Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor R Boam, Councillor M Burke, Councillor C Sewell, and Councillor 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 25/00236/FULM

Councillors D Bigby, R Canny, D Cooper, D Everitt, P Moult, R Morris, J Legrys, J Simmons, A Woodman, and M Wyatt.

Councillor R Canny declared a registerable interest in item A2 of the agenda, application number 25/00945/FUL, as ward member. She stated that she would be leaving the meeting after speaking for the item as ward member.

To confirm and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 9 June 2026.

Consideration was given to the minutes of the meeting held on 9 June 2026.

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

RESOLVED THAT:

The minutes of the meeting held on 9 June 2026 be approved and signed by the Chair as an accurate record of the proceedings.

The 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.

Former RBS Data Centre, Packington Hill, Kegworth.

Officer’s recommendation: Permit, subject to Section 106 agreement.

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report.

Parish Councillor A Priestley, speaking on behalf of Kegworth Parish Council, addressed the Committee. He stated that the proposed development did not conform to Policy Ec3 of the Local Plan which stated that warehouse development should only be supported where there was not significant harm to residential amenity or the surrounding environment. He also highlighted issues with HGVs on nearby roads which would worsen and further harm local amenity and public safety.

Ms A Pritchard, speaking as an objector, addressed the Committee. She stated that the area was unsuitable for HGVs, and that the warehouse was proposed purely for financial gain and not for the benefit of local residents. She also commented on the noise pollution that it would bring to the area and urged the Committee to refuse the application.

Mr T Beardsmore, speaking as the agent, addressed the Committee. It was commented that the development would generate employment and he noted that the colour-pallet reduced the visual impact it would have on the area.

Councillor C Sewell, speaking as the adjoining ward member, addressed the Committee. She commented on the increasing industrialisation within the area as well as the negative visual impact of the development, and she recalled having received complaints from existing residents about noise and light pollution from a similar employment building in Kegworth. While she acknowledged the shortfall in the number of warehouses which needed to be addressed by the Council, it was commented that this could be addressed in areas that were more suitable.

Councillor R Sutton, speaking as the ward member, addressed the Committee. He commented on existing issues with HGVs within the area, and believed the application had not answered a number of material planning considerations. He also noted the lack of people that had been consulted and mentioned that the warehouse would operate on a different scale and intensity than the previous RBS Data Centre which was previously located on the site. He urged the Committee to refuse the application.

A discussion was had during which several questions of clarity were addressed by officers. Members considered that the development was contrary to Policies D1, D2 and Ec3 of the adopted Local Plan which promoted development that was sustainable and did not adversely affect the living conditions of the people in the area.

Members mentioned that it would have negatively impacted residential amenity, and an inconsistency was observed between the officer’s report and the agent’s speech regarding the number of jobs it would have generated through the Section 106 agreement. This matter was, however, addressed by the Council’s Legal Advisor who advised on how the contributions would be secured.

During a further discussion, members commented on the overbearing visual impact for new and existing residents, as well as the potential issues related to noise and light pollution.

Members were advised that there was no legal right to a view and the Legal Advisor reminded members of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

Land off Back Lane, Castle Donington.

Officer’s recommendation: Permit.

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report.

Mr N Morris, speaking as the agent, addressed the Committee. He stated that the development was sustainable rather than speculative and referred to the family's long-standing connection to the land through successive generations of inheritance. He urged the Committee to approve the application.

Councillor R Canny, speaking as the ward member, addressed the Committee. She commented that, while it was close to the settlement edge, the site was isolated as the nearest residential neighbour was a considerable distance away, the site was cut off from Castle Donington by the railway and the lane was subject to a Traffic Regulation Order and, due to this, concern was raised over how waste would be collected. It was also noted that, while the site was in Flood Zone 1, its size had to be reduced to allow for this, and nearby areas had experienced issues with flooding which resulted in muddy lanes that were difficult to traverse. She urged the Committee to refuse the application.

Having declared a registerable interest in the application, Councillor R Canny left the meeting after speaking as ward member.

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

RESOLVED THAT:

The application be approved in accordance with the officer’s recommendations.