Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillors C Sewell and N Smith.

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:

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 23/00173/FULM: Councillors D Bigby, D Everitt, J Legrys, R Morris and P Moult.

Item A2 – application number 23/01153/FULM: Councillors D Bigby, D Everitt, R Canny, J Legrys, R Morris, P Moult and J Simmons.

Councillor D Bigby and D Cooper also declared a registrable interest in Item A2, as Ashby Town Councillors, but they had come to the meeting with an open mind.

To confirm and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 30 April 2024

Consideration was given to the minutes of the meeting held on 30 April 2024

It was moved by Councillor M Burke, seconded by Councillor R Morris and

RESOLVED THAT:

The minutes of the meeting held on 30 April 2024 be approved and signed by the Chair 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 off Standard Hill, Hugglescote, Coalville

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report.

Councillor J Geary, objector, addressed the Committee. He advised that he had been involved with the application due to the illness of the previous Ward Member. He was broadly in favour of the proposal as the site was surrounded by development on three sides and the design was pleasing but he was greatly concerned about congestion and road safety. Therefore, he requested certain conditions be imposed if permission was to be granted, including ward Member involvement on boundary treatments with Private Road, traffic access solely via Standard Hill, and the utilisation of Vehicle Activated Signs to reduce dangerous driving which had historically been a problem on that road. He also requested construction management and traffic routing conditions.

Ms C Clarke, agent for the development, addressed the Committee. She stressed that this was proposed as an entirely affordable housing development with a variety of house types, that the developers would contribute approximately £1 million to the benefit of the local community, that the site was earmarked in the emerging Local Plan and that she had worked with Officers to address key concerns. In response to concerns raised, she advised that the ward Member would be consulted, noted traffic flow and safety mitigations planned and the lack of objection from Leicestershire County Council Highways, and reiterated that the design had been approved by the Council’s urban design advisor.

Councillor C Beck, ward Member, addressed the Committee. She advised that residents were concerned with construction traffic, sought assurances about lorries on Highfield Street, was concerned with the lack of prospective public transport links, and noted that Leicestershire County Council Highways thought there was the potential for traffic dangers.

The Planning and Development Team Manager addressed some of these concerns around road safety and how they could be formally communicated to the developer, though he advised that a construction management plan or a construction traffic routing plan could not be made a condition as they failed the test for planning conditions. However, traffic construction routing would be controlled by a clause in the Section 106 Agreement.

Members debated road safety and traffic congestion matters. Members favoured the use of Vehicle Activated Signs to mitigate road safety concerns, expressed strong concern about the impact of speeding and congestion on residents both when the site was finished and whilst it was being constructed, and wondered what mechanisms could be put in place to ease the speeding issue.

A Member disputed the issue of lack of public transport links, suggesting the site was in a sustainable location near to Coalville town centre and that demand for better transport links might be generated by the development itself and that the lack of them would impact only a small number of people. Some Members were also inclined to defer to Officer’s recommendations re traffic congestion and road safety.

Officers offered further advice on the limited use of Vehicle Activated Signs, what could be negotiated with the applicant regarding traffic speeds and what  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Ashfield House, Resolution Road, Ashby De La Zouch, Leicestershire, LE65 1DW

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report.

Town Councillor P Zamani, on behalf of Ashby Town Council, addressed the Committee. He referred to a number of technical considerations as to why the application should be rejected including that the application would be contrary to the Neighbourhood Plan and would have significant detrimental impacts on Ashby Town Centre. He then requested that if the Committee were minded to approve, that a financial contribution towards the maintenance of Ashby Town Centre be attached as an additional condition of the S106 agreement, following the precedent of the contributions of Aldi and Tesco when they had built or extended stores very close to the proposed site.

Ms K Hall, objector, addressed the Committee. She referred to various technical considerations as to why she felt that the application was procedurally flawed, such as but not limited to non-compliance with policy EC8 of the North West Leicestershire Local Plan. She stressed the impact of traffic congestion created by the proliferation of similar business in the area, which this development would exacerbate.

Mr R Huteson, agent, addressed the Committee. He stressed the close cooperation with Officers to develop the proposal, that Leicestershire County Council Highways were satisfied with the proposal, that the design would contribute to and enhance the site and the surrounding area, and that Environmental Health had not raised concerns on the grounds of either air or noise pollution. As for tangible benefits, the proposed development would boost the local economy, create up to 40 jobs at living wage or above rates of pay, and improve local shopping choice. He concluded that Members should approve the application in accordance with the Officer’s recommendations.

Councillor M Blair-Park, ward Member, addressed the Committee. He was concerned with the increasingly grave problem of traffic congestion on and around Nottingham Road which had not been mitigated commensurately with development over the years. This was exacerbated by the fact that the site was near to several major road networks. The proposed housing at Money Hill would also contribute to further congestion. There were already three nearby grocery retailers. Multiple other uses for the building had been proposed by people within the community. The developer was consequently encouraged to seek an alternative site.

Members raised concerns that this was not the sequentially best site for the store and other sites on the Money Hill development should be explored further. The impact on the town centre in terms of loss of trade was also raised.

Members discussed the design of the proposed building and associated landscaping plan. Members expressed significant concern about the loss of frontage trees, that the existing award winning building would be demolished which could also adversely impact local residents in terms of noise and dust nuisance. Members also requested extra conditions be attached if the application was successful to remedy the landscaping damage that had already been carried out. Officers advised that Members should consider that the building was not currently utilised and at risk of dereliction; and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.