Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors G A Allman and J Bridges.

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 Cotterill, V Richichi and M Specht declared a non pecuniary interest in item A1, application number 15/00456/OUTM a political acquaintance of the applicants.

Councillors J G Coxon and J Hoult declared a non pecuniary interest in item A1, application number 15/00456/OUTM as Members of Ashby Town Council.

Councillors J Legrys and R Johnson declared a non pecuniary interest in item A3, application number 15/00780/FUL as members of the Co-operative Party. Councillor J Legrys expressed concerns that the report had not specified that the applicant was the Co-operative.

Councillor D J Stevenson declared a non pecuniary interest in items A4, application number 15/00701/VCIM and A5, application number 15/00698/VCIM as his son worked for the developer; therefore he would leave the meeting during the consideration and voting thereon.

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

Item A1, application number 15/00456/OUTM

Councillors R Canny, J G Coxon, D Harrison, J Hoult, J Legrys, R Johnson, G Jones and N Smith.

Item A3, application number 15/00780/FUL

Councillor V Richichi

Item A4, application number 15/00701/VCIM

Councillor V Richichi

Item A5, application number 15/00698/VCIM

Councillor V Richichi

To confirm and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 3 November 2015.

Consideration was given to the minutes of the meeting held on 3 November 2015.

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

RESOLVED THAT:

The minutes of the meeting held on 3 November 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.

Willow Farm, Ashby Road, Moira, Swadlincote, Derby, DE12 6DP

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report to Members.

Councillor S McKendrick, Ward Member, addressed the Committee. She stated that the development was in the wrong location as it was outside the Limits to Development, it was on a road where a request for a reduction in the speed limit to 30mph had been turned down recently and the development would impact on the view of the countryside. She informed Members that there was only one small store and a hairdressers close by and all other facilities were located at the other end of the village, and that the proposed shuttle bus could not replace the bus service that had recently been lost. She expressed concerns that there would be 156 further residents that would require medical support, but there was no section 106 monies requested for health care. Councillor S McKendrick accepted that there was a need for more care homes in the area, but felt that there were more suitable locations such as the decommissioned sheltered housing scheme in the village.

Ms P Thomas, Town Councillor, addressed the Committee. She advised the Members that the Town Council had fully considered the application and felt that the site was inadequate highlighting the following points:-

-       That there was inadequate infrastructure to support the development

-       that the speed limit along the road needed to be reduced

-       the site was outside the Limits to Development

-       there was insufficient parking proposed on the site

-       the access arrangements were unsuitable

-       the site was unsustainable

-       the proposals were at variance to the Ashby Woulds Regeneration Strategy

-       there was no provision for health care for the additional residents.

Mr P McCaffrey, objector, addressed the Committee. He highlighted to Members that the when consulted on the application the highways authority required the speed limit to be reduced, however they had recently turned down a residents request to do so. He was concerned that approval of the scheme would set a precedent for infill development. He advised that the site was unsustainable as there was no provision for additional medical or dental services and some of the residents on site could have complex medical needs. He added that there had been no public consultation on the application and the urban designer had objected. He urged the Committee to reject the application on the grounds that the application was unsustainable and outside the Limits to Development. 

Mr P Devlin, Design Consultant, addressed the Committee. He informed Members that the development would be a modern care provision which would meet the 2015 Care Act. He stated that the development would provide sustainable independent living accommodation allowing those that wished to downsize. He urged the Committee to support the application.

Mr P Powell, Agent, addressed the Committee. He advised the Members that the development would address the needs of the ageing population, reassuring many that they could stay in the area in that they lived in. He highlighted that there would be many  ...  view the full minutes text for item 79.

Site adjacent Computer Centre and Jct 24, Packington Hill, Kegworth, Derby, DE74 2DF

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report to Members.

Mr S Harley, Agent, addressed the Committee. He advised Members that the proposal not only provided towards the need for new homes it also responded to the desire for more sports pitches, as most of the local teams played their games outside the village. He highlighted that there were no fundamental barriers, one letter of support and no objections, adding that they were working very closely with the Highways Authority. He stated that the application met all the polices and the client was keen to bring the application forward.

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

Councillor D Harrison stated that it was a fabulous site especially with the leisure facilities.

Councillor J Legrys stated that he was excited about the application and was happy to support the facilities. He expressed concerns about the additional traffic that it would generate and sought confirmation as to whether the site was outside the Limits to Development adding that if it was he would lobby for it to be included within the limits and that it would add to the 5 year land supply.

In response to a query from Councillor G Jones, the Head of Planning and Regeneration stated that the request for developer contributions from the Police was capable in principle of compliance with all the required CIL tests.

Councillor M Specht stated that he was happy to support the application especially with the play areas and the 30% affordable housing. He requested a recorded vote.

Councillor R Canny stated that the development was on her backdoor and the open space was needed in the north area of the District. She expressed concerns that the site was outside the Limits to Development and expressed concern that the Committee has been asked on a number of occasions to consider schemes favourably “on balance” that were outside the limits to development. She also had concerns over the additional traffic.

The Head of Planning and Regeneration stated that even though the Authority had a five year land supply, it needed to be maintained, especially if it was a good site.

Councillor V Richichi expressed concerns that the developer was offering a carrot and that over time the application could be withdrawn or variations submitted that would be considered by officers. He sought assurances that should any material changes be submitted they would be brought back to Committee.

The Head of Planning and Regeneration advised that the application was a well advanced scheme and there was no reason why it should be withdrawn unless there was a significant change in the market, adding that if Members wished so, any material changes that may be submitted could be brought back to the Committee.

Councillor R Adams sought confirmation that the application was outside the Limits to Development and stated that he must be consistent and vote against applications that were outside the limits.

The Head of Planning and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 80.

2 Ashby Road, Ibstock, Coalville, Leicestershire, LE67 6HA

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report to Members.

Mr D Pritchard, Agent, addressed the Committee. He highlighted to Members that the proposal was for three small scale units that would be located between the supermarket and the filing station, adding that the units would share the existing car park and service area. He advised that the current building was in a poor state of repair and that it would be more cost effective to build new than repair. He stated that there were no technical objections and the application met all the polices and would provide new jobs for the area. He urged Members to approve the application.

The officer’s recommendation was moved by Councillor J G Coxon and seconded by Councillor D Harrison.

Councillor J Coxon stated that it was an enterprising application in a trading area, especially with the new housing estates in the village.

Councillor D Harrison advised that it was an ideal location between commercial buildings and the units would blend in well. He was happy to support the recommendation.

Councillor V Richichi stated that he had lived and worked in the area all his life and that he felt that there was no need for any further hot food takeaways or empty shops, he stated that he supported the removal of the decaying house, but could not support the takeaways.

Councillor J Legrys stated that he believed in individual choice that the application may bring and that the sequential test had been carried out, but the petrol station was 24/7 and owned by a competitor, and there were several hot food takeaways in the village, and he therefore could not support the application.

The Head of Planning and Regeneration advised Members that officers were satisfied that the sequential test had been applied correctly, and that when they went out to verify its findings there were no vacant units on the high street at that time. He confirmed that, since the time of the sequential assessment, one unit had become vacant in the High Street, but that unit would not be suitable to accommodate this proposed development.

Councillor D Everitt stated that in reality there was parking provided and as with other supermarkets in the District it was a natural development to have other units on the site.

Following a question from Councillor R Johnson, the Head of Planning and Regeneration confirmed that the site was outside the defined centre boundary by 400m, but was within the Limits to Development.

Councillor M Specht stated that he was in support of the application, adding that due to the growing size of the village the additional commercial units would be of benefit. He clarified that the application did not specify a single end use.

Councillor D J Stevenson agreed with Councillor D Everitt, that the site was ideal as there were already retail units in the area and that there was parking at the Co-op, he questioned why it had come to Committee.

RESOLVED THAT:

The application  ...  view the full minutes text for item 81.

Land to the rear of Parkdale, Ashby Road, Ibstock, Leicestershire

Councillor D Harrison advised Members that the two items would be presented together.

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report to Members.

Councillor J Clarke, Ward Member, addressed the Committee. He expressed concern that the issue was still going on. He advised Members that the developers had said that the line the boundary had been moved to was the original one and questioned why a variation application had been submitted if this was the case. He highlighted that the developer was deliberately making a mockery of the authority by constantly varying the original application and having moved the fence had made it difficult for it to be properly maintained, adding that the Council should insist that the fence was turned around so that the existing residents had the front of the panels. He added that the change of the homes from bungalows to two-storey houses had not been considered by the Committee.

Mr L Taylor-Haynes, Objector, addressed the Committee. He advised Members that his dwelling was the closest to the site and that the building had been damaged during the construction. He informed Members that at the site meeting the developer had no intention to change the position of the fence and that they would be happy to sell the properties without the fence. He felt that the developer had total disregard for the neighbours and that the application should be refused due to the loss of amenity and to hide the eyesore would put him out of pocket. He referred to paragraph 66 of the NPPF, which says that applicants should work with those directly affected by proposals.

A motion to refuse the application, on the grounds that it would cause loss of residential amenity, was moved by Councillor V Richichi and seconded by Councillor J Legrys.

Councillor V Richichi stated that since the original application was permitted there had been significant variations to the development and even though residents had objected to the changes they were not aware as to how to get the applications to come back to Committee. He suggested that a footnote be added to the letters advising residents of the process to have applications called in.

Councillor D Harrison reminded Members that valid planning reasons were required to enable the Committee to refuse an application.

Following questions from Councillor R Adams and J Legrys, the Head of Planning and Regeneration and the Planning and Development Team Manager advised Members that once an application had been permitted any variations to it would require a new application to be submitted that both neighbours and Ward Members were notified of. Ward Members could then choose to call in the application if they felt that there were valid planning reasons to do so. They informed the Committee that this process had been followed on both occasions for both the change from bungalows to two storey dwellings, which the Ward Members at the time had decided not to call in, and for the variation to the boundaries, which had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 82.

Land to the rear of Parkdale, Ashby Road, Ibstock, Leicestershire

A recommendation to refuse the application on the grounds that it would cause loss of residential amenity and would be overbearing was moved by Councillor R Adams and seconded by Councillor R Johnson.

RESOLVED THAT:

The application be refused on the grounds that was contrary to Policy E3 of the Local Plan.

Councillor D J Stevenson returned to the meeting and the chair.

Councillors N Smith and M B Wyatt left the meeting at 5.37pm.