Agenda item

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 R Canny and seconded by Councillor D Bigby.

A Member sought to move an amendment to refuse the application, however they were advised that the proposal was unacceptable in accordance with the Council’s Constitution as it negated the motion.

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

RESOLVED THAT:

If the Council were able to determine the application, it would have been permitted subject to Section 106 Agreement.