Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors R Adams and M Specht.

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 J Bridges and G Jones declared a non pecuniary interest in item A1, application number 14/00460/OUTM, as an acquaintance of the applicant.

Councillors G A Allman, J G Coxon, J Hoult, G Jones declared a non pecuniary interest in item A1, application number 14/00460/OUTM, as Members of Ashby Town Council.

Councillor N Smith declared a pecuniary interest in item A1, application number 14/00460/OUTM, as a friend and business associate of the applicant’s family.  He emphasised that he had no financial interest whatsoever in respect of this application.

Councillor D Howe declared a non pecuniary interest in item A3, application number 14/00893/FULM, as an active emh group shareholder.

Councillor J Legrys declared a non pecuniary interest in item A3, application number 14/00893/FULM, as a volunteer at Hermitage FM which was located adjacent to the site.

Councillor M B Wyatt declared a non pecuniary interest in item A3, application number 14/00893/FULM, having lobbied to have the building demolished.

Councillor R Johnson declared a non pecuniary interest in item A4, application number 13/00956/OUTM, as a Member of Hugglescote and Donington le Heath Parish Council.

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

Item A1, application number 14/00460/OUTM

Councillors, J Cotterill, J G Coxon, D Everitt, J Hoult, D Howe, R Johnson, J Legrys, T Neilson, D J Stevenson and M B Wyatt.

Item A2, application number 14/00578/OUTM

Councillors G A Allman J Cotterill, J G Coxon, D Everitt, T Gillard, J Hoult, T Neilson, D J Stevenson and M B Wyatt.

Item A3, application number 14/00893/FULM

Councillors J Legrys and D J Stevenson.

Item A4, application number 13/00956/OUTM

Councillors G A Allman, J Cotterill, D Everitt, T Gillard, R Johnson, J Legrys, T Neilson, D J Stevenson, R Woodward and M B Wyatt.

Item A6, application number 14/00862/FULM

Councillors G A Allman, J G Coxon, J Hoult and D J Stevenson.

To confirm and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 4 November 2014.

Consideration was given to the minutes of the meeting held on 4 November 2014.

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

RESOLVED THAT:

The minutes of the meeting held on 4 November 2014 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

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.

Land Adjacent To Blackfordby House Farm Butt Lane Blackfordby

Having declared a pecuniary interest in item A1, Councillor N Smith left the meeting during consideration of this item and took no part in the consideration or voting thereon.

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report to Members.

Mrs D Whetton addressed the meeting on behalf of the Town Council.  She stated that the Town Councillors had been consulted on the original application earlier in the year and had objected to the proposals.  She added that this application had subsequently been amended with no opportunity to comment.  She felt that the Town Council’s objections were still applicable and the issues had not been addressed.  She stated that the site was outside the limits to development, was unsustainable and would add pressure to the existing facilities.  She added that there was no medical provision, no shops, and no space at the school.  She commented that the Council had already identified its 5 year housing land supply and cars were overused in Blackfordby.  She stated that action needed to be taken against the cars using the road as a rat run as it was dangerous to walk on the footpaths, and the road was being treated as a motorway.  She added that flooding remained a real concern to the properties adjacent, and the ecological report was flawed.  She accepted that adequate housing should be provided, but felt there were smaller pockets of land which were suitable for this purpose within the village.  She concluded that the applicant had not addressed the concerns raised by Ashby Town Councillors and to permit the development would not be in the best interests of the village.

Mr R Nettleton, objector, addressed the meeting.  He stated that he had lived within 100 yards of the application site all his life.  He commented that the site was outside the village limits.  He expressed concerns regarding flooding, unrecorded mining and unrecorded landfill at the site.  He added that there had been issues with sewage for as long as he could remember.  He felt that residents had been ignored despite the guidance advising planners to seek local knowledge and he had received a letter stating that officers were too busy to respond to his concerns.  He added that he had been an eyewitness to the materials that had been dumped into the landfill and to the collapse of old workings on the site.  He stated that none of these issues had been properly investigated and the risk of flooding had been ignored.  He respectfully requested that Members listen to residents and seek accurate information now before making a decision.

Mr C Lindley, the applicant’s agent, addressed the meeting.  He fully endorsed the officer’s recommendation.  He stated that the applicant had worked hard to listen to, and where appropriate, respond to comments raised by interested parties.  He added that the proposal had received no objections from any statutory consultee.  He commented that the Council must maintain a 5 year housing land supply and the application provided an appropriate form  ...  view the full minutes text for item 81.

Land Between Burton Road And Moira Road Shellbrook Ashby De La Zouch

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report to Members.

Ms D Grice, objector, addressed the meeting.  She stated that the application was a departure from policy S3, and commented that policies were useless if applications were still being considered regardless.  She added that residents had expressed concerns regarding the impact on roads and pollution, and Ashby Town Council had objected on the grounds that the district’s housing quota had been met.  She stated that the development could lead to a saturation of houses.  She added that there were issues in respect of flooding, design and access, and all properties on the boundary of the development would be overlooked and the streetscape would be adversely affected.  She felt that the community feel of the area would be lost and the proposals would cause additional hazards on the footpath used by school children.  She added that local residents were experiencing disruption on the road with the existing development and the delivery of heavy goods.

Mr R Garnham, the applicant’s agent, addressed the meeting.  He stated that the planning merits of the application had been covered in the officer’s report.   He commented that every Council had to have a local plan and a land supply.  He added that in order to show commitment to developing the site, the applicant proposed to amend the condition in respect of the reserved matters application to specify that this be submitted in 2 years rather than 3.  He added that the proposals would provide a range of affordable housing including bungalows for older people.  He added that the legal agreement would give first refusal to people in the local area, and the development would truly deliver local homes for local people.  He commented that only 14 objections had been received from members of the public, which he hoped was a reflection of the huge efforts the applicant had gone to in respect of this scheme.  He reassured Members that the application would meet the needs of local people and would do so in a timeframe that supported the Council’s strategic needs.  He respectfully requested that Members support the officer’s recommendation.

Councillor J G Coxon stated that he had the opposite view to the officers.  He moved that the application be refused on the grounds that it was contrary to policy S3 and was not sustainable.  He commented that the proposals would extend the limits of Ashby de la Zouch further and would put a belt or perimeter on the town. He made reference to the density of the application and added that the site was significantly overdeveloped.

The motion was seconded by Councillor J Legrys.

The Head of Planning and Regeneration advised Members that the sustainability issue had been given as a reason for refusal in respect of the site to the south of this development, and this was permitted at appeal.  He advised that the Inspector had said this was not reasonable and therefore he felt that this could not be defended on appeal.  He added  ...  view the full minutes text for item 82.

The Pick N Shovel 2 High Street Coalville Leicestershire

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report to Members.

Councillor J Legrys referred to the emh letting policy and sought clarification whether the properties would be let to single people over 30 years of age.

The Planning and Development Team Manager advised that this was his understanding of the policy, and this would be carefully assessed at the letting stage.

Councillor J Legrys felt that the development had to be welcomed, and he added that the community wanted this building demolished.  He stated that he had been involved in the project that had been trying to acquire the building, and a lot of structural ironwork inside it had been removed by unauthorised people.  He stated that the site needed to become part of the community again and needed to be in use.  He commented that a lot of people were disappointed the site was not going to be returned to retail use.  He felt however that this had to be outweighed by the fact that a Registered Social Landlord was on board who was willing to bring the site back to fruitful use.  He added that he shared many people’s scepticism that the project would not materialise and he sincerely hoped that emh could strike a deal with the current owner of the property.  He welcomed the removal of the bay windows as they were unsightly and overhung the highway.  He acknowledged that there would be problems with construction traffic and the local community would have to be aware that there would be some inconvenience for passing public and traders during the construction phase. He referred to the concerns raised in the community about unauthorised car parking, and the discussions that had taken place with enforcement officers regarding waiting areas, which would need to be kept under control.  He welcomed the development and asked Members to support the proposals for benefit of the community.

Councillor G A Allman commended the application and felt that the external visage was a credit.

Councillor T Gillard agreed that the application was well overdue.  He also paid tribute to the Council for committing funds to support the scheme.

Councillor M B Wyatt added that this was fantastic news and long overdue.  He also thanked the Leader of the Council for taking up this opportunity.

Councillor T Neilson stated that he supported the proposals but urged caution regarding the design of the first floor windows.  He commented that there was a similar scheme in Measham and the windows quickly became very ugly.  He felt this would not add to the streetscene at all.

It was moved by Councillor J Legrys, seconded by Councillor T Gillard and

RESOLVED THAT:

The application be permitted in accordance with the recommendation of the Head of Planning and Regeneration, subject to the amended conditions as outlined in the update sheet.

Land Off Grange Road Grange Road Hugglescote Leicestershire

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report to Members.

Dr T Eynon, County Councillor, addressed the meeting.  She stated that she had no objection to the principle of development on the site and had nothing but praise for the way the agent had engaged with residents.  She felt however that the application was premature from a highways perspective, and much more work needed to be done to make the scheme viable.  She added that there would be a material impact on every junction of the A511.  She noted that the original solution included a bypass, which had been delayed for years due to increasing costs.  She added that the Planning Committee had now approved an application on the land set aside for the bypass.  She stated that the link road which was intended to punch through the site was mired in difficulties and was likely to cost far more than the developer could hope to provide.  She commented that monies from the transport and infrastructure pot from this development would be going towards the works at the Markfield junction in Hinckley and Bosworth.  She asked the Committee to reject this offer until the officers have worked up a robust strategy to find the requisite funding for the bypass and the other infrastructure requirements as identified by the Highways Authority.

Mr W Jennings, representing the Parish Council, addressed the meeting.  He stated that he was the Chair of the planning working party and since its inception, the Parish Council had engaged with higher authorities.  He expressed concerns regarding the lack of infrastructure in what was by far the biggest application for the district.   He stated that the proposals were in contravention of policy E21 as the parish identities would be compromised.  He added that there was no infrastructure in place to support the development and the proposed punch through road was eighth on the list of priorities.  He commented that phrase ‘short term pain for long term gain’ had been quoted, yet it was the communities that would pay the price.  He stated that not only was the weight of traffic a prime concern, but also the roads expected to bear the traffic were not fit for purpose, and the road proposed as the main thoroughfare was dangerous.   He added that the school did not have spare capacity and the issues raised had not been addressed.  He stated that the proposals were contrary to policy E4 as they were not in tune with the surroundings, as much of Hugglescote was Victorian.  He added that the lack of affordable housing was also a concern and there were too many unanswered questions in respect of this development.  He also questioned the CIL compatibility of the scheme.

Councillor P Hyde, Ward Member, addressed the meeting.  He stated that the agent had done an excellent job and had involved the local community, parish council and district council Members, which was what everyone should do when submitting a scheme of this size which affected the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 84.

34 Copson Street Ibstock Coalville Leicestershire

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report to Members.

Councillor R Johnson requested that a condition be included in respect of the hours of construction, to restrict the working time to 7.30am to 5.30pm Monday to Friday, 7.30am to 1.30pm on Saturdays and no Sunday operating

The Chairman advised that a note to the applicant could be included to that effect.

Councillor J Legrys commented that he had some sympathy for neighbours in respect of car parking.  He added that the access to the site was not grand, and may be difficult if there was no co-operation between neighbours.  He also requested a note to the applicant in respect of construction traffic, and to ensure that further negotiations took place with the Highways Authority regarding how the access and visibility issues could be better mitigated.

It was moved by Councillor J Bridges, seconded by Councillor T Gillard and

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY THAT:

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

Site Opposite Ashby Rugby Club Nottingham Road Ashby De La Zouch Leicestershire

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report to Members.

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

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY THAT:

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

Ambro Mill Slade Lane Wilson Melbourne

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

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

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY THAT:

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

Ibstock Community College Central Avenue Ibstock Coalville

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

RESOLVED THAT:

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