Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillors J Hoult, G Jones and M Specht.

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 G Coxon declared a non-pecuniary interest in items A4, application number 16/00925/FUL and item 6 – Proposed alterations to Section 106 obligations in respect of Affordable Housing Obligations Required in Association with Residential Development at Land at Leicester Road, Ashby de la Zouch, as a Member of Ashby de la Zouch Town Council.

Councillor V Richichi declared a pecuniary interest in items A2, application number 15/01051/OUT and A3, application number 16/00925/FUL as an owner of a property mentioned in the report and that he would leave the meeting for the consideration of the items.

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

Item A1, application number 16/00360/OUTM

Councillors R Adams, R Ashman, R Boam, R Canny, J Clarke J G Coxon, D Everitt, D Harrison, R Johnson, J Legrys, P Purver, V Richichi, N Smith, D J Stevenson and M B Wyatt.

Item A2, application number 15/01051/OUT

Councillors R Adams, R Ashman, R Boam, R Canny, J Cotterill, J G Coxon, D Harrison, R Johnson, J Legrys, P Purver, N Smith and D J Stevenson.

Item A3, application number 16/00925/FUL

Councillors R Adams, R Ashman, R Canny, J G Coxon, D Harrison, R Johnson, J Legrys, P Purver, N Smith and D J Stevenson.

Item A4, application number 16/00275/OUTM

Councillors R Ashman, R Boam, J Clarke, J Cotterill, J G Coxon, D Everitt, J Legrys, P Purver, N Smith, D J Stevenson and M B Wyatt.

To confirm and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 4 October 2016

Consideration was given to the minutes of the previous meeting held on 4 October 2016.

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

RESOLVED THAT:

The minutes of the meeting held on 4 October 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 At Worthington Lane Breedon On The Hill Derby

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report to Members.

Mr R Morris, on behalf of Breedon Parish Council, addressed the Committee.  He advised that the comments that he would make were unanimous from the Parish Council. He stated that the Parish Council always supported any application that would enhance the village and the application before them would not. He expressed concerns that the proposed development would increase pressure on the local water treatment works and following the flooding that Breedon had experienced in June many residents had still been unable to return to their homes. He informed Members that storm water from the proposed development would run off into the only water course in the village that was unable to cope. He highlighted that the village had a wonderful heritage asset from which the application site would be visible, asserted that harm is subjective, but opined that if there were any harm at all the presumption should be in favour of refusal. He highlighted to Members that the site was outside the village boundary, was on Greenfield land, the authority had a five year housing land supply without this site, pedestrian access was across land not owned by the developer and that the affordable homes may not be accessible to residents of the village. He suggested a legal challenge would be forthcoming, on the basis of flooding and pedestrian safety, if the Committee were minded to grant permission, and urged Members to refuse the application.

Ms S Hollis representing Mr P Spencer and Ms K Knight, in objection, addressed the Committee. She advised Members that there were several points on which the application should be refused which were that the site was outside the Limits to Development as set out in the publication Local Plan, and live flooding issues. She stated that the officer’s recommendation was the opposite of what was stated in the publication Local Plan and therefore put the Council in the position of setting a dangerous precedent should they permit the application as it was outside the village boundary. She expressed concerns over the deliverability of the footpath as it was not in the ownership of the developer so should be secured  by Grampian condition, and asserted that it was premature to allow the development in light of the recent flooding in the area. She urged Members to refuse the application.

Mr A Large, supporter, addressed the Committee. He highlighted to Members that it was the first time that he had known the housing officer to support an application and as an agent he had seen first-hand that the 30% affordable housing agreed in applications was not always delivered and the housing officer knew that it would be in the application before them by way of a legal agreement. He advised Members that a landscape architect had been employed to address the concerns in relation to the visual impact and that houses on three sides of the development would not be overlooked. He informed Members that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 58.

Land To The North East Of Normanton Road Packington Ashby De La Zouch Leicestershire LE65 1WS

Having declared a pecuniary interest in items A2 and A3 Councillor V Richichi left the meeting for the consideration of the items and took no part in the discussion or voting thereon.

The Planning and Development Team Manager presented the reports for both A2 and A3 to Members.

Mr C Miles, on behalf of Packington Parish Council, addressed the Committee on both applications. He advised Members that the Parish Council had objected to the applications due to the embargo on development within the area of the River Mease, but the Parish Council felt that further grounds for refusal were outside the development boundary currently out for approval, and that the site was Greenfield. He advised that many developments had already been permitted outside the limits for the village. He highlighted to Members the weak flood risk assessment and the ineffective drainage proposals as soak aways were not practical. He expressed concerns over the effectiveness of the water holding tanks and whether the local water treatment works could handle the water running into the site. He reminded Members that planning permission had already been refused on the site and asked Members to refuse these applications.

Mr P Harley, objector, addressed the Committee. He stated that it appeared that the developers were attempting to drive coach and horses through the submitted Local Plan by submitting applications that lay outside the village boundary. He highlighted that plot 1 was proposed to be a large house that would over look several properties on Spring Lane. He expressed concern that the results of the 2013 traffic survey were being considered when the figure had increased sufficiently and the new dwellings would increase the impact on the River Mease by adding 20 cares and 24 toilets. He urged Members to refuse the application.

Mr J Steadman, agent, addressed the Committee. He advised Members that the developer had worked with officers to overcome the issues from the previous applications and felt that a smaller site was far more sustainable than the previous larger site. He stated that in heritage terms the site was a distance from Packington House and that the developer would offer £200K towards affordable housing within the district. He informed Members that it appeared that officers were making up policies relating to the River Mease as the reasons for refusal without specific policy support and that Members would be in a weak position if they refused the applications on the grounds before them. He urged Members to support the application as the site would be a minor extension to the village.

The officer’s recommendation to refuse the application with the additional reasons that the site is outside the Limits to Development and constitutes Greenfield land was moved by Councillor J Bridges and seconded by Councillor J Legrys

Councillor N Smith stated that even though it was a small development if it was granted there would be nothing to stop future applications being put forward, adding that the application was outside Limits to Development, on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 59.

Land At Normanton Road Packington Leicestershire LE65 1WS

Mrs J Harley, objector, addressed the Committee. She stated that the Committee had just refused eight dwellings and she hoped that they would now refuse four dwellings. She advised Members that the proposal was for four very large homes outside the Limits to Development and that they would also have a detrimental impact on the River Mease. She highlighted that the new development would have three access points which would raise the risk of accidents along a road where cars were driven at speed. She urged Members to refuse the application.

Mr J Steadman, agent, addressed the Committee. He advised that the application before them was for self build dwellings and that following the introduction of the Self Build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 the authority had a duty to ensure  sufficient permissions for self- build developments. He stated that there had been an increase in the number of applicants that had registered for self-build sites from 0 – 43. He asked Members to consider how much weight should be given to the legislation and that at a previous committee permission had been given to a development 135msoutside of the envelope, highlighting that the number of dwellings proposed had reduced from 42 to 4.

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

Councillor N Smith stated that his reasons for refusing it were as before and that officers should be able to find enough sites for self build units within the structure plan.

Councillor J Bridges stated that he would be voting against the officer recommendation as but he felt that the reasons would be challenged unless the recommendation was amended to include that the site is outside the Limits to Development and constitutes Greenfield Land.

The proposer, Councillor N Smith, and the seconder, Councillor J Cotterill, agreed to amend the motion in line with Councillor J Bridges suggested amendments.

RESOLVED THAT:

The application be refused in accordance with the recommendations of the Head of Planning and Regeneration with the additional reasons that the site was outside the Limits to Development on Greenfield Land which would be harmful to the rural character and appearance of the locality and setting of the village in the landscape..

Councillor V Richichi returned to the meeting.

Arla Dairies Smisby Road Ashby De La Zouch Leicestershire LE65 2UF

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report to Members.

Mr J Derbyshire, General Manager of KP Snacks, addressed the Committee. He advised Members that the company wanted to ensure noise mitigation to protect the proposed neighbouring properties from noise generated by the factory. He highlighted that the factory had been there since 1948 and employed over 400 local people. He informed Members that they had been working with the developers to reduce the risk of noise complaints, who following a noise survey, had agreed to construct and fund a sound bund with acoustic fence, and that he had been led to believe that this condition would form part of the planning application. He stated that he did not believe that acoustic glazing and garden fences would be sufficient to protect future residents from the noise that was generated. He requested that a sound bund be included in the application by way of a Grampian condition.

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

Councillor J G Coxon stated that it was a Brownfield site and formed part of the Ashby Neighbourhood Plan. He acknowledged Mr Derbyshire’s request in relation to noise mitigation and asked if the sound bund could be included in the conditions, adding that he had never received any complaints in relation to noise from the site. He informed Members that the connectivity to the Money Hill site was paramount due to the potential employment opportunities on that site and to the Ashby Neighbourhood Plan.

Councillor J Bridges stated that he agreed wholeheartedly with Councillor J G Coxon.

Councillor D Harrison stated that he welcomed the application and that it was a pleasure to see development on a Brownfield site rather than trying to build on green land. He added that he supported Mr Derbyshire as often the last in were the first to shout and therefore, if possible requested that  noise mitigation be put into the consent. He supported the application.

The Head of Planning and Regeneration advised Members that officers had been alive to the issue throughout the application. He drew Members’ attention to condition 14 whereby the developer had to agree with officers how they would deal with the noise issue from the factory and that the update sheet had a reference to a sound bund on the KP site as mitigation to protect the factory against complaints from future residents. He stated that it was the officers’ views that as there was insufficient technical evidence to suggest that a bund would be required and therefore condition 14 and the note to applicant that was included on the update sheet would be the next best thing.

Councillor J Legrys stated that he was very pleased to see the opening up of the watercourse and the removal of the culverts as it would help alleviate flood risks and protect the water voles that resided there. He also welcomed building on a Brownfield site, and requested that officers maintained  ...  view the full minutes text for item 61.

Report of the Head of Planning and Regeneration

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report to Members.

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

RESOLVED THAT:

The substitution of the existing affordable housing obligations by the provision of 10 no. gifted units in accordance with details to be agreed with the District Council.

Report of the Head of Planning and Regeneration

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

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

RESOLVED THAT:

The substitution of the existing affordable housing obligations by the provision of 16 no. gifted units in accordance with details to be agreed with the District Council.