Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillors A Bridgen and D Everitt.

Under the Code of Conduct members are reminded that in declaring interests you should make clear the nature of that interest and whether it is a disclosable pecuniary interest, registerable interest or other interest.

No interests were declared however, members declared that they had been lobbied without influence in respect of the following applications but had come to the meeting with an open mind.

Item A1, application number 22/00267/FUL

Councillors D Bigby, R Boam, S Gillard, J Hoult, J Legrys, R Morris, J Simmons, N Smith and M B Wyatt.

Item A2, application number 21/00896/FUL

Councillors D Bigby, J Legrys and N Smith.

To confirm and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 5 April 2022.

Consideration was given to the minutes of the meeting held on 5 April 2022.

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

RESOLVED THAT:

The minutes of the meeting held on 5 April 2022 be approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

Report of the Head of Planning and Infrastructure.

Consideration was given to the report of the Head of Planning and Infrastructure, as amended by the update sheet circulated at the meeting.

Land Adjacent To 2 Station Terrace Heather Coalville Leicestershire LE67 2QN

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report to members.

Mrs Petty, objector, addressed the committee highlighting concerns over the amount of development that had taken place in the village over years, which had meant an increase in traffic on the road and impacted on highway safety. It was also noted that the proposed development site was outside the Limits to Development and she urged the committee to refuse the application.

Mr Cooper, agent, addressed the committee highlighting that the visibility splay of 2.4 by 120ms could be achieved in both directions, which was greater than that required on the other new developments in the area and that the applicant would be willing to carry out a further speed survey on the road, should the application be permitted. He noted that the entrance to the site would provide ample crossing points, that there had previously been a dwelling on the site and that the site was classed as both built up and open countryside, which therefore could be permitted under polices S2 and S3 of the Local Plan.

Councillor Richichi, ward member, addressed the committee highlighting that the NPPF stated that applications should be viewed with a presumption in favour to permit and outlined past applications, which had a bigger impact on the surrounding area, that had been permitted outside the Limits to Development. He noted that a dwelling once stood on the application site and that permission had been granted in recent history for a new dwelling on the site. He felt that one extra vehicle on the road would not have an impact on the highway and the development would meet local need and would be located in a sustainable village.

In determining the application members had regard to the fact that speed surveys should be carried out within the past three years. No up to date surveys had been provided at this stage. There were concerns being raised over the visibility splay, that the site was close to group of dwellings, but not in an area classed as a settlement, meaning therefore that it was outside the Limits to Development and that in terms of the previous developed land, garden areas within built up areas were not included, therefore it was not classed as previously developed land. Members were reminded that each application had to be considered on its own merits.

The recommendation to refuse the application in accordance with the officer’s recommendation, was moved by Councillor J Hoult and seconded by Councillor R Morris.

The Chairman put the motion to the vote. A recorded vote being required, the voting was as detailed below.

RESOLVED THAT:

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

2 - 4 Central Road Hugglescote Coalville Leicestershire LE67 2FD

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

The Chairman read out a letter from Hugglescote and Donnington le Heath Parish Council. The Parish Council raised concerns in relation to the out of date transport statement and that car parking allocation of a sort would be required for staff and visitors, and how deliveries and waste collections would be managed. It was noted that the application was contrary to Policy T2 of the Neighbourhood Plan, that there was no construction plan submitted, which would detail how the site works would be managed especially as the site was located at a busy junction.

Councillor R Johnson, ward member, addressed the committee highlighting that the site was an eyesore and currently had a detrimental impact on the village however, the application before them was not right for the site. He noted that the case law that was mentioned had no similarity to the application and the construction management plan needed to be in place before approval was given, as the site was located at the busiest crossroads in Leicestershire and the limited access would mean construction traffic having to park on the roads which was already limited and there were no public car parks in the vicinity. He concurred with the comments read out on behalf of the Parish Council.

Some members expressed concerns over highway safety during the construction period, lack of parking for staff and visitors, which the both the Local Plan and Neighbourhood Plan stated that there should be for residential sites and the impact the development would have on a road that was already over capacity and had poor air quality.

In determining the application members had regard to there being no objections from LCC Highways, which included requirements for parking provision, that the existing building was already a residential dwelling which meant that access to services was already in place and that a construction management plan would be required as part of the conditions, which LCC Highways would be involved in assessing. It was noted that should an application for change of use be submitted at a later date to revert back to a C3 use, parking requirements would be revisited at that time.

The recommendation to permit the application in accordance with the officer’s recommendation, was moved by Councillor R Boam and seconded by Councillor S Gillard.

The Chairman put the motion to the vote. A recorded vote being required, the voting was as detailed below.

RESOLVED THAT:

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