Agenda item

Ashby Ivanhoe Football Club, Lower Packington Road, Ashby De La Zouch 

Ashby Ivanhoe Football Club, Lower Packington Road, Ashby de la Zouch

Officer’s recommendation: Permit

Having declared an interest in the item, Councillor D Bigby removed himself from the meeting to join the public gallery prior to being invited to speak as the adjoining Ward Member.  Councillor T Eynon joined the Committee as a substitute and announced she had no interests to declare.

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report.

Mr C Benfield, Town Councillor, addressed the Committee.  He stated that the parish had been supportive of the application as they acknowledged the need for the sporting facility and the aspirations of the club.  However, they had been disappointed with the lack of communication with the parish and the community which the recently established Liaison Committee has helped with.  He shared concerns with increase in traffic in relation to highway and pedestrian safety and noise levels during events. 

Mr B Everitt, objector, addressed the Committee.  He felt that the expansion would generate more activity and visitors to the site which would have an impact on the highway.  He shared concerns that there was a lack of parking facilities already and this application would only exasperate the parking issues in the area.  He was disappointed that a highway assessment had not been undertaken by the applicant and visibility splays had not been done.  He concluded that he acknowledged the importance of good sporting facilities, especially for young people, but he believed more assessment was required.

Mr M Cooper, agent, addressed the Committee.  He stated that the club was in desperate need of modernising with the current changing facilities not meeting current standards.  He referred to the report which addressed all concerns received and Members were reminded that there were no objections from statutory consultees.  He explained that the wider issues were being looked at by various groups including Leicestershire County Council and the police.  He concluded that the Council had recently announced its desire to improve sporting facilities in Ashby and therefore urged Members to permit the application.

Councillor D Bigby, adjoining Ward Member, addressed the Committee.   He stated that although he was in support of good sporting facilities in Ashby, his main concerns with this application were the access and highway safety.  He commented that there was a strong argument that more club house space would lead to more events and activity, and it was disappointing that the club were reluctant to accept Section 106 Agreement suggestions.   He suggested that if the Committee was minded to permit the application, Section 106 Agreements relating to access be added, or alternatively the application be deferred to allow officers and the applicant to come to an agreement on the matter.

The Planning and Development Team Manager addressed comments made by the speakers and confirmed the application was not to address the access concerns only the improvement of the facilities.  Advice was given on the options available to move forward with the application.

In determining the application Members spoke both in support and against.  A Member suggested that a deferral could be the best option and advice was sought on what could be achieved if the Committee were minded to defer.  The Planning and Development Team Manager explained that work could be undertaken on a Section 106 Agreement, however the application could not be approved with a Section 106 Agreement if the applicant did not agree. 

After further discussions on possible motions available to Members, Councillor R Boam moved the officer’s recommendation to permit and it was seconded by Councillor M Wyatt.

Councillor J Legrys then moved an amendment to defer the application and it was seconded by Councillor P Moult.

At this point, procedural advise was sought from the Committee and provided by the Legal Advisor.

The amendment to defer the application was put to the vote.  A recorded vote being required, the voting was as detailed below.

The motion was LOST.

The Chair put the substantive motion to permit in accordance with officer’s recommendation to the vote.  A recorded vote being required, the voting was as detailed below.

The motion was CARRIED.

RESOLVED THAT:

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

At the conclusion of the item, Councillor D Bigby returned to the Committee.  Therefore, as no longer required as a substitute, Councillor T Eynon returned to the public gallery.

POST MEETING NOTE: Following the meeting it was identified that an error had been made in the recording and announcement of the vote, therefore the application was determined incorrectly.  The application was reconsidered at the Planning Committee meeting held on 5 March 2024.