Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors G A Allman and R Boam.

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 and M Specht declared a non pecuniary interest in item A3, application number 15/01148/OUT as members of Coleorton Parish Council.

Councillors J G Coxon, J Hoult and G Jones declared a non pecuniary interest in item A1, application number 15/01078/OUTM as members of Ashby Town Council.

Councillor D Harrison declared a non pecuniary interest in item A2, application number 15/01097/FUL as an acquaintance of the applicant.

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

Item A1, application number 15/01078/OUTM

Councillors R Adams and J Legrys.

Item A2, application number 15/01097/FUL

Councillors R Adams, R Ashman, R Canny, J Cotterill, J G Coxon, D Everitt, J Hoult, R Johnson, G Jones, J Legrys, V Richichi, N Smith, M Specht and D J Stevenson.

Item A3, application number 15/01148/OUT

Councillors M Specht and D J Stevenson.

Item A4, application number 15/01062/OUT

Councillors R Adams, R Canny, D Harrison, R Johnson and J Legrys.  

The Chairman advised Members that an additional item needed to be considered by the Committee before the next meeting and as the report was exempt it would be considered at the end of the meeting.

RESOLVED THAT:

By reason of special circumstance in that an additional item of business needed to be considered before the next meeting of the Planning Committee, the item entitled ‘Receipt of Advice in Respect of Application Number 15/00083/OUTM’ should be considered at this meeting as a matter of urgency in accordance with Section 100B(4)(B) of the Local Government Act 1972.

To confirm and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 5 January 2016.

Consideration was given to the minutes of the meeting held on 5 January 2016.

It was moved by Councillor J Legrys, seconded by Councillor N Smith and

RESOLVED THAT:

The minutes of the meeting held on 5 January 2016 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 North Of Butt Lane And East Of Hepworth Road Woodville/Blackfordby Swadlincote

The Planning Officer presented the report to Members.

The Chairman advised Members that he had received a letter from Andrew Bridgen MP stating that he maintained his objection to the application.

Councillor S McKendrick, Ward Member, addressed the Committee.  She reminded Members of the high number of local objections to the application and highlighted how important it was to keep the area of separation between the villages and between Derbyshire and North West Leicestershire.  She commented that it was a rural location with few facilities which would be put under increasing pressure; therefore she did not believe it was sustainable.  The GP surgery and the school could not accommodate the proposed increase in demand and the occupiers of the development would use Woodville’s services.  She felt it was essential to maintain the relief road as the boundary of the settlement, as it added to the character of the village and development outside it would be insensible as well as an intrusion into the countryside.  She urged Members to refuse the application.

Mr M Ball, Town Councillor, addressed the Committee.   He commented that the village was close to the national forest and had its own identity and if the application was permitted, the physical separation between the villages would be removed.  He stated that the site was outside the limits to development within the emerging local plan and was contrary to Policy S3. He added that there was no need for the development, as the Committee had already approved 11,400 houses and further approval following appeals was likely, which he believed meant that the housing requirement had already been met.  The five year supply was correct in August and the Willesley Road Inspector agreed. .  He felt that the site was unsustainable as there were no retailers and the GP surgery and school was already full to capacity.  He raised concerns that new residents would be reliant on motor vehicles and that the highways would struggle to cope with the increase in traffic.  He asked Members not to destroy Blackfordby to achieve housing supply figures that had already been met and urged for refusal.

Mr R Nettleton, objector, addressed the Committee.  He reminded Members that permission had been refused before and urged for them to do the same again.  He suggested that the Greenhill Road appeal decision was not so authoritative as was being stated and asked Members to consider the Willesley Road appeal decision. He raised the following concerns:

-   The school and GP surgery were already overstretched and there was no post office.

-   Blackfordby would be absorbed into Woodville and the unique identity    lost.

-   There would be more vehicles on the roads.

-   The village was currently used as a rat run to avoid Woodville and would become worse.

-   Speeding on Butt Lane had already been confirmed and there was a lack of footpaths.

-   The flooding in the area and the impact on the River Mease had not been considered.

Mr A Ward, agent, addressed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 98.

Land At Main Street Normanton Le Heath Coalville

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

Mr A Cooper, Parish Councillor, addressed the Committee.  He explained that local people were not against development in the village and there had been no objections to the nearby wind farms,  but they did however have many concerns regarding this proposal.  He stated that the proposal was not in keeping with the area, the site was outside the limits to development, it was contrary to Policy E4, and it was unsustainable with no facilities in the village.  He added that there was already traffic issues in the village and this proposal would exacerbate them.  The sensitive area was adjacent to the site and the access road to the development.  He believed the development would be harmful to the majority of residents.  He concluded that applications to develop the site had been refused for the last 41 years and urged Members to do the same once again.

Mr M Roberts, Objector, addressed the Committee.  He informed Members that his property was at the front of the site and he was assured that it was not suitable for development when he moved into the village.  He explained that he had bought his property due to its position and this development would destroy that as the house would be up against his boundary and would overlook his property.  He believed that moving the development 50 yards from where it was originally planned did not make a difference and felt that officers had relaxed policies to allow it to be permitted.  He stated that the site was unsustainable as occupiers would be totally reliant on motor vehicles and the development would harm the whole village not only his home.  He also stated that the development made an insignificant contribution to the five year housing land supply.   He felt that no concern had been shown towards local people and urged Members to refuse the application.

Mr G Phillips, agent, addressed the Committee.  He explained that the proposed development was very different to the previous application and all concerns from local residents and officers had been listened to.  He stated that the development was now within the limits to development and outside the village’s sensitive  area, it did however extend three metres over the village envelope which officers advised would be acceptable.  He concluded that there had been other developments in the village that had been permitted and that the proposed site had planning permission 40 years ago which people buying houses in the area would have been made aware of. 

The officer’s recommendation was moved by Councillor J Bridges and seconded by Councillor R Johnson.

Councillor N Smith stated that there were 65 houses in the village and 55 objections had been made.  He explained that he had been told by local residents that the previous owner of the site approached the Council after being diagnosed with terminal cancer and enquired into building a bungalow to move to so he could end  ...  view the full minutes text for item 99.

Land Off Lower Moor Road Coleorton Coalville Leicestershire

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report to Members. 

The Planning and Development Team Manager read out the following letter from Councillor R Boam who had submitted his apologies for the meeting because he was unable to attend.

‘I would like the committee to consider the following points before making their minds up whether to permit or refuse this application.

-   This application is outside the limits to development in a very sensitive    area.

-   There are no local needs to support this application. 

-   There is strong opposition in the surrounding area.

-   The support seems to be from outside of the area.

-   The parish council also object to it.

-   My concerns are the highway safety , I'm aware the highways have put conditions in place , but as someone who has lived in this area since a child, I believe I know this area better than a visiting highway officer. This would be a dangerous entrance in a dip on a corner.

-   The site is also classed as a Greenfield site with no local need,

-   There has been a previous application for this site which was refused and that was

-   backed up by being refused at an appeal.

Thank you for reading my letter out, as ward member for the Valley Ward I hope you consider my points carefully.’

Mr S Haggart, objector, addressed the Committee.  He explained that he had been nominated to represent over 50 residents of Coleorton village and asked Members to note that the vast majority of supporters of the application did not live within the village.  He highlighted the following reasons why Members should refuse the application:

-   It contravened Policy E1 which classed the site as a sensitive area and stated that no development would take place that affected it.  It was an open meadow and therefore designated as a Greenfield site.

-   It contravened Policy E18 as the site was within a historic area.  The Council had determined that the site was of special interest due to its inclusion within the grounds of Coleorton Hall.

-   Coleorton was no longer a sustainable village as it had only a very small post office, a very limited bus service and the doctor’s surgery had recently closed.  The officer’s conceded that the school was outside the 1000 metre threshold but failed to mention that to reach it involved crossing the A512 which had seen the deaths of two villagers, including a child.

-   It contravened Policy S3 as the site fell outside the village boundary and therefore outside the limits to development.

-   It contravened Policy HS4 as the site was not identified within the proposals map as suitable for residential development.  He felt that there were more suitable sites available to meet the housing stock requirements.

-   It contravened Policy T3 as there were already issues with speeding vehicles and parking on the road which would be exacerbated by the development.  He added that there had been  ...  view the full minutes text for item 100.

Land Adjoining Mill Hill Farm Station Road Ibstock Coalville Leicestershire LE67 6JL

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report to Members.

Councillor J Clarke, Ward Member, addressed the Committee.  He raised concerns that the proposal was outside the limits to development, both in the current local plan and the emerging local plan, and by granting permission it would set a precedent to developers across the District.  He believed that the proposal had a very large footprint, even larger than the neighbouring three properties put together, it was much bigger than any other properties nearby.  He expressed the importance of keeping the area of separation between villages and felt that this development could have an impact on this.  He added that the applicant had previous history of operating a bed and breakfast business from their home and was concerned that this would be the case for the proposed property due to its size.  He stated that the development would not be making a significant contribution to the supply of new homes.

Mrs J McMinn, applicant, addressed the Committee.  She firstly clarified that although she had ran a bed and breakfast business in the past, the proposal before Members had been designed as a  bungalow for herself and her husband to retire to in a property next to their son’s home.  She added that they had lived in the village all of their lives and the proposal would allow them to remain in the village once retired.  She stated that there were other new developments nearby that were also built on agricultural land and officers were happy that the site would accommodate the size of the property.  She stated that the proposal would not result in a significant reduction in the gap between the site and Heather, and that that she believed that the Bellway Homes development in the village had a much bigger impact on the countryside and urged Members to permit the application. 

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

Councillor J Legrys commented that former Councillor De Lacy fought very hard against the Belway Homes development because of his concerns regarding the decreasing area of separation between the villages and he too had deep concerns, especially as there were no defined lines in either the current or emerging local plan.    He felt that the scale of the proposal was inappropriate and did not fit in with the properties on the opposite side of Station Road.  He believed that the line of sight between the two churches within the two villages would be impacted by the development and felt it was important to keep the view uninterrupted.  He also stated that the Committee needed to make it clear to officers that the line needed to be drawn regarding permitting developments outside the limits to development in the area.

The Chairman commented that regarding the area of separation, the properties on the opposite side of Station Road were actually closer to the neighbouring village than the proposed development and these properties were old houses which  ...  view the full minutes text for item 101.

It was moved by Councillor D J Stevenson, seconded by Councillor J Bridges and

RESOLVED THAT:

In pursuance of Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the remainder of the meeting on the grounds that the business to be transacted involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 5 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Act and that the public interest in maintaining this exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

Report of the Head of Planning and Regeneration

The Head of Planning and Regeneration presented the report to Members.

RESOLVED THAT:

The recommendation as set out in the report be approved.