Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies were received from Councillors J Simmons 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:

Councillor P Moult declared a registerable interest in item A1 – application 23/01277/OUTM as a Whitwick Parish Councillor.

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 23/01277/OUTM: Councillors D Bigby, R Blunt, R Canny, D Everitt, J Legrys, C Sewell and P Moult.

To confirm and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 12 November 2024.

Consideration was given to the minutes of the meeting held on 12 November 2024.

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

RESOLVED THAT:

The minutes of the meeting held on 12 November 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.

137 Church Lane, Whitwick, Coalville

The Head of Planning and Infrastructure announced that an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate against non-determination had been lodged by the applicant on 13 January 2025 and the Committee could no longer determine the application. Therefore, Members were asked to make a resolution on how the Planning Committee would have decided the application which would then form the Council’s case presented to the Planning Inspectorate as part of the appeal process.

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report.

Mr P Hopkins, objector, addressed the Committee. He highlighted that as the applicant was unwilling to conduct a further highway survey the Committee were being asked to make an opinion on flawed data. It was reported that traffic regularly travelled along Church Lane in excess of 30 miles per hour which was dangerous for both road users and pedestrians, especially the children that walked to the local school 500 metres away from the site. In addition, the development would mean a loss of amenity and natural habitat, loss of direct sunlight for several properties due to poor design and lack of additional parking which could lead to dangerous on street parking on Church Lane. It was also felt that the development was too dense for the size of the site. To conclude Members were urged to refuse the application on the grounds of the reasons stated and the many local objections.

Legal advice was sought regarding the right of the Ward Member to speak following the additional information received on the appeal process prior to the meeting. It was clarified that the Council’s rules on registering to speak at Planning Committee were being adhered and although the Ward Member  could not speak at the meeting, they would have the opportunity to provide evidence as part of the appeal process.

During discussion, several Members acknowledged the merits of the application and noted the lack of objection from statutory authorities. Some concern was raised regarding the proposed removal of trees, density of the site, loss of amenity and visual impact. It was requested that should the application be approved, a note to the applicant be included to retain the landscaping on the parcel of land adjoining the development. 

Members expressed disappointment that the applicant had not undertaken another highway survey as requested at the previous meeting, as well as  lodged the appeal which meant a determination by the committee could not be made.

Following a comment in relation to costs to the Council as part of the appeal process, it was noted that this was dependant on the reasons for the decision. Members were advised that should the committee be minded to refuse, then the Council could incur costs if it was considered that the circumstances of the refusal was unreasonable.

During discussion, Officers clarified the appeal process, timescales for determining and the non-determination rules. It was confirmed that a Section 106 Agreement would now be determined by the Planning Inspector as part of the appeal process.

The officer’s recommendation was moved by Councillor  ...  view the full minutes text for item 37.