Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillors Bessant, Lynch and Surtees, with the substitution of Councillor Bray for Councillor Lynch authorised in accordance with council procedure rule 10.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 31 July 2018.

It was moved by Councillor Roberts, seconded by Councillor Cook and

RESOLVED – the minutes of the meeting held on 31 July 2018 be confirmed and signed by the chairman.

Councillors Cook, Sutton and Ward declared a personal interest in application 18/00425/FUL as members of the MIRA Liaison Committee.

To report progress on any decisions delegated at the previous meeting.

It was reported that the decision for application 18/00468/OUT had been issued. The conditional permission granted for application 17/01050/OUT was subject to a section 106 agreement which was being drafted.

Application for construction of a Connected and Autonomous Vehicle (CAV) testing track, a control tower and storage building, ground works, landscaping and associated infrastructure.

Late items:

Further Information submitted:

Following the objection received from Leicestershire County Council Highways Authority the applicant has provided further details to clarify the reasons why the HGV traffic cannot access the proposed site via the existing A5 access. A plan has been submitted which identifies the pinch point at the proving ground bridge to be the main site constraint, and any potential mitigation is restricted by the proximity of water main, storm water pipe, foul water pipe and communication and telecom cables and the location of existing embankments. Supporting text has also been provided which states that the primary reason for not being able to use the existing A5 access is not conflict from a health and safety perspective as has been highlighted by LCC Highways. The applicant has highlighted that around 4metres of widening of the existing access at the bridge junction would be required to allow the flow of vehicles to not be impeded. A 4 metre widening is not possible as it would extend past the verge into the ditch and vegetation and it would mean construction over services of which the water main is a particular constraint. The applicant highlights that the water main was only recently put in (2014-15) and was never intended to be built over (it has a way leave in agreement with Severn Trent Water over it), it is buried as 0.9metres and haulage vehicles moving over this main could create pressure that can’t be sustained by it. The assessments that the applicant has undertaken shows the road could only be widened by approximately 0.5 metres which would not over come the traffic issues highlighted. The applicant also stresses that ‘It is also important to note that we are not saying that this access is unsuitable for all construction access. We are looking to provide construction access for workers, and all deliveries (with the exception of aggregate and asphalt surfacing materials) from the A5. It is only when you introduce the aggregate and asphalt vehicles as well, when the pinch point becomes a major issue.Fenn Lanes will be used for 5 months only. For the first 2.5 months this will be up to 75 vehicles a day but we can manage these deliveries to ensure they are pulsed or spaced out depending on desired timings to mitigate impact. The final 2.5 months there will be a reduction in the amount of trucks falling to a maximum of 30 vehicles a day by September 2019.’

Consultation:-

Leicestershire County Council has submitted a statement to Planning Committee in its capacity as the Highway Authority. This statement has been included as Appendix A to this late item. The Highway Authority recommends the following reason for refusal:

1.    The Applicant has failed to demonstrate that an appropriate and safe construction access would be provided and the proposal, if permitted  ...  view the full agenda text for item 154.

Application for construction of a connected and autonomous vehicle (CAV) testing track, a control tower and storage building, ground works, landscaping and associated infrastructure.

Notwithstanding the officer’s recommendation that permission be granted subject to conditions, concern was expressed about the siting of the proposed track and the Highways Authority’s objections. It was moved by Councillor Bray and seconded by Councillor Richards that the application be deferred to allow the applicant to investigate re-siting of the track and to discuss the concerns of Leicestershire County Council. This motion was accepted as the substantive motion for discussion.

Following further discussion, Councillor Richards proposed an amendment that a site visit also be undertaken. This amendment was accepted by Councillor Bray.

Councillor Bray along with eight other councillors stood to request a recorded vote on the motion to defer the application. The vote was taken as follows:

Councillors Bill, Bray, Cook, Crooks, Hodgkins, Hollick, Ladkin, Richards, Roberts, Smith, Witherford and Wright voted FOR the motion (12);

Councillors Sutton and Ward voted AGAINST the motion (2);

Councillor Hall abstained from voting.

The motion was therefore declared CARRIED and it was

RESOLVED – the application be deferred for the following reasons:

(i)            To allow the applicant to consider re-siting the track;

(ii)           To allow a member site visit to take place;

(iii)          To allow discussion with Leicestershire County Council on the highways authority’s objections.

The meeting adjourned at 7.52pm to allow those in the public gallery to leave and reconvened at 7.59pm.

Application for erection of 40 dwellings and associated infrastructure.

Late items:

Recommendation:-

Condition 2: replace reference to Planning Engineering Layout/Levels Drawing Ref. FW1329 120 received by the local planning authority on 26 April 2018 with Planning Engineering Layout/Levels Drawing Ref. FW1329 120A received by the local planning authority on 21 August 2018.

Condition 17: replace reference to Planning Engineering Layout/Levels Drawing Ref. FW1329 120 received by the local planning authority on 26 April 2018 with Planning Engineering Layout/Levels Drawing Ref. FW1329 120A received by the local planning authority on 21 August 2018.

Application for erection of 40 dwellings and associated infrastructure.

Notwithstanding the officer’s recommendation that planning permission be granted subject to conditions and a S106 agreement, some members felt that the application would have a detrimental impact on the highway and on highway safety, there was no requirement for the housing and it would have an adverse impact on residential amenity. It was moved by Councillor Wright and seconded by Councillor Bray that the committee be minded to refuse permission. Upon being put to the vote, the motion was CARRIED and it was

RESOLVED – the Planning Committee be minded to refuse the application and it be brought back to a future meeting.

Application for erection of three dwellings (outline – access only).

Application for erection of three dwellings (outline – access only).

It was moved by Councillor Sutton and seconded by Councillor Cook that permission be granted subject to the conditions outlined in the officer’s report. Upon being put to the vote, the motion was LOST.

Notwithstanding the officer’s recommendation that permission be granted, it was moved by Councillor Richards and seconded by Councillor Wright that the committee be minded to refuse permission due to the application site being outside of the settlement boundary. Upon being put to the vote, the motion was CARRIED and it was

RESOLVED – the Planning Committee be minded to refuse permission and the application be brought back to a future meeting.

Application for change of use from A1 to A3 (café) and erection of lean-to canopy (part retrospective).

Late items:

Consultations:-

No objection

Leicestershire County Council (Highways)

Appraisal:-

Impact upon highway safety

Leicestershire County Council (Highways) have advised they have no objection to the proposed use and development, and the impact of the proposal would not be deemed as severe in accordance with paragraph 109 of the NPPF.

Application for change of use from A1 to A3 (café) and erection of lean to canopy (part retrospective).

Having reached 9.30pm, it was moved by Councillor Witherford, seconded by Councillor Bray and

RESOLVED – the meeting be permitted to continue.

In returning to the planning application under debate, some members expressed concern about the traffic and dangerous parking in the vicinity of the café. It was moved by Councillor Hall and seconded by Councillor Wright that members be minded to refuse permission. Upon being put to the vote, the motion was CARRIED and it was

RESOLVED – the Planning Committee be minded to refuse permission and the application be brought back to a future meeting.

Application for change of use to a dog day care centre (retrospective).

Late items:

Consultations:-

A further representation has been received from a previously registered objector raising the following additional comments:-

1)    Having a maximum of 30 dogs generates a lot of noise and this is carried on the wind.

2)    There is a minimum of 4 properties that are within the outlined 250 metre circle on the plan.

3)    Noise and pollution will infringe on existing properties.

4)    Constant barking or whining of a dog will be very disturbing or annoying.

5)    In law, a barking dog can be a 'statutory noise nuisance' under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 so how can this be adhered to when there is a possibility of 30 dogs being at the property at any one time. It is going to be all day everyday so surely this would constitute nuisance.

Councillor Cope has provided the following statement to be considered by member of the Planning Committee:-

"I have been approached by both parties in respect of this application. I can see the relevance and importance of both arguments and appreciate the need to be equitable in my approach for the parties, considering that in general, the issue and persons are encompassed within Trinity ward. I would ask that members give due consideration to the noise issues articulated by neighbours and the environmental health reporting that attaches to matters. The dog centre appears to be a worthwhile and local enterprise that requires a suitable location and that needs a sensitive and sustainable approach.

I consider that what is required therefore is one of balance between the ability of the applicant to conduct the operation without compromising the environment of the immediate neighbours. In this respect policy DM10 applies generally, but I would ask members to consider the rights to "quiet enjoyment" of their homes.

It is difficult to satisfy the differing approaches in both parties contentions but it is arguable that the amount of dogs envisaged in the application, is it possible and reasonable that the barking liable, can be adequately controlled and mitigated by conditions applied? If not I would suggest that a "minded to refuse" be considered in order to further develop the position equitably."

Leicestershire County Council (Highways), have no objections to the proposed development.

Appraisal:-

Impact upon residential amenity

The additional comments have not raised any additional material planning considerations, which have not been addressed within the committee report. Matters concerning the impact upon residential amenity have been fully considered. The site has been subject site visits being carried out on 3 separate occasions for a 30 minute period to monitor the noise and no significant barking has been witnessed.

Impact upon Highway Safety

Leicestershire County Council (Highways) have considered the application, and given the proposal is in excess of 300 metres from the adopted highway and the proposal is unlikely to result in an increased number of trips in comparison to the existing permitted use, it could not be  ...  view the full agenda text for item 158.

Application for change of use to a dog day care centre (retrospective).

It was moved by Councillor Richards, seconded by Councillor Smith and

RESOLVED –

(i)            Permission be granted subject to the conditions outlined in the officer’s report’

(ii)           The Interim Head of Planning be granted delegated powers to determine the final detail of planning conditions.

Application for erection of seven dwellings, garages and associated drive (resubmission of application 17/00096/FUL).

Late items:

Introduction:-

An amended plan has been submitted for plots 7 and 8, which include the proposed single garages, to accord with the proposed layout plan. Given the minor nature of the amendments there was no need to carry out any further re-consultation.

Consultations:-

Councillor Kirby has objected to the proposal on the following grounds:-

1)    Surrounding properties have suffered flooding from sewerage in homes and gardens from poor drainage and concerned this development would add pressure on the system.

2)    Works to the drainage in the area last year, has still resulted in flooding issues to Island Close which is situated to the rear.

3)    Although Highways have not objected surely another 14 plus vehicles using this narrow entrance onto an already busy with often speeding traffic is going to be an issue.

4)    This is a piecemeal development to avoid any contributions having to be paid.

The residents object to the development on the following grounds:-

1)    As it would be out of character, would not have enough car parking, and would set a precedent.

2)    The provision for waste collection would be detrimental to No.82 by reason of noise, pest infestation and detrimental to amenity.

3)    Out of character in respect of density and tiny gardens. There are also 3 storey houses which are out of character.

4)    No sustainable drainage solution.

5)    All previous infill in the area has been limited to maximum 25 degrees to prevent upwards development.

6)    Noise pollution from the amount of traffic going down No.82.

7)    Garage for plot 7 would be inside the root protection area of the TPO Oak tree.

Appraisal:-

Other matters

Objections have been received the proposed development is a piecemeal development to avoid Section 106 contributions. To attract Section 106 contributions the development should be 10 or more dwellings. Approving this scheme in addition to the existing two dwellings which front onto Leicester Road, which have been carried out by the same applicant would equate to 9 dwellings, and therefore would not attract contributions having regard to the existing development.

Recommendation:-

Grant planning permission subject to:

That the Planning Manager, Development Management be given powers to determine the final detail of planning conditions.

Replace condition 2 with the following:

The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete     accordance with the details shown on the submitted plans: Site Location Plan, Site Plan and internal street scenes plan Dwg No.692.MP.09F received on the 9 May 2018, Plot 3 and 4 Dwg No.692.MP04 Rev A, Plot 5 Dwg No.692.MP.05, Plot 6 Dwg No.692.MP.06 and Plot 9 692.MP.08 received by the Local Planning Authority on the 14 December 2017 and Plot 7 and 8 Dwg No.692.MP.07 Rev B received by the Local Planning Authority on the 3 June 2018.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory impact of the development to accord with Policy DM1 of the adopted Site Allocations and Development  ...  view the full agenda text for item 159.

Application for erection of seven dwellings, garages and associated drive (resubmission of application 17/00096/FUL).

Following a decision of “minded to refuse” at a previous meeting, members felt that there had been no change since that debate and felt that the application should be refused due to the layout and density contrary to policy DM10. It was moved by Councillor Bray, seconded by Councillor Hodgkins and

RESOLVED – permission be refused due to being contrary to policy DM10 in terms of layout and density.

To report on progress relating to various appeals.

Members received an update in relation to progress on various appeals. It was moved by Councillor Crooks, seconded by Councillor Witherford and

RESOLVED – the report be noted.