Agenda and minutes

In the absence of the Chairman and Deputy Chairman the meeting was opened by the Head of Planning and Regeneration, and Members were invited to appoint a Chairman for the remainder of the meeting.

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

RESOLVED THAT:

Councillor M Specht take the chair for the remainder of the meeting.

Apologies were received from Councillors R Adams, J Bridges, V Richichi, N Smith and D J Stevenson.

It was agreed to send Councillor D J Stevenson a get well soon card on behalf of the Committee.

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 M Specht declared a non pecuniary interest in item A5, application number16/00612/OUT as he had worked with the applicant in the past.

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

Item A1, application number 15/00966/VCUM

Councillors R Boam, R Canny, J Clarke, J Cotterill, J G Coxon, D Everitt, D Harrison, J Hoult, R Johnson, G Jones, J Legrys, P Purver, M Specht and M B Wyatt.

Item A2, application number 16/00568/FUL

Councillor J Legrys.

Item A3, application number 16/00558/OUT

Councillors R Boam and G Jones.

To confirm and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 2 August 2016

Consideration was given to the minutes of the meeting held on 2 August 2016.

It was moved by Councillor J Legrys, seconded by Councillor D Harrison    and

RESOLVED THAT:

The minutes of the meeting held on 2 August 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 Off Measham Road Moira Swadlincote Derby DE12 6AA

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

Town Councillor S McKendrick, Chair of Ashby Woulds Town Council, addressed the Committee.  She explained that the local residents had a number of concerns which she addressed in turn.  The proposed increase in roof levels would intrude on the privacy of the neighbouring gardens due to overlooking.  The risk of flooding was also an ongoing concern as water levels were often high in the area, especially since the development had begun and this was well documented.  Gardens and service roads had been flooded recently on three separate occasions and it seemed that the developer was not doing anything to ease the problem.  Councillor S McKendrick stated that there had been no consultation with the local residents by the developer and there was a fear that there would not be any kind of consultation in the future.  She acknowledged that there was no obligation on the  applicant to do so, but felt that if residents had been consulted then a better solution could have been found.

Mr R Redfern, objector, addressed the Committee.  He believed that the increased floor levels were adopted without thought of the impact to the flood risk and the height increase was unsympathetic to the surroundings as well as overlooking the neighbouring properties.  He also believed that the proposal contravened a number of planning policies and the developers had not followed national guidelines regarding flood risks.  He added that in the past, flood water had been so severe that it required a pump to run 24 hours per day for 6 months to disperse the water.  He suspected that the increase in floor levels was as a result of the flood risk and not to meet building regulations as proposed. He was of the view that the flood risk assessment undertaken in 2016 should be made void and that a new assessment should be undertaken. He also explained that the development would have a detrimental impact on resident’s right to quiet enjoyment of their property and urged Members to refuse.

Mr P Stone, agent, addressed the Committee.  He reported that the scheme had evolved over a number of years and had full planning permission which could not be reversed, this included drainage systems and other agreed conditions.  He added that the flooding risks and drainage scheme had been subject to a robust assessment and subsequently approved by the Environment Agency.  Regarding the floor levels, he insisted that the increase was to meet building regulations and was merely a slight change.  He explained that there was a distance of 60 metres between the plots at the back of the site and the nearest properties, which he set out was the same distance as the width of a football pitch, twice the width of the car park at the Council Offices, and three cricket squares end to end.  He believed that this was a considerable distance and therefore not a detrimental impact on neighbouring properties.  He reminded  ...  view the full minutes text for item 39.

Land East Side Of Austrey Lane Appleby Parva Derby

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report to Members.

Mr P Lees, objector, addressed the Committee.  He explained that every resident in the village had signed the objection for a number of reasons.  Firstly, the proposal was contrary to policy S6 and was not an essential agricultural building as represented within the report as it would not be used for business but for a hobby, the land owner did not farm any of his land or  own any animals.  He believed that the application was the first step to developing the site and the applicant was trying to get around planning by putting forward the application.  He believed that the proposed access to the site was not safe as it was situated on a bend which meant it was impossible to see oncoming traffic; he guaranteed that accidents would occur if the application was permitted.  He brought Members attention to the fact that the proposed height of the building was 5.2 metres and was supposedly for a tractor, considering that the biggest tractor in the village was 3 metres high, he did not believe that this would be the use of the building.  He concluded that the application was very misleading and very poor, therefore he urged Members to refuse it.

Councillor R Blunt, ward member, addressed the committee.  He began by stating that as Members who visited the site would have seen, the area was of outstanding beauty and the site itself was only a small field which some would consider a garden.  The Council had a duty to protect the countryside and this application would be a visual intrusion on the area.  He added that the piece of land was definitely not used for farming.  He concurred with the comments of Mr P Lees and urged Members to refuse the application on the grounds that it would have an adverse visual impact, the proposed access was dangerous and that the building was not required as the agricultural use did not apply.

Councillor J G Coxon moved that the application be refused on the grounds stated above.  It was seconded by Councillor J Hoult.

Councillor D Harrison commented that having been to the site it did not look like it would be used for farming especially now he was aware that the land owner did not currently farm.  He asked if the officer’s recommendation to permit had been made on the basis that it would be used to store a tractor.  The Head of Planning and Regeneration explained that officer’s made a judgement by taking a number of things into account, including the size of the land and views of the agricultural officer.  Regarding the reasons for refusal, the Head of Planning and Regeneration advised that as the Highway Authority had not objected and that there was already gated access to the site, dangerous access would not be a strong reason for refusal.  Councillor J G Coxon felt that the proposed access was on a dangerous part of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 40.

Land Adjacent To The Cottages Stoney Lane Coleorton Leicestershire

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report to Members.

Mr G Jones, objector, addressed the Committee.  He explained that his driveway was located directly opposite the proposed site on an acute angle which meant he needed to sweep across the road to exit onto the very narrow lane.   If the proposal was to be approved it would mean that it would be very dangerous for himself and his visitors to exit his property.  He stated that people abused the speed limit and drove very fast along that part of the road and as the road is in a narrow embankment, also on a camber, it does become very dangerous.  He agreed with the officers’ recommendations and urged Members to refuse.

Mr T Stewart, supporter, addressed the Committee.  He stated that he had been studying the history of Coleorton for many years and the applicant was the third generation of the family to reside in the main house.  The proposal was to include a house for the aging parents to allow them to stay in the area as well as another dwelling to allow others to do the same thing.  He felt it was important to protect the history of the village and to keep generations of families in the area. He explained that the development met local need requirements and that the applicant was happy to enter into a suitable Section 106 agreement.

Mr A Large, agent, addressed the Committee.  His observation was that the site was a natural place to infill and there were no objections from the Highway Authority as all concerns had already been addressed, as well as the fact that the applicant was willing to widen the road if need be.  He referred to the officer’s reason for refusal regarding  unsustainability and  highlighted to Members that  the report failed to mention the local school or the Beaumont Centre.  He also referred Members to a letter submitted by the school’s head teacher who would encourage development in the area as the pupil intake had been down on numbers.  He urged Members to permit.

Councillor J Legrys moved that the application be permitted; it was seconded by Councillor G Jones.  

Councillor G Jones commented that other permissions had been granted in the area and as the development was to help people to stay in the area he was in support. He explained that he could see no problem with the proposal given that the applicant  was happy to widen the highway which would benefit the local residents.

Councillor R Boam agreed that similar applications had been permitted in the area but he believed that they were needed.  He commented that there were already two empty cottages on the site which could be occupied and therefore he felt the proposal was unnecessary.  He added that the road was already heavily used and he could not support the motion to permit.

RESOLVED THAT:

The application be permitted.

Ivy House Nottingham Road Peggs Green Coleorton Coalville Leicestershire LE67 8HN

The senior planning officer presented the report to Members.

Mr A Large, agent, addressed the Committee.  He commented that the application was not too dissimilar to the previous application and as there were no objections, he urged Members to permit.

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

RESOLVED THAT:

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

Land At Babelake Street Packington Ashby De La Zouch Leicestershire LE65 1WD

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

Parish Councillor C Miles, Chairman of Packington Parish Council, addressed the Committee.  He raised concerns that the proposal was outside the Limits to Development and would be detrimental to the village as, although he acknowledged this was not something that the Committee was able to take into account, it could set a precedent to other pony paddock owners resulting in sporadic development. He stated that self builds should not take precedent over defined Limits to Development.   He added that the site connected four different footpaths and if the application was approved it was feared that the footpaths would no longer be used.  He stressed the importance of protecting the natural environment of the village and due to there being no through road to the site, a busy access road, and flooding risks he urged Members to refuse the application.

Ms S Price, agent, addressed the Committee.  She stated that Packington was a sustainable village within walking distance of services and that similar applications had been permitted in the past.  She further advised that although the proposed development was outside Limits to Development, other dwellings adjoined the site and therefore the site was not isolated. There was no evidence that users of the footpaths and roads would be affected by the development and there were no objections from neighbouring residents.  She concluded that the proposal was for a self build which the applicant was planning on retiring to, with the intention to reduce their vehicles from two to one.

Councillor J Hoult moved the officer’s recommendation.  It was seconded by Councillor G Jones and he commented that he was in full support of self builds and believed they should be encouraged.

Councillor J Coxon stated that he liked to support the views of the Parish Council but on this occasion he could not see anything wrong with the application.  He concurred with Councillor G Jones and even though the site was outside the limits to development, there was a bungalow across the road.

RESOLVED THAT:

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

Councillor M B Wyatt left the meeting at 5.10pm.