Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors G A Allman, J Bridges, N Smith and M B Wyatt.

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:

Councillor J Cotterill declared a non pecuniary interest in item A1, item number 15/0081/FUL as a member of Coleorton Parish Council.

Councillor M Specht declared a non pecuniary interest in item A1, item number 15/0081/FUL as the Chairman of Coleorton Parish Council.

Councillors R Boam, G Jones, V Richichi and D J Stevenson declared that they had been lobbied without influence in respect of item A1, application number 15/0081/FUL.

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

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

It was moved by Councillor R Adams, seconded by Councillor D Everitt and

RESOVED THAT:

The minutes of the meeting held on 6 October 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 To The South Of 1 Zion Hill Peggs Green Coleorton

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report to Members.

Mr A Large, agent, addressed the Committee.  He reported that the application was made by a local resident and would provide employment for a small local builder; therefore it would be good for the area.  He pointed out that Peggs Green had seen sporadic development in recent years and this application did meet  local housing need as a form of affordable housing.  With regards to the sustainability of the site, he indicated that all of the seven services quoted within the report could be accessed via a footpath and five of the seven were within 495 metres.  He added that the site was well related to existing dwellings and there were no highway objections.  He concluded that in his opinion the site was a Brownfield site not a Greenfield site as stated within the report.

Councillor G Jones stated that he did not agree with the officer’s recommendation, therefore he moved that the application be permitted.  It was seconded by Councillor R Johnson.

Councillor G Jones went on to comment that he felt it was important to support small local builders as they often were specialised and had more expertise.  He also believed that the site was a Brownfield site and that there was a local need.

Councillor R Johnson commented that he could not see any issues with the development of the site and although previous applications had been refused by the Planning Inspector, the site did have access to seven services in the area.  He was also pleased that the applicant had listened to the comments of the Highway Authority.

Councillor J Legrys stated that he would be voting for the officer’s recommendation to refuse.  He believed that the officers had made their opinions clear and agreed with them that the site was not a Brownfield site.  He felt that a policy was required to deal with this type of land.  He concluded that a similar application in Donington le Heath had been refused because it was outside the limits to development and he felt that rural integrity needed to be maintained. 

Councillor M Specht referred to a planning document regarding the sustainability of villages which stated that to be sustainable a village needed to have at least five services, and this application did.  He also referred to a recent appeal decision notice which stated that when a village had no services but was close to Coalville which had those services, and also had access to a bus service, then sustainability would not be a reason for refusal.  Therefore, Councillor M Specht believed that the application should be permitted.

Councillor D Everitt raised concerns regarding going against the officer’s recommendation.

Councillor V Richichi felt that the Committee should be encouraging applications such as this as it helped to support local builders.  He added that he would much rather see one house on the site than a larger development of many.

The Head of Planning and Regeneration pointed out that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 72.

16 High Street Coalville Leicestershire

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report to Members.

The officer’s recommendation was moved by Councillor J Hoult and seconded by Councillor J Cotterill.

Councillor J Legrys commented that he was in support of the application as he was in favour of any opportunity to invest in Coalville, however he was surprised to see the application on the agenda as he declined the opportunity to call-in the application as Ward Member.  He raised concerns that after trying to ascertain why the application had come to committee from officers, he still had not had a clear answer.  He stated that he had discovered that a serving Councillor was going to be the end user of the premises and questioned why Members of the Committee had not been informed.

The Legal Advisor reminded Members that they were considering the use of the land and not who the end user would be.  Also the Councillor involved was not the applicant, agent or land owner and therefore it was acceptable and indeed standard practice to not include the information within the report.  He added that Legal Services had provided officers with some advice regarding how the application should be determined and it was usual practice for this background information to not be included within the report.

The officer’s recommendation was put to the vote.

RESOVLED THAT:

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

23, 27, 31, 35 And 39 Blackfordby Lane Moira Swadlincote

The Planning Officer presented the report to Members.

The officer’s recommendation was moved by Councillor J Legrys and seconded by Councillor D Everitt.

RESOLVED THAT:

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