Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors J Legrys and V Richichi.

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, R Boam, J Bridges, R Canny, J Clarke, J Cotterill, J G Coxon, D Everitt, F Fenning, R Johnson, G Jones, N Smith, M Specht, D J Stevenson and M B Wyatt declared that they had been lobbied without influence in respect of item A1, application number 16/00832/OUTM.

Councillors R Adams, J Bridges, D Everitt, M Specht and D J Stevenson declared that they had been lobbied without influence in respect of item A2, application number 16/00305/VCU.

Councillors R Adams, R Boam, J Bridges, R Canny, J Clarke, J Cotterill, J G Coxon, D Everitt, D Harrison, J Hoult, R Johnson, 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 16/01043/FUL.

Councillor R Johnson declared a non pecuniary interest in items A3 and A7, application numbers 16/01043/FUL and 16/01198/REM as Chairman of Hugglescote and Donington le Heath Parish Council.

Councillor J Bridges declared that he had been lobbied without influence in respect of item A4, application number 16/00798/FUL.

Councillor D J Stevenson declared a non pecuniary interest in items A4 and A5, application numbers 16/00798/FUL and 16/00797/VCUM, as a close associate of the applicant’s father. He stated that he would leave the room during consideration of these items.

Councillors J Bridges and M B Wyatt declared that they had been lobbied without influence in respect of item A5, application number 16/00797/VCUM.

Councillors R Adams, R Boam, R Canny, J Clarke, J Cotterill, J G Coxon, D Everitt, D Harrison, J Hoult, R Johnson, G Jones, N Smith, M Specht and D J Stevenson declared that they had been lobbied without influence in respect of item A6, application number 16/01225/VCUM.

Councillor J Bridges declared a non pecuniary interest in respect of item A6, application number 16/01225/VCUM, as the ward member and having had discussions with local residents and the parish council to resolve issues in respect of the proposals.

Councillors R Boam, J Bridges, R Canny, F Fenning and R Johnson declared that they had been lobbied without influence in respect of item A7, application number 16/01198/REM.

Councillors R Boam, M Specht and D J Stevenson declared that they had been lobbied without influence in respect of items A8 and A9, application numbers 16/00980/FUL and 16/01005/FUL.

Councillor D J Stevenson declared that he had been lobbied without influence in respect of item A10, application number 16/00404/FUL.

Councillor M Specht declared a non pecuniary interest in item A10, application number 16/00404/FUL, as Chairman of Coleorton Parish Council.

Councillor J Cotterill declared a non pecuniary interest in item A10, application number 16/00404/FUL, as Deputy Chairman of Coleorton Parish Council.

To confirm and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 1 November 2016.

Consideration was given to the minutes of the meeting held on 1 November 2016.

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

RESOLVED THAT:

The minutes of the meeting held on 1 November 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 Swepstone Road Heather Leicestershire

The Head of Planning and Regeneration presented the report to members.  He read out a letter from Andrew Bridgen MP stating his objection to the application on the grounds that the site was outside the limits to development and did not constitute limited development as appropriate for a sustainable village.  The letter also expressed concerns in respect of the larger pending application and the level of public objection to the application.

Mrs A Wright, parish councillor, addressed the meeting.  She stated that the development site was a greenfield site outside the limits to development within the confines of the National Forest, the proposals were contrary to policy S2 and only limited development should be permitted in a sustainable village such as Heather.  She made reference to the larger application pending and expressed concerns in respect of facilities being oversubscribed, the hazard caused by increased traffic and the increase in the size of the village that could potentially arise.  She asked members to refuse the application as she felt this could not be considered limited development for a sustainable village.

Mr C Veal, objector, addressed the meeting.  He made reference to the other pending applications and urged members not to disregard the concerns of the residents of Heather relating to unsustainable growth.  He expressed concerns regarding the safety hazard that would be caused by additional traffic, the lack of key employment areas in the village, the oversubscription of services and the impact upon endangered wildlife in the area.

Mr M Rose, agent, addressed the meeting.  He stated that at present, the emerging local plan made no provision to meet the needs or to maintain the sustainability of Heather.  He added that up to 11 of the homes would be affordable and within easy walking distance of facilities.  He commented that there were a number of significant economic benefits to the proposal which had evolved through a careful design process in consultation with council officers, key stakeholders and the local community.  He stated that the scheme would deliver high quality development with a clear sense of place, which would be well integrated with the built form and integrated with the countryside.  He highlighted that there were no technical objections to the proposals from statutory consultees and no objection to the transport statement from the Highway Authority.  He concluded that the proposals constituted sustainable development.

Councillor D J Stevenson moved that the application be permitted in accordance with the officer’s recommendation.  This was seconded by Councillor M Specht.

Councillor J Clarke reiterated that the site was outside the limits to development and Heather was a sustainable village, however there was no real shop, no employment opportunities and no prospect of a bus service.  He expressed concerns in respect of the safety of the proposed exit onto Swepstone Road.  He concluded that he felt the proposals would provide no benefit for those living in the village and would lead to its destruction, and as such he could not support the application.

Councillor F  ...  view the full minutes text for item 68.

Aylesbury Gardens Newton Road Swepstone Leicestershire

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

Councillor R Blunt, ward member, addressed the meeting.  He made reference to the previous refusals in respect of a permanent permission and stated that nothing had changed in the last 4 years.  He added that the site was outside the limits to development, was in an unsustainable location and the proposals would harm the character and appearance of the countryside.  He urged members to refuse the application.

Mr C Robinson, parish councillor, addressed the meeting.  He stated that the application should be refused as it was not in accordance with the development plan policies or the policies within the emerging local plan, there had been no real change in circumstances since the previous appeal, the proposals would harm the intrinsic character of the countryside and the site was not in a sustainable location.  He added that the officer had given significant weight to the 2013 needs assessment although this had recently been updated to accommodate the new definition of traveller.  He felt that it was therefore premature to permit this application when the needs assessment was on the cusp of changing.  He also expressed concerns in respect of lack of developer contributions in respect of the River Mease.  He urged members to overturn the recommendation.

Mr M Reece, objector, addressed the meeting.  He pointed out that the temporary permission still had five months to run, and stated that the applicant operated this site commercially and there was no guarantee that the present occupants would be allowed to remain.  He commented that if the site had not been illegally occupied and the planning system manipulated, it seemed that a temporary permission would have never been permitted.  He expressed concerns that the day room was a visually intrusive structure and was overbearing, the caravans could be seen from the roadside, and the site was not sustainable.

Mr A Statham, agent, addressed the meeting.  He highlighted the national shortage of traveller sites.  He commented that this was a good site with all the required facilities and was close to local amenities.  He spoke in support of the family who currently occupied the site.  He urged members to support the application.

Councillor G Jones expressed concerns in respect of the state of the site and that the system was being manipulated.  He moved that the application be refused on the grounds that the site was outside the limits to development, the location was unsustainable, and the proposals would harm the character and appearance of the countryside.

The motion was seconded by Councillor M Specht.

Councillor D Everitt commented that he could see no reason to object to the application.

Councillor N Smith reiterated that the site was outside the limits to development, would cause harm to the countryside, had been repeatedly refused and was in an unsustainable location.  He added that there was objection to the application from the Highway Authority.

In response to a question from Councillor J Bridges, the Head of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 69.

Land Off Private Road Standard Hill Coalville Leicestershire

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report to members.

In response to a question from Councillor R Johnson, the Chairman clarified that the only matter currently under discussion was the proposed access.

Councillor R Johnson expressed concerns in respect of the access, the speed of traffic, the loss of parking spaces and the history of accidents on the junction.  He stated vehemently that he could not support the proposals.

Councillor D J Stevenson commented that the proposals could help to prevent accidents. 

Councillor M Specht stated that he had been lobbied by the ward member whose concern was to ensure that appropriate conditions were in place and on that basis he was happy to support the proposals.

It was moved by Councillor J Bridges, seconded by Councillor G Jones and

RESOLVED THAT:

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

Having declared a pecuniary interest, Councillor D J Stevenson left the meeting during consideration of items A4 and A5 and took no part in the consideration or voting thereon.

Councillor J Bridges took the Chair.

Land Off Forest Road Coalville Leicestershire

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report to members.

Councillor R Johnson expressed concerns regarding the lack of affordable housing provision over both applications.

Councillor J Bridges confirmed that the District Valuer had looked at it, and confirmed the applicant’s figures

Councillor M B Wyatt expressed concerns regarding increasing traffic congestion and stated that he could not support any development in this area as residents would suffer. 

Councillor M Specht indicated that the Committee should show consistency as they had just turned down an application with 30% affordable housing provision and now concerns were being expressed regarding lack of affordable housing.

Councillor D Harrison stated that he would support the officer’s recommendation however he had great reservations about the Council’s involvement in securing affordable homes.  He welcomed the site being utilised to provide homes, however commented that it was a shame that no affordable housing would be provided. 

Councillor J Bridges stated that any member would be at liberty to discuss concerns with the District Valuer directly.

Councillor G Jones expressed reservations in respect of the affordable housing policies, as such homes were often not occupied by local people. 

Councillor D Everitt also expressed concerns regarding affordable housing and traffic congestion. He suggested that so-called experts are not in touch with reality, and that in his opinion this was the case with flooding and highways.

Councillor R Adams expressed concerns in respect of the highways implications.

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

RESOLVED THAT:

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

Land Off Forest Road Coalville Leicestershire

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report to members.

Councillor M B Wyatt stated that he would not be supporting the application as vehicles from an additional 8 houses would cause congestion.

Councillor J Coxon stated that 8 dwellings had just been passed and if this application was refused then there would be no access to the dwellings.

Councillor M Specht commented that he felt the additional traffic would make the road safer, as people drive more slowly when roads are busier.

Councillor R Johnson expressed concerns relating to the speed of additional traffic and water run-off.

Following a comment from Councillor R Johnson, Councillor J Bridges reminded members to confine their comments to the application before them.

It was moved by Councillor D Harrison, seconded by Councillor G Jones and

RESOLVED THAT:

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

Councillor D J Stevenson returned to the meeting and took the Chair.

Peveril Homes Site Measham Road Moira Derby

Councillor J Bridges, ward member, addressed the meeting.  He commented that it had been assumed that the original refusal was based on the whole application rather than specific plots.  He added that it had been a pleasure that all parties had been able to work together in the last few weeks to reach a solution.  He stated that with the update in respect of drainage issues, he felt that the issues now seemed to have been resolved.  He thanked all parties for truly working together.

Mr C Sharp, objector, addressed the meeting.  He expressed concerns regarding a lack of consultation, the proximity of one of the plots to his boundary, flooding issues and the impact upon neighbour amenity.  He informed Members that a new land drain had been dug, and instantly drained his garden, and sought assurance that the drainage systems would be maintained once the development was complete and asked members to ensure the rights of residents were protected.

A discussion ensued relating to the flooding and drainage issues in response to which the Head of Planning and Regeneration advised that the Section 106 Agreement would require the land drain be maintained either by Severn Trent or a management company.  He pointed out that the objector had confirmed that the drainage was working, and added that surface water on the site was being managed on a plot by plot basis as each individual house was being connected to a sustainable drainage system once complete.  He added that the developer had also installed additional drainage and was going above and beyond standard practice.

Councillor D Harrison stated that he was now convinced the engineering work would be adequate and the developer would act to remedy any issues.  He also felt that the flooding issues had now been resolved and he welcomed the developer’s willingness to accept their responsibilities.  He noted that the distances between the new homes and existing houses were in accordance with minimum requirements.

Councillor J Hoult sought clarification about a management company.

Councillor G Jones said that the last rain had flooded the objector’s garden.

Councillor J Coxon said that the Committee had supported residents but was running out of ideas, and expressed concern that a further refusal would appear unreasonable.

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

RESOLVED THAT:

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

Land North Of Standard Hill And West Of Highfield Street Coalville Leicestershire

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report to members.

In response to comments from members, the Principal Planning Officer clarified that the means of access had already been permitted and it was the layout and landscaping of this part of the site which was under consideration. 

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

RESOLVED THAT:

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

Land To The Rear Of 1 Hollow Road Breedon On The Hill Derby DE73 8AU

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report to members.

Councillor D Keith, parish councillor, addressed the meeting.  She stated that the parish council supported development where it enhanced the village and was well located.  She commented that the application was inappropriate in scale, location and form and she asked members to refuse the application.  She added that the proposed dwelling would represent an encroachment onto Breedon hill which would harm the historic landscape and cause harm to a major heritage asset.  She added that the height differential would cause overlooking to the cottages the zinc roof cladding was inappropriate and incongruous with the surrounding historic properties.  She urged members to view the site from various aspects. 

Mr R Edwards, objector, addressed the meeting.  He expressed concerns regarding claims in the design and access statements, the consultation process, harm caused to the heritage area, the design of the proposed dwelling and setting a precedent.  He stated that the proposed dwelling would be a serious incursion into the hillside and dominant in the streetscene.  He added that there was no overriding public benefit to justify the application which made no positive contribution to the conservation area.  He stated that the development would be spoiling the village in the interests of profit. He concluded that the application was inconsistent with section12 of the NPPF and he respectfully requested that members refuse the application.

Councillor J G Coxon stated that he had no problem with a dwelling on the site, however the proposed dwelling was totally out of keeping with what was needed in Breedon on the Hill.  He supported the parish council in their views and felt the building would be quite prominent. 

Councillor G Jones expressed support for the application.  He felt that the design was good quality and would enhance the village. 

Councillor R Canny felt that the proposals were totally out of keeping with the village and expressed concerns in respect of the height of the building and harm to heritage assets. 

The Head of Planning and Regeneration reminded members that there was no objection from Historic England or the conservation officer in respect of harm caused to heritage assets. 

A discussion ensued on the design and scale of the proposals.

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

RESOLVED THAT:

The application be refused on the grounds that the design was not in keeping with the surrounding area.

1 The Crescent Breedon On The Hill Derby DE73 8AY

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report to members.

It was moved by Councillor D J Stevenson, seconded by Councillor G Jones and

RESOLVED THAT:

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

Land At Ashby Road Coleorton Leicestershire

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report to members.

Councillor G Jones moved that the application be permitted in accordance with the officer’s recommendation.  This was seconded by Councillor J Cotterill.

Councillor M Specht stated that he was not in support of the application for the reason it was outside the limits to development, was prominent in its setting adjacent to the A512, and the local need referred to in the design and access statement could not be established. He added that the proposals were not of any architectural merit and he could not support the application.

Councillor D Harrison sought to propose that the application be refused.  The Legal Adviser clarified that a proposal had been moved and seconded which must be dealt with before a further proposition could be put forward. 

Councillor J Cotterill withdrew his support for the motion to permit the application.  The motion was therefore not seconded. 

It was then moved by Councillor D Harrison, seconded by Councillor J Hoult and

RESOLVED THAT:

The application be refused on the grounds that it was outside the limits to development and inappropriate in design.

Report of the Head of Planning and Regeneration

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report to members.

It was moved by Councillor Michael Specht, seconded by Councillor R Adams and

RESOLVED THAT:

The substitution of the existing affordable housing obligations by the provision of 26 units and in accordance with the house type and tenure mix as set out in the report be agreed.

Report of the Planning and Development Team Manager

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

RESOLVED THAT:

The Tree Preservation Order be confirmed.

Councillor R Blunt entered the meeting at 4.47pm during consideration of item A1.

Councillor N Smith left the meeting at 5.51pm on the conclusion of item A2.

Councillor M B Wyatt left the meeting at 6.19pm during consideration of item A6.