Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor P Purver.

Under the Code of Conduct members are reminded that in declaring disclosable interests you should make clear the nature of that interest and whether it is pecuniary or non-pecuniary.

In accordance with the Code of Conduct, Members declared the following interests:

Councillors R Adams and D Everitt declared a non-pecuniary interest in item A2, application number 17/01593/FUL, as Members of Whitwick Parish Council who had considered the application.

Councillors J G Coxon, J Hoult and G Jones declared a non-pecuniary interest in item A1, application number 17/01556/REMM, as Members of Ashby Town Council who had considered the application.

Councillor J Legrys declared a pecuniary interest in item A2, application number 17/01593/FUL, as he was an acquaintance of the applicant.

Members declared that they had been lobbied without influence in respect of various applications below:-

Item A2, application number 17/01593/FUL

Councillors R Johnson and J Legrys.

To confirm and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 13 February 2018

Consideration was given to the minutes of the meeting held on 13 February 2018.

It was moved by Councillor J Legrys, seconded by Councillor R Adams and

RESOLVED THAT:

The minutes of the meeting held on 13 February 2018 be approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

Report of the Head of Planning and Infrastructure.

Consideration was given to the report of the Head of Planning and Infrastructure, as amended by the update sheet circulated at the meeting.

Land At Butt Lane Blackfordby Derby

The Planning and Development Team Manager presented the report to Members.

Councillor S McKendrick, ward member, addressed the Committee. She highlighted that outline permission had been granted for development and she was speaking to them to emphasise the importance of having consideration for the views and comments of local residents who had maintained a range of concerns about the development. She stated that the number of affordable housing proposed was disappointingly low and that the additional land required for bungalows should not be an argument to limit the overall number given the percentage of larger properties proposed for the site and the land they too will take up, adding that in a village location there would always be an argument for a commuted sum to go to other 'higher demand' areas'. She expressed that all conditions laid out in the original outline permission for 81 properties should be fully discharged and that the green space and screening between the new development and the existing residents on Fenton Ave was essential for both new and existing residents to enjoy their own space with some privacy. She agreed that re-routing a footpath around the site made sense and would provide a more attractive route for walkers but asked the Committee to remember that those who lived in the village and used the footpath would need to walk much further if the route was not considered carefully.

Councillor S McKendrick highlighted that the access and egress onto Butt Lane and visibility along the boundary of the site needed to take account of visibility for both those on the road and those exiting onto the road from the development, as it was a matter of record that vehicles did speed along Butt Lane, didn't have due regard for road conditions and wouldn't take due care as they approached the entrance of the development. She expressed that the safety of everyone had to be paramount and that the drainage had to be considered at all stages of the development to ensure there was no wider impact than that already occurred to properties, in particular those closest to the development site.

Mr R Nettleton, objector, addressed the Committee. He stated that he could only re-enforce Councillor S McKendrick’s comments however he felt that the application may be void as officers had misinterpreted the law on the original application as there was no masterplan to accompany the application. He felt that too many issues had been left to determination by officers rather than public consultation including flooding, overflowing sewers, effects of past mining work and a full investigation of opencast and unrecorded landfill. He stated that eyewitness evidence had been ignored and that other issues included substandard roads, lack of footpaths, traffic speeds and overloading of local services. He highlighted that there had been a disregard for people’s property and work had already started on the site despite the conditions, adding that it gave the public little encouragement on the effectiveness of the conditions. He hoped  ...  view the full minutes text for item 78.

81 & 81A North Street Whitwick Coalville Leicestershire LE67 5HB

Having declared a pecuniary interest in item A2 Councillor J Legrys left the meeting and took no further part in the discussion and voting thereon.

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report to Members.

Ms S Chalmers, objector, addressed the Committee. She advised Members that her role within the surgery was to oversee the running of the clinic and the health and safety of the users. She informed the Committee that the only access to the site was over land owned by the NHS, which was the result of a wayleave agreement granted in 2012, which was for 2 properties only. She added that the plans to shorten the pavement on the designated walk ways into the surgery to create easier turning into the development were unacceptable and dangerous. She highlighted that the number of users to the health centre had continually increased therefore the car park was well used by not just visitors to the centre but also local residents, and the additional dwellings would add to the problem. She also expressed concerns over safety of frail patients who experienced issues getting across the car park, the impact of emergency vehicles getting to the centre and safety during the construction. She asked Members to take into consideration the increased provision of health services in the area due to an increased population which meant longer opening times and access being required more. She asked that the concerns were taken on board and urged the Committee to refuse the application.

Ms M Ferguson-Jones, objector, addressed the Committee. She advised that she had opposed the development of the land since 2008. She highlighted that the original plan of 5 new dwellings along with the original 2 had been passed but now the developer was trying to increase the number of properties and due to the change of layout her property would have a window overlooking it. She stated that she had taken advice over the issue and that in relation to plots 4, 5, 6 and 7 they would have a case for a right to light. She informed Members that her property was on a lower level and that it would be as though they were being overlooked by a small block of flats. She stated that parking was also a major issue as she lived on a busy road which was used by visitors to the health centre when the car park was full, and as North Street was mainly double yellow lines the owners of the existing cottages would struggle to park. She also expressed her disappointment over the consideration the developer had for existing residents when starting to the clear the site at the weekend and the high noise level they had experienced from the machinery and birds chirping as the hedges were cut.   

Councillor R Woodward, on behalf of Whitwick Parish Council, addressed the Committee. He stated that the original application should not have been passed and neither should the application before the Committee. He highlighted that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 79.

Breedon Hall Main Street Breedon On The Hill Derby DE73 8AN

The Planning Officer presented the report to Members.

The officer’s recommendation was moved by Councillor J Bridges and seconded by Councillor J Legrys.

RESOLVED THAT:

The application be permitted in accordance with the recommendations of the Head of Planning and Infrastructure.

Breedon Hall Main Street Breedon On The Hill Derby DE73 8AN

The Planning Officer presented the report to Members.

The officer’s recommendation was moved by Councillor J Bridges and seconded by Councillor J Legrys.

RESOLVED THAT:

The application be permitted in accordance with the recommendations of the Head of Planning and Infrastructure.

Land At Queens Street Measham Derby

The Planning and Development Team Manager presented the report to Members.

Ms P Wheatcroft, objector, addressed the Committee. She advised members that when the application had been previously considered the Committee was told that it complied with the 6Cs document, which in her view it did not, and that the title deed document showed that the land was in the ownership of the applicant, which according to her it was not. She reminded Members that she had advised the Committee that she felt that the development was a poor design and that it would not fit within the site, which in her view was correct. She informed the Committee that she had actively tried to engage with the developer to obtain a written undertaking to implement the tree protection plan submitted with the previous application, which had not been included with the application before them and that she had not yet received a response, adding that she felt that the developer had no intention of carrying out the plan. She highlighted that Members were being asked to make a decision on the height of the properties, the site plan showed no levels and had been drawn as though the ground was flat. She stated that if the future residents of plot 2 were to step out of the back of the proposed dwelling there would be a 6-8 foot drop. She stated that the application was passed previously with incorrect information and there was an assumption that it would be passed again, and that just adding conditions would sweep the issues under the carpet. She urged the Members not to progress that application without the tree protection plan and the detailed site plan.

Councillor S Sheahan, neighbouring ward member, addressed the Committee. He advised Members that the development of the site had been to Committee on several occasions. He welcomed the commitment from officers to consult with the neighbours over the boundary treatment, however it did not get away from the fact that the site was being over developed. He felt that officers and the developer should come together to create a high quality design that incorporated Queensway House. He felt that the Committee could not make a decision on the amendment to the height of the dwellings without further information and requested that the application be deferred until more detailed information could be presented.

The officer’s recommendation was moved by Councillor J Coxon and seconded by Councillor V Richichi.

Councillor D Harrison stated that he had made many visits to the site and the only change in the application was the height and depth of a few inches. He felt that if the Committee was to defer the application it would be abdicating its duty, that before them was a correct application and that the site was well known and as such the next time he visited the site would be to see a completed development. He added the site was a mess and that it would provide much  ...  view the full minutes text for item 82.

Councillor A V Smith entered the meeting at 5.35pm.