Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors N Smith and D J Stevenson.

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, N Clarke, J Cotterill, J Legrys, T Neilson, M Specht and M B Wyatt declared that they had been lobbied without influence in respect of item A1, application number 14/00050/FULM.

Councillor M B Wyatt declared a Disclosable Non-Pecuniary interest in item A1, application number 14/00050/FULM, due to his association with the Save Our Green Wedges Action Group.  He referred to another application in the area, regarding which he had made his intent clear.  He clarified that he had not made up his mind regarding this application.  In respect of the public meeting organised by Councillor N Clarke, he advised that he had not attended, and to his knowledge had not been invited to attend.

Councillor T Neilson declared that he had attended the meeting arranged by Councillor N Clarke regarding item A1, application number 14/00050/FULM, but he had not spoken at the meeting.

Councillor J Legrys declared that he had been lobbied without influence in respect of item A2, application number 13/00141/OUTM.

Councillor T Neilson declared that he had been lobbied without influence in respect of items A2, A3 and A4, application numbers 13/00141/OUTM, 13/00516/FULM AND 13/00969/FUL. 

Councillors R Johnson and J Legrys declared a Disclosable Non-Pecuniary interest in item A6, application number 14/00450/FUL, as a Member of the Owen Street Recreation Ground Pavilion Management Committee and as a Member of the Coalville Special Expenses Working Party.

Councillor R Woodward declared that he had been lobbied without influence in respect of item A6, application number 14/00450/FUL.

Councillors M Specht and M B Wyatt declared a Disclosable Non-Pecuniary interest in item A6, application number 14/00450/FUL as a Member of the Coalville Special Expenses Working Party.

To confirm and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 8 July 2014

Consideration was given to the minutes of the meeting held on 8 July 2014.

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

RESOLVED THAT:

The minutes of the meeting held on 8 July 2014 be approved and signed as a correct record.

Report of the Director of Services.

Consideration was given to the report of the Director of Services, as amended by the update sheet circulated at the meeting.

Land North Of Greenhill Road And East Of Agar Nook Lane Coalville Leicestershire

The Planning and Development Team Manager presented the report to Members.  Councillor N Clarke, Ward Member, addressed the Committee.  He spoke in support of the officer’s recommendation as this was an area of particularly attractive countryside and the development would encroach into the Charnwood Forest and a SSSI site.  He referred to the document from the Leicestershire and Rutland Wildlife Trust which supported the officer’s recommendations and he thanked them for producing the document.  He felt that there would be an effect in terms of highways, as the development would generate an increase in traffic which would impact upon Warren Hills Road.  He added that the additional traffic had not been mitigated.  He thanked the residents who had highlighted the flooding issues and pointed out that the report offered no conclusive solution to these issues.  He encouraged all Members to support the officer’s recommendation.

Mr T Sporne, objector, addressed the meeting on behalf of the Save Our Green Fields Action Group and neighbouring residents.  He stated that the proposed development was outside the limits to development, in an area of particularly attractive open countryside, which should be protected.  He added that the proposals were contrary to policy E22, would encroach into Charnwood Forest, and would set a dangerous precedent for similar sites.  He pointed out that the Leicestershire and Rutland Wildlife Trust had objected for a number of reasons.  He stated that the ecological buffer and wildlife corridor should be retained in respect of the Holly Rock Fields SSSI.  He made reference to the recent revisions to the methodology used to calculate the housing land supply and the current position that the Council was able to demonstrate a five year supply plus a twenty per cent buffer, which meant that it was no longer necessary to permit the application.  He stated that residents had grave concerns regarding traffic and the environmental implications.  He added that if the application was granted, an additional junction onto Broom Leys Road would be required.

Mr S Lewis-Roberts, agent, addressed the meeting. He stated that the application site was in a sustainable location, with good access to shops, schools and bus stops.  He added that there were no technical objections from any of the statutory consultees.  He made reference to the comprehensive S106 package.  He stated that the development was of high quality, and was sensitive to local concepts following discussions with the Council’s Urban designer.  He added that the proposals would ensure that more than one third of the site would be protected and designated as a wildlife site.  He acknowledged that the area was attractive countryside, however he felt that this should not prevent appropriate development taking place.  He stated that the landscape strategy would reduce the visual impact of the proposals.  He commented that the five year housing land supply was a critical factor when considering this application.  He stated that the argument to rely on the recent changes in methodology was flawed, as demonstrated by a recent decision at  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28.

Land At Measham Waterside Burton Road Measham Derby

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report to Members.

Dr O Mulka, supporter, addressed the meeting.  He made reference to his long association with the village and the severe impact that the closure of the mine had had upon it.  He stated that the best way to improve health and wellbeing was by improving the economy.  He added that he had started the canal restoration group as this was the only project that could bring back the heart of Measham.  He referred to previous the regeneration of the village which had done nothing for the high street.  He stated that there would never be another opportunity to regenerate the canal and the high street and this was a unique opportunity to create a leisure attraction.

Mr B Wilson, applicant’s agent, addressed the meeting.  He commented that he welcomed the opportunity to change the approach to the Section 106 Agreement.  He referred to the June meeting of the Planning Committee where Members had expressed the need for the application to provide benefit locally, as well as restoring the canal.  He reiterated the commitment to developing the canal and advised that an access road and bridge would be constructed, and the domestic waste would be removed from the bed of the canal.  He made reference to the cost of protecting the route of the canal in addition to the Section 106 Agreement.  He placed on record his thanks to the officers for allowing the application to be reconsidered.

Councillor T Neilson stated that he was extremely disappointed that after the June meeting, further talks were made with the applicant when no authority had been granted by the Planning Committee to do so.  He stated that a decision had been made by the Committee and he found this to be extremely worrying.  He added that if the officer in question was still in post, he would have taken this matter further.  He raised a point of order relating to Council Procedure Rule 15.2, in that a motion in similar terms to one which has been rejected at a Council meeting within the past six months cannot be moved unless notice is given and signed by at least one third of the Members.  He stated that nothing had been brought before Members to this effect and he sought advice on whether it was constitutional for Members to reconsider this item.  He referred to the Money Hill application, in respect of which Members were required to take a vote to reconsider the application.

The Chairman proposed that the application be deferred to enable advice to be sought following the meeting.  This was seconded by Councillor M Specht.

The Chairman then put the motion to the vote and it was declared CARRIED.

RESOLVED THAT:

The application be deferred to enable further legal advice to be sought.

Land Off New Street Measham Swadlincote Derby

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

Councillor S Sheahan, Ward Member, addressed the meeting.  He stated that the initial concerns appeared to have been resolved, and therefore he supported the recommendation to permit the application.

Councillor T Neilson stated that he took issue with the fact that there was no affordable housing.  He added that the development was not sustainable if there was no affordable housing.  He commented that a motion to refuse the application would be voted down, however he could not support a scheme with no affordable housing.

It was moved by Councillor J Coxon, seconded by Councillor G Jones and

RESOLVED THAT:

The application be permitted in accordance with the recommendation of the Director of Services.

Land At 6 Queens Street Measham Swadlincote Derbys

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report to Members.

Councillor S Sheahan, Ward Member, addressed the meeting.  He stated that he was generally in favour of affordable housing, however this development had been badly designed and did not satisfy policies E3 and E4.  He added that there was an issue getting bin lorries into the site as it was too constrained.  He questioned where a bin store might be located and expressed concerns that residents may end up paying twice for this service.  He referred to the separation of 5.3m which was quite worrying and would cause Orchard House to be overshadowed.  He added that officers felt this would not be significant, however the residents of Orchard House had had a professional study undertaken which indicated otherwise.  He referred to the errors in the officer’s report and plans.  He concluded that the proposed development would be a blight upon neighbouring properties and a horribly cramped place to live.  He urged Members to refuse the application on the grounds that it did not comply with policies E3 and E4.

Mrs P Wheatcroft, objector, addressed the meeting.  She made reference to the site plan and the original outline application for 5 dwellings.  She added that the whole point of good design was to offer imaginative solutions.  She stated that the issues had not been addressed and planning officers had given inaccurate and inconsistent advice.  She expressed concerns that the proposals would cause overshadowing and overlooking, and felt that they were demonstrably overbearing.  She questioned whether permitting the application would set a precedent.  She highlighted numerous errors in the report, in particular that the parking provision for plot 4 was located within her own garden.  She stated that the plan was totally flawed.

Mr P Taylor, applicant’s agent, addressed the meeting.  He stated that at the April meeting, the reasons for deferring the application were the access and overlooking.  He added that there had been many changes to the scheme and the position of dwellings, and the issues in respect of the access had been addressed.  He commented that the applicant had made a significant effort to address the concerns raised by residents.  He stated that the parking arrangements were compliant with the design guide and there was no reason to refuse the application on highways grounds.  He added that drainage would me a matter for building regulations.  He acknowledged that there were unusual relationships between existing dwellings, and therefore there would be an impact, however he urged Members to make a subjective assessment of the impact upon neighbours.  He stated that the applicants had worked hard to satisfy the technical requirements and address the concerns expressed by neighbours.  He felt that there were no reasonable grounds to refuse the application.

Councillor G A Allman moved that the application be permitted in accordance with the recommendation of the Director of Services.  This was seconded by Councillor J G Coxon.

Councillor R Woodward stated that he supported social housing, however this was typical of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 31.

27 School Lane Newbold Coalville Leicestershire

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report to Members.

Mr I Hallam, objector, addressed the meeting on behalf of the residents of Newbold.  He stated that the application was retrospective which showed a disregard for rules and procedures.  He added that there were strong concerns that noise and dog odours would reach unacceptable levels as they had before.  He sought clarification on whether there was the option to change the breed at the premises, and if so, there could be potentially worse issues with noise and odour.  He made reference to the school opposite the premises and expressed concerns that visitors would add to the existing traffic problems.  He highlighted that the stated number of dogs on site excluded puppies, which still produced odour and noise.  He concluded that a business of this sort was not suitable for a quiet residential area.

Mr T Redfern, applicant’s agent, addressed the meeting.  He stated that he was pleased to note that the officer’s recommendation was to permit the application.  He made reference to the previous application and highlighted that the number of breeding dogs had been reduced to 15.  He added that officers had not considered it feasible or necessary to require a restriction on the breed of dog.  He stated that the applicant had a large garden and the sheds had been situated in the best location.  He added that the dogs were virtually noise-free as the site had been sound proofed, the compound was fenced, the site was kept clean and there were no smells outside the fence.  In terms of visitors he explained that multiple visits did not take place at the same time, and therefore there were 5 or 6 purchase visits per month.  He added that the parking on site could accommodate 6 or 7 vehicles at a time and was never full.  He stated that the objections to the application were as a result of a malicious complaint and the applicants had been the subject of racial abuse and vandalism since the previous application.  He added that there were no reasons to refuse the application.  He concluded that control would be reinforced by the breeder’s licence and urged Members to grant the application.

Councillor T Neilson stated that he had spoken in favour of the previous application as no complaints had been received whilst the premises had been in operation.  He moved that the application be permitted in accordance with the officer’s recommendation.  He added that as the District Council had yet to receive any complaints, public nuisance could not be evidenced, and the visit from the RSPCA had given the all clear.

The motion was seconded by Councillor D Everitt.

Councillor M Specht stated that there were no objections regarding noise and smell, and the outbuildings would appear to be permitted development and as such were no different from having a hobby room in your back garden.  He expressed support for the application.

Councillor A Bridges stated that she would not be supporting  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32.

Coalville Town FC Owen Street Coalville Leicestershire

The Planning Officer presented the report to Members.

The Chairman asked Councillor M B Wyatt to clarify why he had called in the application.

Councillor M B Wyatt explained that he had done so as he wanted to make sure that residents could see that the process was open and transparent, as a substantial sum of taxpayers’ money was going in to the scheme.

Councillor J Geary, Ward Member, addressed the meeting.  He explained that the Chairman of the football club had been invited to attend the last meeting of the Coalville Special Expenses Working Party and he had explained that their aspirations for future development depended upon the new changing rooms.  He stated that the club had been very successful and referred to the match at Wembley which was a remarkable achievement.  He added that the pavilion had been purpose built for the former cricket team and was not suitable for football.  He reminded Members that the team had lost out on promotion in the playoffs, but they may have been denied in any case as they do not currently have the requisite facilities.  He made reference to the significant improvements which had already been done at the team’s expense and added that match funding had been arranged.  He concluded that the football club were enhancing the Council’s portfolio and this was a ‘no-brainer’.  He urged all Members to support the application.

Councillor J Legrys reiterated that the site belonged to the Council and the board of directors had invested a significant amount of their own money into improving the facilities on site.  He added that any person who invested in their community deserved congratulating.  He stated that the club needed the facilities to enable the name of Coalville to progress through the football league.  He added that there would be a benefit not just for Coalville, but for the whole of North West Leicestershire and this would promote the district in the sporting media.  He welcomed the initiative and significant investment in the community.

The Chairman asked Councillor J Geary to pass on his full support to the football club.

It was moved by Councillor T Gillard, seconded by Councillor G Jones and unanimously

RESOLVED THAT:

The application be permitted in accordance with the recommendation of the Director of Services.

Councillor S Sheahan entered the room at 5.45pm prior to the discussion and debate on item A3, application number 13/00516/FULM.