Agenda and draft minutes

There were no apologies received.

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:

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 25/01591/PIP

Councillors D Bigby, R Boam, M Burke, R Canny, D Everitt, J Legrys, P Moult, C Sewell, J Simmons, N Smith.

Item A2, application number 25/01097/FUL

Councillor J Legrys

Councillor R Boam declared a registerable interest in item A1 of the agenda, application number 25/01591/PIP, as ward member. He stated that he would be speaking for this item before leaving the Chamber and returning for item A2 of the agenda.

Councillor D Everitt declared a registerable interest in item A3 of the agenda, application number 26/00004/FUL, as ward member. He stated that he would be speaking for this item before leaving the meeting.

Councillor R Morris declared an interest in item A1 of the agenda, application number 25/01591/PIP, as it concerned an area of land located in an adjoining ward.

To confirm and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 10 March 2026.

Consideration was given to the minutes of the meeting held on 10 March 2026.

It was moved by Councillor J Legrys, seconded by Councillor P Moult and

RESOLVED THAT:

The minutes of the meeting held on 10 March 2026 be approved and signed by the Chair as an accurate record of the proceedings.

The 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.

As he declared an interest in the first application on the agenda, Councillor R Boam announced that he would retire to the public gallery before speaking as ward member on that item, and that Councillor R Morris was to take the chair as Deputy.

Land at the rear of The Brambles, Lower Moor Road, Coleorton

Land at the rear of The Brambles, Lower Moor Road, Coleorton

Officer’s recommendation: Permit

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report.

Siobhan Dillon, speaking on behalf of Coleorton Parish Council, addressed the Committee. She raised concerns about the increasing urbanisation in the area and stated that the strong agricultural character of Coleorton would have been affected by the development. She urged the Committee to refuse the application.

Hannah Walters-Graham, speaking as an objector, addressed the Committee. She noted that similar proposals had been refused by the Planning Inspectorate as part of appeals and urged the Committee to refuse the application on the grounds raised by the Inspectorate - that it was contrary to policies S2, S3, En34B and HE1 of the Local Plan. She added that there was a lack of public services in Coleorton to support the development, and that the applicant was exploiting the need for self-build properties.

Oliver Patrick, speaking on behalf of The Community Communications Partnership (The CCP), addressed the Committee. He highlighted that the development met the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (the NPPF), and that the developer had taken the Planning Inspectorate’s concerns on board as part of this new application. He commented that the development would have provided opportunities and homes for local people. The Committee were urged to approve the application.

Councillor R Boam, speaking as the ward member, addressed the Committee. He expressed support for the application and stated that it had been reduced in size and adhered to self-build policies. He reminded members that the application was in principle only, and that any technical details would have been looked at the next stage.

The Principal Planning Officer noted that there were bus stops along a nearby road that were within a reasonable walking distance of the site, and this had been noted by previous inspectors. He reminded members that it was a Permission in Principle (PIP) application and that technical details could not be taken into account at this stage.

During discussion, several questions of clarity were addressed by the planning officers. Members stated that, while the number of dwellings would have helped meet the Council’s quota, the density of the dwellings was not suitable and would be detrimental to the landscape context and character of Coleorton. Concerns were raised about the number of proposed dwellings, as well as the negative impact the development would have had on the nearby scenery and residential amenity.

Councillor R Canny moved that the application be refused on the grounds that it conflicted with policies S2 and S3 of the Local Plan, it was outside the limits of development, and that it the development would be detrimental to the landscape context and character of Coleorton. It was seconded by Councillor J Legrys and

RESOLVED THAT:

The application be refused on the grounds that it was outside the limits of development, conflicted with policies S2 and S3 of the Local Plan, and that the development would be detrimental to the landscape context and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 72.

Land to the rear of 46 Garfield Road, Hugglescote

Land at the rear of 46 Garfield Road, Hugglescote

Officer’s recommendation: Permit, subject to conditions.

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report.

Councillor T Eynon, speaking as the ward member, addressed the Committee. She stated that residents had experienced issues with parking and waste access, and added that, despite the report noting a lack of flooding issues, she was aware of problems related to surface-water run-off. She mentioned whether a condition could have been added which would have prevented these issues from occurring.

During discussion, members raised concerns about the impermeability of the driveway which would have added to surface-water issues. They questioned whether a condition could have been added which ensured the driveway was made out of a more permeable material.

The planning officers advised members that a condition could have been added around the maintenance of the driveway so that surface-water run-off was more effectively mitigated but acknowledged that this would not have guaranteed no flooding issues would have occurred in future.

Members had another discussion during which they raised further concerns about how the applicant would have met the Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) condition included as part of the application. The planning officers advised that, while it was mandatory to include the BNG condition within the application if approved, if the applicant wanted to make another application, they were required to submit the relevant details for the condition to be discharged. It was added that there was an offsite preference in meeting the BNG condition.

Councillor J Legrys moved that the application be approved subject to the above conditions. It was seconded by Councillor R Morris and

RESOLVED THAT:

The application be approved subject to conditions which enhanced soft landscaping, a permeable driveway surface, more effective surface-water drainage, two notes to the applicant be sent outlining the preference of offsite Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) and relocation and reduced size of the parking space and turning point of the driveway.

Councillor D Everitt retired to the public gallery before speaking as ward member for item A3 of the agenda. As he would be leaving the meeting after speaking, Councillor D Cooper joined as his substitute.

81 Main Street, Thringstone

81 Main Street, Thringstone

Officer’s recommendation: Permit, subject to conditions.

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report.

David Smith, speaking as the agent, addressed the Committee. He stated that the development had the opportunity to improve the quality of children’s lives and to provide them with a family environment in which to thrive and become part of the wider community. He urged the Committee to approve the application.

Councillor D Everitt, speaking as the ward member, addressed the Committee. He noted the location was unsuitable due to the proximity of other approved children’s care homes and commented that local people were concerned about the cumulative number of children in care it could have brought to the community. He also expressed concern that the quality of life of the children in care would have been affected by the proximity of the other care homes in the area and urged the Committee to refuse the application.

Members had a discussion during which they expressed support for the application but commented that having three homes in close proximity was unusual. The Head of Planning and Infrastructure advised members that there was no policy that limited the number of children’s homes within a given area.

A member questioned whether a condition could have been imposed to have required staff to use specific traffic routes and stagger change over times for the different care homes which would have alleviated issues with congestion. Members were advised that it would not have been reasonable to have imposed conditions which required specific routes or change over times, and that those matters were not enforceable or relevant to planning merits.

Councillor D Bigby moved that the application be approved in accordance with the officer’s recommendations. It was seconded by Councillor J Simmons and

RESOLVED THAT:

The application be approved in accordance with the officer’s recommendations.