OS 6934 Bypass Road Asfordby
Proposal:	Vary conditions 20 'Details of Open Space' and 21 'Maintenance and management of Open Space', to remove reference to play areas attached planning permission ref.16/00539/OUT

 

(Councillor Browne left the Committee and moved into the public gallery due to his interest declared at Minute PL84.)

 

The Planning Officer (HW) addressed the Committee and provided a summary of the application and advised that there had been a written representation received after the report was finalised. This was an objection which was already supported by comments included in the report from the Parish Council. The application was recommended for approval.

 

It was noted that there was an informal open space area within the site and there had been discussions with the Parish Council as to a formal play area although the current Local Plan advised there was no policy requirement for an equipped play area as the latest evidence identified there was no deficit of in this part of the Borough for this type of facility. The Parish Council had indicated it did not wish to pursue funding for a formal play area.

 

The Planning Officer responded to Member queries as follows:

 

·       It was advised that the 2014 Melton Space Study was considered by the Planning Policy Team to be still relevant with today’s population and had been used for the assessment in this case

·       There were non-equipped play areas nearer than the required 600m from the site

·       There were improved pedestrian links and safety measure in place to reach the Jubilee ground

·       Traffic calming had been secured from the school for the development but had not yet been implemented

·       The developer was open to discussion for play equipment however the Parish Council did not wish to pursue provision of such a facility

·       The Neighbourhood Plan was at an early stage and therefore had limited weight in the consideration of this application

·       The Parish Council had not required a contribution for a play area

 

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 Mark Forster to make a 3 minute presentation however however as his comments were not relevant to the specifics of the application the Chair requested that Mr Forster not continue with his representation.

 

During discussion the following points were noted:

 

·       There was concern that the play area was proposed to be withdrawn and this was permitted due to a change in legislation since the original outline application had been approved

·       Members failed to see how the removal of the condition would be helpful in the long run as the benefits for young people to be able to play outside far outweighed the developer’s saving

·       It was noted that the developer and Parish Council had liaised and the Parish Council had not asked for s106 monies to fund a play area nor were they prepared to maintain a play facility

·       It was felt that the welfare of  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL86

22/24 Pate Road, Melton Mowbray

Application:	21/01341/VAC
Location:	22/24 Pate Road, Melton Mowbray
Proposal:	Removal of Condition 3 - (Noise levels) of application 19/00165/COU dated 26/07/2019

 

The Planning Officer (AC) addressed the Committee and provided a summary of the application. He advised there were controls under Environmental Health to monitor noise levels as required. He reported there were higher noise levels from other industrial units on the site than from this business. The application was recommended for approval.

 

The Planning Officer responded to Member queries as follows:

 

·       There were no material grounds for refusal and there would be no justification at appeal for a refusal and the Council could be vulnerable to costs

·       The installation of noise limiters was a licensing matter and not a planning consideration

·       There were other mechanisms in place to ensure noise is monitored by the Licensing and Environmental Health services

 

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:

 

·       Jeremy Watkinson, Plastics Printing Company

Mr Watkinson responded to Member questions as follows:

The Environmental Health Team had monitored the noise level and advised that the gym could be in breach. The specific noise condition was put in to minimise noise between classes.

 

·       Brendan McMullan, Agent, HaywardMcMullan

Mr McMullan responded to Member questions as follows:

There was no requirement for a noise limiter and if the condition was removed, they would still need to be within the constraints of Environmental Health monitoring. There was evidence that acceptable noise levels had not been surpassed.

 

During discussion the following points were noted:

 

·       It was questioned why the condition needed to be removed if it was irrelevant and not needed

·       Members understood that if they did approve, then they were dependent on the Environmental Health Team to deal with any noise issues in the future

·       Members felt that it was desirable that neighbouring businesses were not duly affected

·       It was mentioned that it was not a residential area

 

Councillor Browne proposed that the application be approved. Councillor Wood seconded the motion.

 

RESOLVED

 

That the application be APPROVED subject to conditions set out at Appendix A.

 

(5 for, 1 against, 4 abstentions)

 

REASONS

 

The changes within the Town and Country Planning Act, Use Classes Order in England (from 1 August 2021) would deem the use of these units as a gym to be ‘Permitted Development’ and would not therefore require express permission from the Local Planning Authority, which would allow such changes of use to occur without the imposition of planning conditions such as this, whilst some limitation still remains for residential areas through the submission of Prior Notification, no such allowance is made for commercial sites such as this.

 

Therefore, the condition is considered no longer reasonable given the government’s latest legislation to allow these changes to take place as ‘Permitted Development’, the removal of the condition is further considered acceptable due to the site surroundings being commercial in nature and sat  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL87

Deben Farm, Scalford

Application:	21/00947/FUL
Location:	Deben Farm, Scalford
Proposal:	Proposed residential development of former farm complex comprising the replacement of all non-traditional former agricultural buildings with 4 new dwellings (in lieu of dwellings approved under LPA references 20/00741/GDOCOU and 20/01474/GDOCOU

 

The Planning Officer (AC) addressed the Committee and provided a summary of the application and advised the proposal provided betterment for the site.  Members were advised that the proposal also had the benefit of a fall-back position by way of a prior approval under Class Q. The application was recommended 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:

 

·       Nick Baseley, Agent, IBA Planning

Mr Baseley responded to Member questions as follows:

There were 4 new dwellings in total and an existing farmhouse. The site already had planning permission for 5 dwellings and this application replaced that.

 

During discussion the following points were noted:

 

·       It was mentioned that although they were not traditional looking farm buildings of brick and pantile, case law stated that the fall-back position could be considered

·       The Solicitor advised that whether or not the existing agricultural buildings were traditional in appearance was not a planning consideration for this application as the Class Q notification had already been approved

·       Although it was felt to be an unsustainable location it was recognised that a refusal of the application would be difficult to defend

·       It was noted that the development was below the trigger point for affordable housing and should any further application on the site be put forward this position would be reviewed

·       There was appreciation for the development and the improvement on the existing which was welcomed

 

Councillor Chandler proposed that the application be approved with an additional condition to remove permitted development rights. Councillor Browne seconded the motion.

 

RESOLVED

 

That the application be APPROVED subject to conditions set out at Appendix C and with the additional condition to remove permitted development rights.

 

(Unanimous)

 

REASONS

 

The site already has an extant permission, for the conversion of the traditional barn to C3 dwelling house and prior approval via Class Q for the conversion of three larger barns to five dwelling houses, including a conversion under Class R for office use B1(a).

 

It is considered that the current FULL application does not unacceptably exceed those limitations (not limited to maximum of 5 dwellings created, division of land titles, structural integrity and sole use of agricultural etc..) already allowed via permitted development within class Q of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 and as such the proposal remains within the general scope of the extant prior-approvals for barn conversions. Furthermore, its proposed redesign, architectural detailing and layout would be to the betterment of its rural location providing high quality residential dwellings.

 

The proposal would result in a development that would be acceptable in principle and would be sympathetic to the character of  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL88

To consider any other business that the Chair considers urgent

 

There was no urgent business.