Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors R Boam and R Johnson.

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 R Adams, J Bridges, R Canny, J G Coxon, D Everitt, D Harrison, J Legrys, M Specht, D J Stevenson and M B Wyatt declared that they had been lobbied without influence in respect of item A1, application number 16/00296/FUL.

Councillors R Canny, J Cotterill, J Legrys, M Specht, D J Stevenson and M B Wyatt declared that they had been lobbied without influence in respect of item A2, application number 16/00296/FUL.

Councillor R Canny declared a non pecuniary interest in item A2, application number 16/00296/FUL, as the ward member.

Councillors J Bridges, R Canny, D Everitt, D Harrison, J Hoult, G Jones, P Purver, V Richichi, N Smith, M Specht, D J Stevenson and M B Wyatt declared that they had been lobbied without influence in respect of item A3, application number 15/00512/OUTM.

Councillor J G Coxon declared a non pecuniary interest in item A3, application number 15/00512/OUTM as a member of Ashby de la Zouch Town Council.

Councillors R Adams, D Everitt, J Geary and J Legrys declared a pecuniary interest in item A3, application number 15/00512/OUTM due to representations made by the Ashby de la Zouch Labour Party.

Councillors R Canny, V Richichi, M Specht and D J Stevenson declared that they had been lobbied without influence in respect of item A4, application number 16/00450/FUL.

Councillors R Canny, J Legrys and M Specht declared that they had been lobbied without influence in respect of item A5, application number 16/00160/FUL.

Councillors R Canny and M Specht declared that they had been lobbied without influence in respect of item A6, application number 15/00948/FUL.

To confirm and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 7 June 2016

Consideration was given to the minutes of the meeting held on 7 June 2016.

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

RESOLVED THAT:

The minutes of the meeting held on 7 June 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.

Field Adjoining Ashby Road Belton Leicestershire

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report to members.

The Senior Planning Officer read out a letter from Councillor N Rushton placing on record his opposition to granting the change of use, his reasons for that, and urging Members to refuse the application.
The Planning and Development Team Manager read out a letter from Andrew Bridgen MP placing on record his opposition to granting the change of use, and urging members to refuse the application.

Mrs N Burbidge Mullen, representing the Parish Council, addressed the committee.  She stated that the Parish Council objected to the application due to concerns about highways safety, the speed of traffic, the visibility of the site and previous near misses.  She asked members to bear in mind that the Highways Authority refused to allow the school bus to drop children off on the opposite side of the road as it was not deemed safe and there were no plans to install a much needed crossing.

Mrs R Groves, objector, addressed the meeting.  She stated that the proposed site was a Greenfield site and outside the Limits to Development as per the Local Plan, and the application did not meet any of the exception criteria.  She added that the Highways Authority had advised refusal of the application as the impacts were severe and their concerns had not been addressed by the applicants.  She expressed concerns regarding the existing accident record on this stretch of road, the lack of lighting, the lack of a footpath and the excessive speed of traffic recorded by speedwatch.  She felt that the access needed to be widened and most of the hedge removed to enable use by large vehicles, contrary to the ecology report.   She felt it would be inappropriate and non compliant to allow the extensive list of equipment to be sited there.  She stated that the proposal would be totally incompatible and alien to the rural character of village, and the application had totally disregarded the guidance from the showman’s guild on the suitability of locations for yards.  She made reference to the 4 showman’s plots recently approved by Charnwood Borough Council which she felt could satisfy the needs of the proposed development.  She stated that the community had worked hard to protect the visual and rural amenity of the village and she asked members to consider the impact this would have upon it.  She concluded that there were valid reasons to refuse the application, the showman’s yard would be in direct line of site of the recreation ground resulting in a loss of amenity, and permitting it would set a dangerous precedent for future development.

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

RESOLVED THAT:

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

Land At The Spittal Castle Donington Derby DE74 2NQ

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report to members.

Mr R Sizer, representing the Parish Council, addressed the committee.  He stated that Castle Donington Parish Council had always objected to proposals for development on this site as it formed a green corridor including Spittal Park between the industrial estate and the village rich with wildlife He explained that the main concern was access and egress to the site as this was via a very narrow lane, and the attempt to address this issue was nowhere near adequate, as the hill was very steep.  He advised that Spittal Park had a skate park and a multi use gym area, and the through walk to the centre of the village could get busy with the events held at the park.  He stated that the extra traffic generated by the development would be detrimental to the safety of pedestrians and the many unaccompanied youngsters using the park.  He added that the site was a designated area of sensitivity being on the edge of a conservation area and there was a history of subsidence on the site with the retaining walls collapsing, which he felt could be attributed to the run-off water from the top of hill.  He felt that the proposed white render would not allow the houses to blend into the hillside and would be an eyesore on the entrance of the conservation area.  He stated that there was a history of refused developments on this site.  He made reference to the proposed woodland walk which crossed land owned by the Parish Council and no permission had been sought to do so.

Mrs S Clarke, objector, addressed the meeting.  She spoke on behalf of local residents who objected to the proposed development as they felt the village had made its fair contribution to future homes.  She expressed concerns regarding flooding, as the proposed development was on a steeply sloping site which would increase the surface water running on to The Spittal, impacting upon the use of the playing fields.  She added that the lack of facilities had led to anti social behaviour in the past and the Parish Council had worked hard to make improvements.  She added that youngsters met opposite the development site and the area was currently shielded.  She expressed concerns that potential residents whose properties would face The Spittal would object to the noise which may lead to restrictions on the use of the facility.  She also expressed concerns regarding the access as The Spittal was narrow with limited lighting, and the proposed widening utilised land not in the ownership by the applicant.  She stated that the development site was the last remaining green area in the village providing a wildlife habitat, and the area had a sensitive eco system, the balance of which would be jeopardised.  She added that the village was surrounded by significant polluters and such green areas were needed to improve the health of local residents.  She concluded that residents were not opposed to good  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.

Money Hill Site North Of Nottingham Road And South Of A511 Ashby De La Zouch Leicestershire

Having declared a pecuniary interest in this item, Councillors R Adams, D Everitt, J Geary and J Legrys left the meeting during consideration of this item and took no part in the discussion or voting thereon.

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report to members.

Councillor G A Allman, ward member, addressed the committee.  He stated that one could measure the strong feelings about what wicked developments were being planned for the town which would irreversibly change it for our children.  He highlighted that the impact of such a development would result in the junction with the A42 at Flagstaff island being oversaturated, and any such development should only take place once this had been mitigated.  He asked what infrastructure plans there were for in place for this, and stated that the application was rendered undeliverable if there were none.  He respectfully reminded members that planning applications had to be sensible, and he pleaded passionately with the committee to listen to the residents of Money Hill and Ashby de la Zouch as a whole.  He quoted from the Local Plan which stated that the purpose of planning was to help achieve sustainable development, which meant ensuring that providing for the needs of the current generation did not make life worse for future generations, and this proposal most certainly would.

Mr M Ball, representing the Town Council, addressed the committee.  He reiterated his concerns about the perils of Nottingham Road and the opposition to building an access onto it from the Money Hill development.  He added that when the planning inspector approved the development, he concluded that the proposed development would not compromise highway safety or result in any significant increase in congestion because the entire access was from the bypass; however this application was very different and would result in up to 450 extra vehicles using Nottingham Road every morning and evening.  He expressed concerns regarding the additional traffic and stated that in reality the road was already saturated and dangerous for residents.  He commented that millions was spent bypassing Ashby de la Zouch to reduce this misery and this would tip it over the edge.  He made reference to the endorsement of the Local Plan which meant it now carried weight.  He urged members to utilise policy H3 and highways safety as firm ground to refuse an application which placed developer profits over public safety. 

Ms L Titley, objector, addressed the meeting.  She stated that residents risked life and limb to exit their driveways onto Nottingham Road and Wood Street every day, as the road was blighted by tailbacks, congestion and speeding cars.  She commented that two bypasses had been built, but congestion was now at pre-bypass levels.  She added that residents had been witness to accidents.  She expressed concerns regarding the safety of children, residents and road users.  She commented that the traffic flow data was out of date and the proposed access was 6 metres wide against guidelines.  She commented that Ashby was a historic town  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.

Land Off Manor Drive Worthington Leicestershire

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report to members.

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

RESOLVED THAT:

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

Rose Of Bengal 42 Borough Street Castle Donington Derby DE74 2LB

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

Mr R Sizer, representing the Parish Council, addressed the committee.  He stated that the centre of Castle Donington was promoted by traders as a historic market town, and the Rose of Bengal was located in a conservation area.  He advised that the Parish Council objected to the application on the grounds that the renovations to the shop front did not accord with the Council’s guidance, which he made reference to.  He highlighted the importance of context, as shop fronts were never seen in isolation, and should respect the building it formed part of and the wider streetscene. He also advised that shop fronts were to be timber constructions, usually, but this was pvc. He also made reference to policy HE1 which stated that heritage assets should be enhanced or preserved.

Mr R Morrell, agent, addressed the committee.  He said that pre-application advice had been sought by himself with his client present, and they had been informed that there were no restrictions on the shops on Borough Street.  He added that he had dealt with many applications in conservation areas over the years.  He explained that one of the key points requested by his client was better access for the disabled, as there were changing floor levels inside the shop. He stated that under Building Regulations the design of windows must comply with zero carbon emissions and that this was achieved via large panel double glazing.   He also added that sound tests were also requested by building control as was a noise pollution audit, which also formed the requirement of the windows.  He advised that the plans were submitted to the local building control and all other alterations were successfully approved.  He stated that no consultation between building control and development control had ever taken place.  He reiterated that all requirements had been fulfilled and advice sought on the design of the shop front.

The motion to move the application in line with officer recommendation was put to members and was moved by Councillor J Bridges, seconded by Councillor R Canny.

Councillor D Everitt stated that there must be documentation to verify the facts raised by the agent.  He added that what concerned him was the way in which the shop front projected forward and how the shop front looked considering the rest of the streetscene.  He also considered it amazing that one would undertake work in a conservation area without knowing the regulations and being liable.    He sought clarification on how long the shop front had been in existence.   

Councillor R Canny clarified that the forward projection was not original, but had been undertaken many years ago and was not part of this renovation. She stated that the property was previously a cake shop and that there had been no problems with disabled access.  She made reference to the Council’s policies and stated that the character that was there had been completely taken out.  She added that the Parish  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.

Village Farm 36 Hall Gate Diseworth Derby DE74 2QJ

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

Mrs C Chave, agent, addressed the committee.  She outlined the context to the request to remove the affordable housing obligation and made reference to the unfortunate timing of the high court decision and the subsequent reinstatement of the threshold by the court of appeal.  She added that this sort of proposal should be encouraged and was why the national threshold was introduced. She stated that this was an exempt scheme and hoped members would support the proposals.

It was moved by Councillor J Bridges, seconded by Councillor J Legrys and

RESOLVED THAT:

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