Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies were received from Councillors M Burke and N Smith.

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:

Councillor R Boam declared a registerable interest in item A2, application number 23/00427/OUTM, of the agenda as ward member, and Councillor R Blunt would be joining the meeting as his substitute for that item.

Councillor D Bigby declared that he had previously been involved in discussions about item A2, application number 23/00427/OUTM, as part of Ashby Town Council’s Planning Committee but had come to the meeting with an open mind.

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.

Item A1, application number 25/00274/FULM

Councillors D Bigby, R Canny, J Legrys, R Morris, P Moult, C Sewell, and J Simmons.

Item A2, application number 23/00427/OUTM

Councillors D Bigby, R Canny, J Legrys, R Morris, P Moult, C Sewell, and J Simmons.

Item A3, application number 25/01184/FUL

Councillor J Legrys.

To confirm and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 11 November 2025.

Consideration was given to the minutes of the meeting held on 11 November 2025.

It was moved by Councillor D Everitt, seconded by Councillor J Legrys and

RESOLVED THAT:

The minutes of the meeting held on 11 November 2025 be approved and signed by the Chair as an accurate record of proceedings.

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 to the East of the A444 / North of J11 of the M42, Stretton En Le Field, Leicestershire.

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report.

Ann Hughes, speaking as Chair of Overseal Parish Council, addressed the Committee. She stated that, while the development was not within Overseal’s proximity, it could adversely impact this area due to its potential to increase the traffic on the A444. She highlighted existing congestion at Junction 11 of the A444, off-street parking pressures, and raised further issues regarding air pollution, reduced access to footpaths and bridleways, recent increases in accidents, and the unsafe condition of the structure of the A444.

Matthew Fox, speaking as agent, addressed the Committee and expressed support for the development, stating that it would maximise opportunities for local people. He highlighted that the development would create more jobs, deliver high-quality buildings and establish connections to Mercier Park. 

During discussion, members questioned whether there was an immediate demand for the site, emphasising the importance of complying with Policy Ec2 (2) in the Local Plan. Members also raised concerns with regards to employment benefits, flooding and compliance with Policy S3 in the Local Plan which promoted sustainable development in rural areas, expressing doubts as to whether the landscape was safeguarded.

It was noted by the Principal Planning Policy Officer that immediate demand was a matter of judgement rather than an absolute measure, and that Policy Ec2 (2) permits consideration of additional evidence to form this judgement. It was added that job creation would follow should there be enough demand.

Legal advice was noted that no conditions could be added to the application that would impact an area outside of the District.

Members highlighted the importance of planning ahead, and that granting permission for the application at this stage would give certainty to the developer and enable them to react more quickly.

It was moved by Councillor R Morris, seconded by Councillor J Simmons and

The Chair 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 officer’s recommendations.

[recorded vote will be inserted here]

Land at Corkscrew Lane, Ashby de la Zouch, Leicestershire.

Having declared an interest in item A2 of the agenda, Councillor R Boam left the meeting, and Councillor R Blunt joined as his substitute. As Deputy, Councillor R Morris took the Chair.

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report.

Siobhan Dillon, speaking as parish councillor on behalf of Coleorton Parish Council, addressed the Committee. She questioned the immediate need for the development and commented that it could cause an increase in traffic on roads that were already experiencing congestion.

Christopher Smith, speaking as town councillor on behalf of Ashby Town Council, addressed the Committee. He expressed scepticism over previous promised developments, the sustainability of the land, and highlighted that there was no need for more developments on green fields. He made reference to suitable alternative sites such as the adjacent G Park site that were yet to be built on.

Paul Bench, speaking as agent on behalf of DHL Real Estate Solutions, addressed the Committee. He spoke in support of the application and stated that they had a long history of investing in the local area. It was added that the development would create more jobs for local residents, and the community were supportive of this.

A discussion was had during which several questions of clarity were addressed by the planning officers. Members put forward arguments both for and against the application, with some raising concerns that it was premature, and did not comply with DHL’s requirements. Members noted that, if there was an immediate need, it would be a full application rather than at outline stage. They also discussed that there were alternative sites available that were more suitable for the development, including the adjacent G-Park site and at the Money Hill site.  A request was also made that if there was a reserved matters application for this site, that it be brought to Planning Committee for a decision.

The Legal Advisor drew members’ attention to sub-paragraph (c) of Paragraph 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which advises that local planning authorities should refuse applications that do not make efficient use of land. He added that, should part of the land associated with the G-Park site become sterilised because a scheme of the size proposed by DHL under the current application was proposed on the G-Park site, it would be recommended that the Committee refuse the application. Any refusal of the proposed application would have to be on planning grounds rather than because of adjacent land availability.

Clarification was provided by the Principal Planning Policy Officer and the Principal Planning Officer in respect of the alternative sites discussed by members.

Councillor D Bigby moved to refuse the application due to the availability of alternative sites. It was moved by Councillor J Legrys.

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

The motion was LOST.

Councillor J Simmons moved that the application should be approved in accordance with the officer’s recommendations. It was seconded by Councillor R  ...  view the full minutes text for item 46.

2 Central Road, Hugglescote, Coalville, Leicestershire, LE67 2FD

Councillor R Boam resumed his role as Chair, and Councillor R Blunt left the meeting.

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report.

Bhavik Patel and Craig Farrell, speaking as agent and applicant respectively, addressed the Committee. They spoke in support of the application, stating that the development had been carefully designed after being approached by residents who wanted to see something be built on the land.

Councillor R Johnson, speaking as ward member, addressed the Committee. He stated there was a lack of evidence supplied by the applicant to suggest there was a local need. It was noted that issues with waste collection could develop which may result in road hazards. He added that the application did not comply with policies in the Local Plan and did not take the Neighbourhood Plan into consideration. He urged the Committee to refuse the application.

A discussion was had during which members expressed concern over the quality of housing. Members also raised concerns about the number of occupants in the building, and they asked how the limit of 10 would be enforced. The Principal Planning Officer explained that this would be handled by the enforcement team.

Additionally, members noted that issues with bin storage may occur following the implementation of the new waste system. It was therefore asked whether, as a provision, a condition could be included to make bin storage in the area more efficient.

The Planning and Development Team Manager confirmed that comments from the Waste Services team had been considered as part of the application. It was added that alternative wording could be provided instead to allow for food provision, approved by the Waste Services team, and an additional condition for bin storage could be included.

Councillor R Morris moved that the application be approved, subject to the inclusion of a condition relating to efficient bin storage to prevent issues with food waste from occurring. It was seconded by Councillor R Canny.

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

RESOLVED THAT:

The application be permitted, subject to the inclusion of a condition relating to efficient bin storage to prevent issues with food waste from occurring.

[recorded vote will be inserted here]