Agenda and minutes

Cllr Bains sent his apologies and was substituted by Cllr Higgins.

 

To confirm the minutes of the previous meeting on 21^st February 2019.

Minutes of the meeting held on Thursday 21^st February 2019.

 

Cllr Faulkner requested that the minutes be amended to state that he had sent his apologies and Cllr Pearson was due to substitute. However Cllr Pearson did not attend.

 

Approval of the minutes was proposed by Cllr Baguley and seconded by Cllr Holmes. It was unanimously agreed by the members present at the previous meeting that the Chair sign them as a true record.

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

Cllr Rhodes declared that he had personal interest in matters related to County Council which might arise during the meeting.  More specifically, had previously exercised his right as Ward Cllr to speak on Item 4 it would only be right that he spoke as Ward Cllr again. However it would not be appropriate to partake in the vote and would leave the meeting.

 

Cllr Posnett declared that as a County Cllr, she had a personal interest in anything that may relate to the County Council.

 

Land and Buildings North Canal Farm, Pagets End, Long Clawson

The chair stated that there is an update regarding the following application which is a precursor to debate.

 

Applicant:     R D And J K Chandler

Location:      Land And Buildings North Canal Farm, Pagets End, Long Clawson

Proposal:      Demolition of agricultural buildings, construction of up to 40 dwellings, improvements to existing access, formation of surface water attenuation pool and associated infrastructure, provision of public open space and landscaping.

 

(a) The Planning Officer (LP) stated that:

The proposal is before you again to update the committee and to provide deails of the change in circumstances that have taken place since the consideration of the application in December 2017.

When the applicaiton was preivously heard at planning committee the resoultion was to permit the proposal, subject to the demonstration that a footpath link can be secured, this wasn’t by way of permission this was a requirement to satisfy the resolution of approval.

Additonal information has been received from the applicant which demonstrates land ownership and they feel that a condition could be added to an approval which would require the provison of the footpath from the development site through to the village green at East End as indicated by the green line.

Due to the passage of time it was considered appropriate to bring the application back to committee as signifcant changes have taken place since December 2017 and decisions must be taken in a manner that reflects the circumstances that apply at the point they are made.

The Melton Local Plan was formally adopted by Full Council on 10^th October 2018 with the Clawson, Harby and Hose Neighbourhood Plan being adopted in June 2018.  Therefore the previous cirucmstances that applied to the committee’s consideration on 4^th December 2017 have been superseded. 

The progress of both plans to adoption means that the legal requirement to apply full weight to be attributed to them has taken effect, which was not the case in December 2017. 

The progress of both Plans is considered to assign greater weight against the application, owing to the content of the proposal being allocated only as a reserve for housing development in both.

It is recommended that Planning Permission is refused, reflecting the current considerations and their relative status.

 

The chair reminded members that at this particular time comments need to be limited to the merits of the application under consideration. And this is not to be used as a personal platform for political or personal promotion.

 

(b) Kevin Rolling, an Objector was invited to speak and stated that:

·         As a third party owner of the private footpath, he rejected the use of private land for a public footpath serving the development.

·         In the fourth schedule of covenant with the applicant, item 9 clearly states; ‘if called upon to do so by the vendor, his successor entitled to the estate or dovecote farm or by the district or county authority within 15 years of the date hereof. The purchaser, that’s me, will dedicate a footpath over such access  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL77

Fair Farm, 33 Melton Road, Waltham on the Wolds

Applicant:     Miss Sally Smith

Location:      Fair Farm, 33 Melton Road, Waltham On The Wolds

Proposal:      Approval of reserved matters application for the erection of 60 new dwellings including new access, public open space, landscaping, play area and associated infrastructure

 

(a) The Planning Officer (LP) stated that:

The application before you is a reserved matters appliciaton which considers the layout, scale, appearance and landscaping of the 60 dwellings proposed.

Concern has been raised with regards to infrastructure and drainage however these have been considered at the outline stage of the application where the prinicpal of devleoment was aproved, and I would like to remind members of the Waltham planning committee whereby common issues such as drainage was considered and debated and thereby approval of the outline granted with that in mind condition 7 of the recommendation will need to be removed from any decision made.

There have been amendements to the scheme which has included more matierals and designs considered appropriate for the village of Waltham. Having regard to the fact that the proposal is an allocated site and brings forward a reaosnalbe mixture of housing contribuing to identified needs and providing the requsitie number of affordable homes along with a layout which takes advantage of views over landscape or public space the proposal is considered to complie with the provisions of the NPPF, the Melton Local Plan and the Neighbourhood Plan and is recommended for approval.

 

(b) Cllr Lusty, on behalf of Waltham on the Wolds Parish Council was invited to speak and stated that:

·         Waltham on the Wolds is a unique and attractive village. References the Neighbourhood Plan Policy H6, regarding high quality design/form in keeping with the local vernacular.

·         Pleased the legitimacy has been acknowledged by applicant but the changes are insufficient.

·         Applicant has introduced stone construction, but not enough as currently it is 12% with partial stonework.

·         10 out of 60 have chimneys and the street scene is regimented.

·         Affordable housing is unevenly distributed and doesn’t comply. A more creative solution is needed.

·         Does not comply with the Neighbourhood Plan.

A Cllr questioned whether the neighbourhood plan stated a specific percentage in terms of stone construction.

 

Cllr Lusty replied no, but it is 49% on another nearby development.

 

A Cllr queried the status of the nearby development.

 

Cllr Lusty confirmed that is under construction.

 

A Cllr queried the village percentage in terms of stone construction.

 

The Chair stated that the village is approx. 35%. Very few have no stone.

 

A Cllr asked Cllr Lusty what figure would be significant.

 

Cllr Lusty replied 50% is significant.

 

(c) Mr Kevin Rolling, an Objector was invited to speak and stated that:

·                He agreed with Cllr Lusty

·                This would be chipping away at a Plan and once this had been done, it opens up a chip at legislation it lessen its intent.

·                Should be stone around the edges of the development.

·                Social houses should be inclusive.

(d) Sally Smith, Agent to the Applicant was invited to speak and stated that:

·         Plans  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL78.1

1 Belvoir Avenue, Ab Kettleby

Applicant:     Mr & Mrs A Watkinson

Location:      1 Belvoir Avenue, Ab Kettleby

Proposal:      Erection of a detached bungalow to the rear of 1 Belvoir Avenue.

 

            (a) The Planning Officer (LP) stated that:

The proposal is a full planning application for the erection of a detached bungalow in the garden of number 1 Belvoir Avenue.

Concern has been raised with regards to the impact of amenity of neighbouring residents and the proposal amended during the course of the planning application.

When assessing the proposal against both the local plan and the Neighbourhood plan which is given limited weight the proposal complies with the policies of the Melton Local Plan and is recommended for approval.

 

(b) The Chair read out a statement on behalf of Cllr Orson, the Ward Cllr.

·         Visited the site and viewed from 3 Belvoir Avenue and Quorn Avenue.

·         Bungalow would severely impact 3 Belvoir Avenue. Loss of amenity beyond what’s reasonably acceptable for infill property.

·         Limited support for proposal.

·         Bigger than imagined and would impact No.3.

(c) Adrian Watkinson, the Applicant was invited to speak and stated that:

·         Land was given to him by family who live at 1 Belvoir Avenue.

·         The single storey, 1 bed bungalow would be as low key as possible and constructed from same style bricks and tiles as surrounding property.

·         Reason for the build is to downsize and use as a retirement home.

A Cllr asked if the applicant would accept a personal tie.

 

The Assistant Director of Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services explained that this would limit the occupancy only to Mr and Mrs Watkinson.

 

Mr Watkinson replied yes, as they will retire there.

 

The Solicitor to the Council stated that it was unusual to ask for a personal tie and doubted whether that would be appropriate.

 

Cllr Rhodes proposed to permit and said that to apply a personal tie would be a burden to the family.

 

Cllr cumbers seconded.

A Cllr explained they wanted to know if the applicant intended to live there and could see the merits for it. It would encourage smaller houses on the market. They described that when viewed from 3 Belvoir Avenue, the garden land is slightly higher. It would severely impact no.3 and leaned towards concern.

 

A Cllr agreed and suggested that 1 Belvoir Avenue may not always be within the family and expressed concerns of how close the bungalow would be.

 

The Chair stated that any future buyer would be aware.

 

A Cllr queried the separation distance.

 

The Chair explained the bungalow would be at an offset right angle and window to window, exceeded the minimum distance.

 

A Cllr reiterated the amenity to No.1. The bungalow would mean No.1 would not be in keeping with the garden taken away.

 

The Chair pointed out on the plans that the distance to the corner of No.3 is 7.6m. He asked whether it is known that to sit the bungalow down would prevent overlooking issue to No.3.

 

The Development Manager stated no.

 

A Cllr stated that the proximity  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL78.2

Rectory Court, Rectory Lane, Bottesford

Applicant:     Rectory Court Residents

Location:      Rectory Court, Rectory Lane, Bottesford

Proposal:      Installation of entrance bollards.

 

(a) The Planning Officer (LP) stated that:

The proposal is a full planning application for the installation of bollards; the application is presented to you as the applicant is an elected member.

The bollards proposed are considered non intrusive and of a design that would not impact upon the host Listed building or conservation area.

And is complaint with Highway regulations to ensure no detrimental impact on highway safety.

The application is therefore recommended for approval.

 

Cllr Holmes proposed to permit.

 

Cllr cumbers seconded.

 

A Cllr queried whether they cover the whole entrance or just part.

 

The Development Manager stated that there will be 4 on either side and are to restrict HGVs.

 

A Cllr asked whether there would be any impact to cars.

 

The Development Manager stated no.

 

A Cllr expressed their support and said that they understood the reasoning, plus it would prevent damage to parked cars.

 

A Cllr agreed stating it was unacceptable to turn on private property.

 

A Cllr stated that if it wasn’t for the applicant being a member then it would be a delegated decision and permitted.

 

The Chair asked what the reason was for the HGVs using the space to turn. Was it a dead end and would this be dangerous.

 

The Development Manager confirmed that it was not a dead end.

 

A vote was held and members voted unanimously to permit.

 

Determination the proposal complies with the provisions of the NPPF and the Melton Plan 2011-2036. No material considerations are present to justify a decision that would depart form the Local Plan and it is recommended that planning consent be granted on this occasion.

 

To consider any other items that the Chair considers urgent