Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor J Bridges for whom Councillor E Allman acted as substitute.

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

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

Councillors R Morris and R Boam declared a non pecuniary interest in item A2.

Councillor M Wyatt declared a non pecuniary interest in item A2 as he had been in communication with the applicant over an unrelated matter as a member of the Coalville Special Expenses Working Party.

Councillor D Harrison declared a non pecuniary interest in item A1 as a member of Leicestershire County Council.

The following members declared that they had been lobbied without influence in respect of the following applications but had come to the meeting with an open mind:

Councillor J Legrys on items A1 and A2.

Councillors J Hoult, J Simmons, D Bigby, E Allman on item A2.

To confirm and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 1 November 2022.

Consideration was given to the minutes of the meeting held on 1 November 2022.

It was moved by Councillor J Legrys, seconded by Councillor J Hoult and

RESOLVED THAT:

The minutes of the meeting held on 1 November 2022 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 North Of Standard Hill And West Of Highfield Street Hugglescote Coalville LE67 3BP

The Planning Officer presented the report and provided some background into the application, highlighting that the application in its current form sought to vary some conditions and remove others. It was noted that the most contentious issue was that of Condition 17, which restricted Highfield Street to only being serviced by 100 dwellings which was being varied to serve 150 dwellings.

Mr Thorley, Land and Planning Director of Jelson Ltd was invited to come forward and made his representations. The meeting was informed that the developers had sought to make a number of changes, to include the removal of the vehicle link between the two main parts of the site, which would protect the brook corridor. The developer had also offered parking spaces to most of the properties affected on Highfield Street in a bid to alleviate potential problems caused by on road parking and the associated traffic issues.

Councillor J Geary, ward member, made his representations and highlighted concerns around the extra traffic which would need to exit the site via Highfield Street. Councillor J Geary questioned the efficacy and accuracy of the traffic count and also noted the report’s reference to “the narrow nature of Highfield Street”. With regard to existing homes on Highfield Street which would be provided parking should the development be approved, it was asserted that this would be at a financial cost to residents which would not necessarily be possible for all given the current economic climate. Councillor J Geary suggested that this application be declined or deferred for further consideration.

Officers responded and clarified that in terms of transport work, previous survey data was considered and confirmed that this would have taken into account a period of time when road works were being carried out and the road was closed. The Planning and Development Team Manager clarified that the reserve matter scheme and access to the dwellings on the road frontage was not for consideration as part of this application.

A member enquired whether an adequate traffic count had been undertaken, whether this had been done correctly and if it had been considered by Leicestershire County Council. Officers confirmed that this was the case and that during traffic surveys, there had been no restrictions on the road. It was clarified that the traffic count had been from a 2018 report which had been updated using modelling technology.

A motion to permit the application in accordance with the officer’s recommendation was moved by Councillor D Harrison and seconded by Councillor R Boam.

The Chairman put the motion to the vote. A recorded vote being required, the voting was as detailed below.

RESOLVED THAT:

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

Roseville Outwoods Lane Coleorton Coalville Leicestershire LE67 8PA

As Councillors R Morris and R Boam had declared an interest in this item, nominations were made for Chair. Councillor E Allman was nominated as Chair, it was moved by Councillor R Boam and seconded by Councillor D Harrison. Councillors R Morris and R Boam stepped away from the committee.

Councillor R Ashman was called upon to join the committee in his capacity as substitute and noted that he had been lobbied on this item but had come to the meeting with an open mind.

The Senior Planning Officer presented the application, and outlined the proposal to erect four buildings for the purpose of tourist accommodation.

Mr C Jones, Chair of Worthington Parish Council, was invited to make his representations and voiced the support of the Parish Council for local residents who had opposed the plans. The “significant amount” of objections was noted and it was iterated that the development was outside the limits of development.

Mr C Jones asserted that the Parish Council and local residents who had objected, felt that this development would have an adverse impact  in terms of invasion of privacy and the potential for noise nuisance and believed that there would be no benefit to the community or local businesses should the application be approved.

Mr S Haggart, objector, was invited to speak and wished to highlight that the proposed development would be in close proximity to neighbouring properties and as they would be at an elevated height, felt that this would encroach on the privacy of local homeowners, giving a direct view into their properties. It was also asserted that harm would be caused to the countryside.

Mr Haggart suggested that there would be no benefits to local businesses or the community and that the development did not require a countryside location, and should therefore not be permitted outside the limits of development.

Mr J Mattley, Agent, was invited to speak. Mr Mattley informed the committee that the development would be a high quality proposal and that there had been no other objections received from statutory consultees. He advised the committee that the Local Plan lists tourism accommodation as acceptable use within the countryside. Mr Mattley added that now proposals had been revised and the development would be situated at the rear of the site, this would render it barely visible to the surrounding area, that it would be a sustainable development and that Leicestershire County Council had found the proposal to be acceptable.

Councillor R Morris, Ward Member was invited to speak. Councillor Morris urged members to reject this application and argued that there had been an absence of topographical information, which would have indicated that the land is 4m above the surface level of the highway and would be 7m above the adjacent highway and neighbouring properties. It was suggested that the nature of holiday lodges would lead to parties, barbecues and hot tubs, all of which could potentially cause a noise nuisance to local residents. Members were reminded of a meeting  ...  view the full minutes text for item 39.