Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor M Wyatt.

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.

In accordance with the Code of Conduct, Members declared the following interests:

Councillor R Morris declared a registerable interest in Item A1 “22/00691/REMM: Erection of a road related storage, maintenance and management facility and associated site works (reserved matters to outline planning permission ref. 17/01081/OUTM) (revised scheme)” having received several emails with regard to this matter, which it was confirmed had been sent to all members of the committee.

Councillor D Harrison declared a registerable interest in Item A1 as the ward councillor and sought advice on how best to proceed. It was agreed that Councillor D Harrison leave the room during discussion of this item.

Councillor D Bigby declared a registerable interest in Item A1 as a member of Ashby Town Council’s Planning Committee but had come to the meeting with an open mind.

Councillor J Hoult declared a registerable interest in Item A1 and also Item A3 “22/01288/FUL: Erection of detached garage (retrospective)” as a member of Ashby Town Council Planning Committee.

Councillor J Legrys declared a registerable interest in Item A1 as he had been lobbied by the developer.

To confirm and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 4 October 2022.

Consideration was given to the minutes of the meeting held on 4 October 2022.

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

RESOLVED THAT:

The minutes of the meeting held on 4 October 2022 be approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

The report of the Planning and Development Team Manager.

The Planning and Development Team Manager presented the report, giving members an update on the performance of the team for the second period of the financial year. On average the report showed the number of new cases remained pretty similar at the same point last year. It was confirmed that the majority of the investigations carried out by the team continued to be unauthorised works at dwelling houses. Non compliance with planning permission was also noted as one of the main issues which the team had been called upon to deal with.

Officers wished to draw members’ attention to issues within the team, currently only having two permanent enforcement officers as opposed to three. It was noted issues may take longer to investigate due to staffing numbers, however it was noted that work is being carried out to recruit more staff although there is a shortage of enforcement staff across the county, so this could potentially be a lengthy process.

Member questions were invited, and a member asked why there were difficulties in recruiting and retaining staff. Officers advised that there were generally less people seeking to become enforcement officers and that the role of planner seemed to be more popular. It was noted that salaries did have an impact but that this was also a countrywide problem.

Another member wished to thank officers for a useful report and for the team’s prompt response and regular updates when contacted with any planning issues.

It was asked if there had been a reason that an increase in breach of planning conditions had occurred and officers responded that was cyclical in nature. Officers noted that the authority had no control over what members of the public do and that there had been no discernible apparent reason for the increase in numbers.

Councillor D Bigby enquired whether it would be possible to know if these breaches had been by individuals undertaking a small extension or if had it been large developers taking advantage of the lack of enforcement staff and deliberately not complying. Officers responded that members of the public do not regularly break their conditions intentionally and tend to do so in error, whereby it would be a distinct possibility that some of the larger developers had been actively ignoring some of the conditions which had been imposed. It was confirmed that officers were aware of and pursuing such cases.

A member disagreed that this would be likely as larger developers are involved with insurance companies and bound by regulations which require them to comply with planning conditions.

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

RESOLVED THAT:

The information contained within the report be noted

Report of the Head of Planning and Infrastructure.

Consideration was given to the report of the Head of Planning and Infrastructure.

Flagstaff Island Lountside Ashby De La Zouch Leicestershire LE65 1JP

Councillor D Harrison removed himself from the meeting prior to discussion of this item.

Officers outlined the application, including the amendments which had been made to the scheme. It was confirmed that the plans were recommended for approval subject to conditions.

It was noted that during the committee briefing, questions had been raised which officers wished to clarify. Firstly, was a question which pertained to the gap on the western elevation; it was confirmed that this would measure 12.13 metres. A further question related to the ownership of the road. It had been confirmed by the Land Registry that it belonged to Euro Garages Ltd, who own the site.

Mr Page, objector, stated that he was a representative of Whitbread Plc, owner of the Premier Inn Hotel. He raised concerns that should the application be permitted, a gas main would be redirected towards the Premier Inn Hotel, and would be located within a few metres of the nearest bedroom. He also raised concerns with regard to access for construction and maintenance. The potential for the derogatory effect on customers of noise and the reduction of lighting was raised, and asserted that although this was considered at the outline stage, no technical assessments were submitted at that time.

The 24 hour access of HGVs to the site was also outlined as a concern to Whitbread Plc, given the proximity of the flow of traffic to the hotel bedrooms and seating areas. A concern was raised surrounding the potential for harm to the River Mease and Mr Page asked the decision be deferred until such a  time that the applicant would be able to submit the technical information which Whitbread felt was lacking.

Mr Gray, agent for the applicant, was invited to make his representation, and noted that outline planning permission approved the principle of the site. The reserve matters being access, appearance, layout and landscaping. It was noted that the height of the buildings had been reduced from what they had been in the original application, the siting of the building would be reorientated and the service yard would be reduced, in addition to significantly improved landscaping proposals.

Mr Gray highlighted the significant planting which would be carried out and emphasised that this would exceed the footprint of the proposed building.

Officers clarified that National Grid had been consulted in relation to the diversion of the gas main and had chased them for a response, however National Grid had not provided a response to date and therefore the planning application had to be considered on its merits whilst this information remained outstanding. Officers confirmed what the reserve matters would be and stated that other issues which Mr Gray had raised were not viable for consideration at this stage.

Councillor Harrison, Ward Member, commented that he had used the appeal document in order to structure his representation, particularly in relation to design associated with development in the countryside. It was asserted that given the limited gap between the land and the road  ...  view the full minutes text for item 31.

Former Castle Donington Library Delven Lane Castle Donington Derby DE74 2LJ

Councillor D Harrison was welcomed back to the meeting.

Officers presented the report, relating to retrospective planning permission for a change of use.

Parish Councillor Rogers was invited to make a representation on behalf of Castle Donington Parish Council and confirmed that they did not support the application and were disappointed to see changes to the building, landscape and the removal of trees. It was asserted that local residents are disappointed that the shop would seemingly be a permanent fixture. The meeting was informed that the site is next to a nursing home and a veterinary practice and there had been occasions where customers, deliveries and staff had parked inconsiderately and caused traffic problems. It was suggested that a parking management plan would be beneficial and issues around litter and rubbish not being cleared away was also raised. The Parish Council stated that they would prefer a refusal to this application, however it was suggested that if permission were to be granted, then it would be beneficial to put a parking management plan and also a plan for the storage of waste and litter in place.

Councillor A C Saffell was invited to make his representation as ward member and cited the need for a convenience store nearer to the new housing, as opposed to allowing an additional store to be sited at this location. It was asserted that the available floor space was smaller than that of the proposed store. The roller shutter door was also raised as an issue, as this type of door is not allowed in the conservation area in which it is situated and several similar properties had had applications for this type of door declined. He asserted that should the committee permit the application then there would be areas which need addressing as a proviso to this permission.

The Chair referred members to the conditions outlined within the report and invited officer responses.

Officers informed the meeting that they were unable to take enforcement action against a premises which had a live planning application underway. Officers advised the meeting that the issue around retail floor space was based on an old document and a new retail survey had been commissioned which did suggest there was now a need in the area. In terms of staff and customer parking it was acknowledged that this was possibly due to inconsiderate parking as opposed to insufficient parking for the development. As such this would be a matter for the store owner or affected private land owners to address.

It was confirmed that a delivery management plan would be agreed with the applicant, in terms of times of and how often deliveries happen. With regards to litter management, officers agreed to suggest this as an additional planning condition.

With regards to the HSBC bank, the applicant offered the front part of the bank, however this building is no longer available for part of the sequential test.

Officers responded to concerns with regards to the roller shutter door by  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32.

15 Money Hill Ashby De La Zouch Leicestershire LE65 1JA

It was noted that this item had been brought to committee due to the family relationship between the agent for the scheme and a serving officer of the council.

Councillor D Harrison left the room preceding discussion of this item.

Officers presented the application for a detached garage which had been partially constructed but required planning permission due to its height. The main issues with the development would be the impact on neighbours and on the character of the area. Officers considered that the impact would be limited given the revised plans and the application had been recommended for approval.

A member noted that the development was imposing and asked for clarification whether it would be reduced by 2 metres in length or merely moved back 2 metres and retain its current footprint. Officers responded that it would be reduced by 2 metres.

A motion to permit the application in accordance with the officer’s recommendation was moved by Councillor J Hoult and seconded by Councillor J Simmons

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

RESOLVED THAT:

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