Agenda and minutes

There were no apologies for absence.

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:

Councillor R Adams declared a non-pecuniary interest in item A3, application number 17/01326/REMM, as he had campaigned in the past over development on the site but had come to the meeting with an open mind.

Councillor J Cotterill declared a non-pecuniary interest in items A5, application number 17/01511/FUL, A6, application number 17/01622/FUL and A9, application number 17/01496/FUL, as Deputy Chairman of Coleorton Parish Council.

Councillor P Purver declared a non-pecuniary interest in item A3, application number 17/01326/REMM, as her mother lived in the vicinity of the development.

Councillor M Specht declared a non-pecuniary interest in items A5, application number 17/01511/FUL, A6, application number 17/01622/FUL and A9, application number 17/01496/FUL, as Chairman of Coleorton Parish Council.

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

Item A1, application number 17/01237/OUT

Councillors J Legrys and M Specht

Item A3, application number 17/01575/OUT

Councillors R Adams, R Canny, D Everitt, R Johnson, J Legrys, P Purver, M Specht and M Wyatt

Item A4, application number 17/01379/FUL

Councillors J Legrys and M Specht

Item A5, application number 17/01511/FUL

Councillors R Adams, R Boam, D Everitt, R Johnson and J Legrys

Item A6, application number 17/01622/FUL

Councillors R Boam and M Wyatt

Item A7, application number 17/01606/FUL

Councillor M Specht

Item A9, application number 17/01469/FUL

Councillor R Boam

To confirm and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 7 November 2017

Consideration was given to the minutes of the meeting held on 7 November 2017.

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

RESOLVED THAT:

The minutes of the meeting held on 7 November 2017 be approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

Report of the Head of Planning and Regeneration.

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

The Chairman advised the Committee that item A2, application number 17/01575/OUT, had been withdrawn from the agenda.

Barn Farm Babelake Street Packington Ashby De La Zouch Leicestershire LE65 1WD

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report to Members.

Councillor N Smith, Ward Member, addressed the Committee. He advised that he had been asked by the applicant to speak at Committee to put forward the facts. He reminded Members that the original application was refused as it was not financially viable, however the applicant had now acquired in excess of 50 acres of extra land. He stated that the applicant could not expand the livestock unless he lived on site to look after the animals and therefore could not live there unless he had a house to live in. He went on to inform the Committee that the applicant currently lived in Donisthorpe, worked in Coalville and was making three trips a day to the farm to assist his parents on the farm. He highlighted to Members that, as far as he was aware, the application in front of them was the only application that Packington Parish Council had not objected to that was outside the Limits to Development and that Babelake Street was a one way street with only four properties on, and that the new dwelling would not look out of place in the vicinity. He urged Members to support to help sustain small farms. 

Mr M Wathes, supporter, addressed the Committee. He advised Members that five generations of the family had been farming the land for a hundred years and his parents were at retirement age and he wished to work at the farm full time. He stated that he lived five miles from the site with his young family and due to personal reasons, temporary accommodation was not suitable for them. He stated that he was recommended for start-up businesses which the farm was not, as within the next year they were on target to look after 820 sheep and rearing 120 calves. He explained that as result of the new TB isolation unit, there was a need for him to be resident on the farm full time. He informed Members that the farm had invested in new machinery, increased the sheep flock by 40% and acquired additional land which showed clear commitment to the farm which had been a key consideration by Members. He highlighted that the situation of the dwelling would have minimal impact on the countryside and that small working farms in villages were dying out and urged the Committee to support the application.

Mr A Large, agent, addressed the Committee. He advised Members that since the deferral of the application he was pleased to see that officers accepted that there was a functional need for the dwelling and he thanked the officers for working practically to overcome the concerns. He highlighted that planning policy statement 7 (PP 7) was mentioned continuously throughout the report but stressed that the policy no longer existed and had been replaced by one sentence in the NPPF which promoted the development and diversification of agricultural and other land-based rural businesses. He stated that case law  ...  view the full minutes text for item 57.

Land Off Greenhill Road Coalville Leicestershire  

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report to Members.

Miss J Tebbatt, objector on behalf of residents, addressed the Committee. She stated that she was addressing Members to ask them to seek amendments to the application that was in front of them. She asked that the attenuation bank on the land adjacent to 8 Jacquemart Close be as per the original approved plans, that the elevated viewing area be removed and the 1.8m height of boundary fences remain without imposing on or casting a shadow over the neighbouring properties. She asked that the previously untested 1.3 change in level is reviewed to ensure in keeping with the 1.17 gradient of Greenhill Road as a significant difference in height between the proposed dwellings and existing homes would have an impact on privacy. She raised concerns over the play area stating that it would lead to unsupervised nuisance and security concerns for the existing residents, that the lower level fencing would protect new resident’s privacy, but not that of the current, and the possibility of anti-social behaviour and damage to dwellings due to the trees proposed around the boundary.

Ms A Gilliver, agent, addressed the Committee. She advised that the applicant had been working closely with the officers and before Members was a well-designed, sustainable, accessible and deliverable development and if approved the applicant looked to be releasing the first houses in the second half of the year. She highlighted that the principle of development had been granted in January 2016 and had established the parameters, flood risk, highway impact and ecological constraints. She advised that the application was compliant with the Council’s Good Design SPD enabling the public areas to be well surveyed and connected, character areas highlighted, the design of the dwellings would be in keeping with the area and there would be a 20% provision of affordable homes. She informed the Committee that following statutory consultation the plans had been amended to address concerns and that all conditions would be adhered to before commencement of the development. She stated that National Forest Planting and play areas would be included and that the management of the estate would be done privately. She urged the Committee to grant permission.

Councillor R Adams asked if officers had the responses to the questions that he had raised in the briefing.

The Principal Planning Officer provided the following responses to the questions:-

-       That the outline planning permission included provision of a retail unit, with conditions attached to the outline permission to ensure that the shop was not brought forward on its own without the housing. There was no obligation to provide the shop as it was not identified as a need to have element of the development.

-       That the original outline permission included a condition to require the reserved matters application to demonstrate that if necessary a bus could operate around the site, so if required in future a bus route could be provided for the estate and as such a tracking  ...  view the full minutes text for item 58.

95 Sideley Kegworth Derby Leicestershire DE74 2ER

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report to Members.

Councillor M Hawksworth, on behalf of Kegworth Parish Council, addressed the Committee. He informed the Members that the report in front of them reached the conclusion that the effect of the proposed development on Kegworth was acceptable but the Parish Council felt that the development was not acceptable in the local context. He asked that the application be refused as it was an over-intensive residential use of the site, it caused significant loss of amenity to neighbours and that there were not enough parking spaces provided for a 7 bedroom house in multi occupation. He stated that there was a precedent for refusal as in September 2017 a similar application for an 8 bedroom HMO on Broadhill in Kegworth had been refused by the authority.

He highlighted that the planning report considered that it was unlikely that all occupants of the HMO would have a car, however Kegworth Parish Council did not accept the assessment as adequate parking provision for large HMO’s in Kegworth. He stated that 10% of the housing stock in Kegworth was occupied by students of the University of Nottingham, who were often veterinary students, who had cars to enable them to take placements with Veterinary Practices as part of their training, and that other HMO’s in Kegworth were occupied by staff at East Midlands Airport and construction workers working on major infrastructure projects in the area, who all seemed to have cars. He expressed concerns that the 3 parking spaces shown on the plan would have a new dropped kerb access across the grass verges along Sideley and such removal of the grass verges would be detrimental to the street scene and amenity of existing homes, and the pavement crossover would remove space for street parking, adding that there was already concerns about parking on Citrus Grove, almost opposite the site, that a consultation on the implementation of a road traffic order in that part of Kegworth closed on the 5^th January 2018 and that the provision of cycle storage would not compensate for the limited car parking available.

Mr M Hawksworth stated that 7 lettable rooms were proposed by extending a 3 bedroom semi-detached house and the use of an HMO would not be similar to that of a large single family dwelling as there was not the same continuity of occupancy or self-imposed constraints as a family house, and more people come and go so that the impact from noise and disturbance to neighbours is far greater. He advised Members that the attached semi at 93 Sideley had been lived in by the owners since it was built in the 1960’s and that the 3m two storey extension to the rear of number 95 would block some sun from reaching 93, particularly in the winter. He urged Members to refuse the application.

Councillor R Adams moved that the application be refused due to over intensification of the site, and the impact on the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 59.

Land At Pitt Lane Coleorton Coalville Leicestershire LE67 8FS

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report to Members.

Mr A Large, agent, addressed the meeting. He advised the Committee that the application was for intermediate housing for the applicant who was severely disabled and he could not afford to buy a bungalow in the area. He stated that the land was to be purchased from the applicant’s brother once the sale of his house had gone through and that no profit would be made from the scheme. He informed Members that the applicant was not on the housing register as he had been advised that there were no bungalows for rent in the Coleorton area. He highlighted that the main policy that governed the application was H5 as the dwelling would be an affordable home. He drew Members attention to the wording of the said policy in that need could be established in a number of ways and that the application has strong support. He stated that there was a shortfall of affordable housing in the district that was driving young couples and elderly residents out of the district, and the application before the Committee would go a small way to addressing the need.

The Affordable Housing Enabling Officer advised Members that there is a specific legal definition of intermediate housing, which is a discounted form of housing that needs to available to an eligible household. As through the application before them, the applicant can prove that he can find a solution to his housing need, in accordance with the NPPF the family is not classed as an eligible household. Therefore the proposal is not in fact for intermediate housing, or affordable housing.

Councillor J Legrys moved that the application be permitted as he had heard all the arguments and believed that there was a genuine local need based on the information provided and that older residents should be able to remain in the area, and the application was an excellent solution.

Councillor M B Wyatt seconded the motion to permit as he agreed that there was a localised need and it would be wrong to refuse.

Councillor M Specht stated that he was speaking against the motion to permit. He highlighted that the applicants were elderly and that one of the most stressful things in life was waiting for a new home to be built. He drew Members attention to the fact that the applicant had the finances available to fund the build, but he felt that if the applicant remained in their current property he could fund an extension to make the house suitable for his needs. He also advised Members that the Parish Council would be seeking an easement fee as would the County Council for the grass verges which would cost the applicant a significant amount of money.

Councillor R Boam stated that he supported the motion to permit as the applicant had been in the area for over 20 year, it was an opportunity for him to spend the rest of his life in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 60.

Church View 59 The Moor Coleorton Coalville Leicestershire LE67 8GB

The Planning Officer presented the report to Members.

Ms C Collier, applicant, addressed the Committee. She advised Members that the dwelling would be self-build to allow her to stop in the village that she had had lived in for 25 years. She informed Members that during a pre-application meeting at the beginning of October 2017 she had been informed that the application would be within the Limits to Development and an architect was employed, and the plans were submitted at the beginning of November. She stated that after the submission she received notification that the Local Plan was to be adopted on the 21^st November and as such her development would fall outside the Limits of Development. She highlighted that the NPPF encourages the take up of pre-application advice so that time and money were not wasted and that the application had been submitted before the Local Plan adoption date. She informed the Committee that the village had many services that would allow the development to remain sustainable and that the dwelling would be built in the garden of an existing private residential property. She urged the Committee to support the application.

Councillor M B Wyatt moved that the application be permitted as it met a local need. The motion was seconded by Councillor R Boam.

In response to a question from Councillor J Bridges, the Planning Officer advised the Committee that a pre-application meeting had been held at the start of October and as it stood development on the site would be sustainable, however he had made it clear that because the Local Plan was due to be adopted later in the year, at the time the application was acceptable, and that the application needed to be submitted very quickly. He stated that the application was received on the 10^th November and that the 21 day consultation period pushed the earliest determination of the application past 21^st November.

Councillor J Bridges stated that even though he did not doubt the officer’s advice, on that basis alone and subject to a condition in relation to a mining survey he would be voting against the officer’s recommendation as he felt that a refusal would not stand up at appeal.

The Head of Planning and Regeneration confirmed to Members that the application had been submitted before the Local Plan had been adopted however determination of the application by the Planning Officer was to be in line with the adopted Plan.

Councillor D Harrison expressed concerns over how initial contact happened with prospective applicants on the application in front of the Committee and all applications in general. He felt that there had been no malice or deliberately misleading advice given but if officers were aware that policies and framework were going to change then every effort should have been made to ensure that any dates that would affect the application are made clear to the applicants. He stated that he could see no issue with the site or the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 61.

30 Ashby Road Newbold Coalville Leicestershire LE67 8PB

The Planning Officer presented the report to Members.

Ms M Holmes, applicant, addressed the Committee. She raised three main points. She firstly advised Members that the application was for a two bedroom property that she would reside in so that she would be able to help and support family members on a daily basis, and remain close to her work. She stated that there were no modest sized properties being built in the area and if there was they would not be in her price range. Her second point was that the report stated that the site was Greenfield, however the property was to be built on land that once housed a garage, the footings of which were still in place. She informed Members that the dwelling would be surrounded by other properties. She advised Members that when the application was submitted the site fell in the Limits to Development and during the process falling the adoption of the Local Plan the site fell outside the Limits and became unsustainable. She reminded Members that the Committee had permitted a similar development back in 2017 in the village and the Committee report had stated that the range of services available in the areas were good for a modest sized property and a such development of modest size would help to keep the village sustainable. She highlighted that nothing had changed since 2017 as the village was still sustainable and urged Members to permit the application.

Councillor J G Coxon stated that the application was similar to A6 and that again the Committee needed to have discretion and common sense. He moved that the application be permitted as it was a local need.

Councillor J Legrys seconded the motion to permit as he agreed it was local need in a vibrant community.

In response to a question from Councillor M Specht, Councillor D J Stevenson stated that he was at the Parish Council meeting and could confirm that all members of the Parish supported the application.

RESOLVED THAT:

The application be permitted on the grounds that it would meet local need and the imposition of conditions delegated to the Head of Planning and Regeneration.

Land Adjacent To 51 The Green Long Whatton Leicestershire LE12 5DA

The officer’s recommendation was moved by Councillor M Specht, seconded by Councillor R Adams and

RESOLVED THAT:

The application be permitted in accordance with the recommendation of the Head of Planning and Regeneration.

Wayside Cottage Loughborough Road Coleorton Coalville Leicestershire LE67 8HH

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

The officer’s recommendation was moved by Councillor J Legrys, seconded by Councillor V Richichi and

RESOLVED THAT:

The application be permitted in accordance with the recommendation of the Head of Planning and Regeneration.

Councillor N Smith left the meeting at 4.55pm

Councillor J Geary left the meeting at 5.40pm

Councillor M B Wyatt left the meeting at 6.15pm