Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillors R Adams, G A Allman, D Howe, N Smith and R Woodward.

The Chairman advised Members that Councillor D Howe was unwell and asked that a letter of best wishes be sent to him.

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 G Coxon, J Hoult and G Jones declared a disclosable non pecuniary interest in item A1, application number 14/00769/OUTM, as Members of Ashby Town Council.

Councillors J G Coxon, D Everitt, J Hoult, R Johnson, G Jones, J Legrys, T Neilson, S Sheahan, M Specht, L Spence and D J Stevenson declared that they had been lobbied without influence in respect of item A1, application number 14/00796/OUTM.

Councillors T Gillard and M B Wyatt declared that they had been lobbied without influence in respect of items A1 and A2, application numbers 14/00796/OUTM and 14/00802/OUTM.

To confirm and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 6 January 2015

Consideration was given to the minutes of the meeting held on 6 January 2015.

By affirmation of the meeting it was

RESOLVED THAT:

The minutes of the meeting held on 6 January 2015 be approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

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 Adjoining Woodcock Way Ashby De La Zouch 

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report to Members.

Councillor R D Bayliss, Ward Member, addressed the meeting. He advised Members that he had no objection to the Money Hill development in principle as it was difficult to find a reason to not develop, however the application before them had issues. He raised concerns over highway access to the site as there was only one and it was already congested. He asked Members to refuse the application on the grounds that the development was unsustainable.

Mrs M Tuckey, on behalf of Ashby Town Council, addressed the meeting. She advised Members that the Town Council had constantly objected to the application when submitted for 30 houses and now objected to 70. She stated that the access at Woodcock Way was too narrow and the surrounding roads were already congested with 15,000 cars a day travelling along them, and that due to all the other developments within the Ashby area schools and medical facilities were at capacity. She urged Members to refuse the application.

Mr M Ball, objector, addressed the meeting. He reminded Members that the Packington Nook Inspector had stated that the SHMA advised that the district had a 5 year plus housing land supply and that there should be no further development outside the limits to development as there were sufficient brownfield sites. He stated that the junction was already at capacity and there had been 20 accidents there also. He added that the application was unacceptable as it was for outline matters and it conflicted with the Money Hill application. He urged Members to refuse the application as it was contrary to policy E6, the NPPF and the Local Plan.

Mr G Lees, agent, addressed the meeting. He advised Members that the development had been designed carefully so that it could either stand alone or become part of a wider development. He informed Members that the application contained 30% affordable housing and that any access concerns that had been raised by the Highways authority had been addressed. He highlighted that the transport plan was now acceptable and that Miller Homes would restrict access to only the 70 homes with bus access to a wider development. He added that the Money Hill consortium had no objections to the development.

Councillor D J Stevenson stated that he agreed with the first three speakers, however the application was for outline with all matters reserved and therefore the committee was unable to consider issues such as highways and design, it was only the principle of development of the land that they could consider.

Councillor M Specht stated that his concerns were around sustainability. He highlighted that the report stated that 2km was an acceptable walking distance from the development, however a later report stated that 800m was an acceptable walking distance. He added that he was not happy with the sustainability and access but understood that this could not be discussed. He moved that the application be deferred until further information could  ...  view the full minutes text for item 103.

Land At  Acresford Road Donisthorpe Swadlincote 

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report to Members.

Ms C Chave, agent, addressed the meeting. She advised Members that a public consultation had been carried out and all comments had been taken into account. She stated that there was demand for more choice and this would help to sustain new businesses and provide new patronage to them. She informed Members that the developers had worked closely with planning officers and that the traffic calming measures would slow traffic down sooner before entering the village. She urged Members to support the recommendations.

Councillor S Sheahan stated that if the application was approved, highways improvements were essential and he sought clarification on what the suggested traffic calming measures were. He requested that the village sign on the entrance to Donisthorpe was moved should the application be permitted. He also highlighted that residents had raised concerns over drainage and sewage issues.

The Senior Planning Officer advised Members that it was planned to put raised tables at the access point and that a note could be added to the applicant about moving the village sign. He went on to inform Members that there had been no objections from either the Environment Agency or Severn Trent Water subject to the inclusion of the relevant conditions.

Councillor M Specht congratulated the officer on the report and stated that he felt the development would help to retain services such as the hourly bus service.

The Officer recommendation was moved by Councillor J Legrys, seconded by Councillor G Jones and

RESOLVED THAT:

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

Donington Park Race Circuit Donington Park Castle Donington 

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report to Members.

Councillor A C Saffell, Ward Member, addressed the meeting. He reminded Members that the previous application had only been permitted on a temporary basis to assist with the financial issues and that now the track had extra race days, Moto GP and Formula E, the auction days should not be required. He stated that the application should not be permitted as policy L20 did not apply and that the yellow and orange would be visible. He informed Members that they had been told that the community would see significant benefits from the auctions, but nobody in the area ever knew when the auctions were taking place. He asked Members to refuse the application.

Mr C Tate, applicant, addressed the meeting. He advised Members that the organisers of the auctions had chosen Donington Park due to the good transport links and the available hard standing. He informed Members that the delivery and removal of the goods had very little impact on the community as all the HGV drivers were briefed on routes and speed limits, that visitors to the auctions spent money in the area and that as a race circuit alone, Donington would not be viable, but the estate as a whole could be. He added that the auctions allowed jobs to be created, it was a diverse use of the site and he urged Members to support the application.

Councillor D J Stevenson stated that he had been suspicious when the original application was submitted but he was aware that not one complaint had been recorded by Planning or Environmental Health in relation to the auctions. He added that on race days there were brightly coloured plant vehicles, lorries and motor homes as far as the eye could see.

Councillor J Bridges agreed with Councillor D J Stevenson. He added that it was good to see a company with more than just one string to its bow and that the Council needed to back the application 100%.

Councillor M Specht queried the size of the storage area, should it read 0.2ha or was 2.2 ha correct, and sought clarification on what would be stored there.

The Principal Planning Officer stated that the storage area would be 2.2ha in size, which was almost 50% of the site and it would be used to store plant and machinery similar to what was to be sold. He advised Members that it was proposed to include a condition stating there would height limitation of 7m for non auction days and 18m on sale days.

Councillor J Legrys stated that he welcomed the application but felt that Members should have been given the opportunity to visit the site when the activities were taking place. He added that it was good diversification which created jobs.

The Officer recommendation was moved by Councillor J G Coxon, seconded by Councillor L Spence and        

RESOLVED THAT:

The application be permitted in accordance with the recommendation of the Head  ...  view the full minutes text for item 105.

Dishley Farm Main Street Swepstone 

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

Mrs Carter, on behalf of Mr Carter, objector, addressed the meeting. She informed Members that their family had lived in the application property and farmed the land for years and now resided in another property on land adjacent to the site and to which they shared an access with the applicant. She raised concerns that the application was contrary to policy S3 as the activities on the site were not classed as agricultural and the new buildings were more for the family needs than that of a business. She expressed concern that there was no assessment to prove the development was essential and that the existing steel building could be upgraded as it had comfortably housed cows and tractors in the past.

Mr T Redfern, agent, addressed the meeting. He highlighted to Members that there were no concerns from the officers or objections from statutory consultees. He advised that the site was a small holding that sold surplus vegetables and meat to the local pub and butchers. He added that surplus produce was also donated to a local school. He stated that the applicants should be given credit for wanting to make a dilapidated barn fit for purpose in line with DEFRA regulations and designing a development to meet the needs of the family and an efficient small holding. He added that the application was part of an ongoing project and urged Members to support the recommendation.

Councillor D Everitt stated that he supported the application and that it had to be accepted that the world moves on and things change.

Councillor J Legrys expressed that he felt inspired by the application and that he supported local produce being sold to local businesses.

The Officer recommendation was moved by Councillor D J Stevenson, seconded by Councillor J Bridges and

RESOLVED THAT:

The application be permitted in accordance to the recommendations of the Head of Planning and Regeneration.

28 Elder Lane Griffydam Coalville 

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

Mr A Large, agent, addressed the meeting. He advised Members that the house would be occupied by the applicants and would allow their daughter and her family to move into the existing property. He added that the application met local need and would be sustainable.

The Officer recommendation was moved by Councillor J Legrys, seconded by Councillor G Jones and

RESOLVED THAT:

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

Cattle Shed  South Of Service Station Atherstone Road

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

The Officer recommendation was moved by Councillor G Jones, seconded by Councillor J G Coxon and

RESOLVED THAT:

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

Report of the Planning and Development Team Manager

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report to Members.

It was moved by Councillor D J Stevenson, seconded by Councillor L Spence and

RESOLVED THAT:

The Tree Preservation Order be confirmed.