Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillors Gibbens and Roberts, with the substitution of Cllr Nichols for Cllr Gibbens authorised in accordance with council procedure rule 10.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 25 June 2019.

It was moved by Councillor Cartwright, seconded by Councillor Allen and

RESOLVED – the minutes of the meeting held on 25 June be confirmed and signed by the chairman.

Councillor C Allen and Councillor R Allen declared a personal interest in application 19/00611/HOU as members of Earl Shilton Town Council Planning Committee which had given consideration to this application.

Councillors Lynch and Walker declared a personal interest in application 19/00452/FUL as members of Burbage Parish Council Planning Committee which had given consideration to this application.

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

Two applications considered at the previous meeting had been “minded to refuse” and were on the agenda for this meeting. The decision on application 19/00413/FUL had been issued.

Application for change of use of part of existing retail unit to drinking establishment (Use Class A4).

Application for change of use of existing retail unit to drinking establishment (use class A4).

Councillor R Allen, seconded by Councillor Furlong, proposed that permission be granted subject to the conditions contained in the officer’s report. Upon being put to the vote, the motion was LOST.

Councillor Flemming, seconded by Councillor Walker, proposed that permission be refused. The meeting adjourned at 7.02pm for Councillors Flemming and Walker to prepare their reasons for refusal.

Upon reconvening at 7.08pm, Councillor Flemming, with the support of Councillor Walker, withdrew his motion.

Councillor Flemming, seconded by Councillor Walker proposed that the application be deferred to allow further consideration of the concerns around pedestrian safety. Upon being put to the vote, the motion was CARRIED and it was

RESOLVED – the application be deferred.

Application for residential development up to 80 dwellings with associated works (Outline - access only).

‘Late items:’

Introduction:-

Since the publication of the committee report, additional information has been received.

Consultations:-

A further letter has been received from Desford Parish Council and is summarised below:

•           The site at Land opposite Bosworth College, Leicester Lane, Desford has emerged as the preferred site in the parish during the Neighbourhood Plan process, using a sustainability appraisal of each site using the same objective criteria applied consistently to each site by our consultants.

•           It is anticipated that the Plan will go to referendum in later 2019/early 2020

A letter has been received from Pegasus Group which represents Davidsons Developments Ltd. They raise concerns as summarised below:

•           The statements made by Desford Parish Council could be extremely misleading as there are significant unresolved issues with the Neighbourhood Plan, especially in the way it has undertaken its site selection process. Davidsons has made representations to the Regulation 14 consultation highlighting significant inconsistencies in the site selection process and the way in which conclusions have been reached.

•           As such, they consider that the officer's report is correct to refer to the limited weight that can be afforded to the Neighbourhood Plan in the light of paragraph 48 of the NPPF especially with regard to "the extent to which there are unresolved objections."

Appraisal:-

The advice in paragraphs 8.9 - 8.11 of the Planning Committee Report dated 25 June 2019 remains unaltered in that the emerging Desford Neighbourhood Plan (DNP) is a material consideration in this decision making process and the weight to be given to it is set out in paragraph 48 of the Framework. Factors to be considered to the weight to be given to the DNP include the stage of preparation of the plan and the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies. Therefore, the weight to be given to the DNP at the present time is very limited due to the early stages of its development and the lack of evidence of community support for the preferred site at Barns Way.

Recommendation:-

The recommendation remains to grant planning permission subject to the details outlined in the original Planning Committee Report.

Application for residential development up to 80 dwellings with associated works (outline – access only).

Notwithstanding the officer recommendation that permission be granted, some members felt that the proposal was inappropriate. It was moved by Councillor Cartwright that permission be refused due to the impact on the intrinsic value and character of the countryside and harm to the countryside outweighing benefits of the development contrary to policy DM4; not being sensitive to the setting and therefore contrary to policy DM9 and being in a dangerous location in terms of highways and therefore contrary to policy DM17.

Following advice from officers, Councillor Cartwright withdrew policies DM9 and DM17 as reasons for refusal although wished it to be noted that he had concerns about highway safety.

Councillor Furlong proposed that the application be deferred pending making of the Desford Neighbourhood Development Plan. Following advice from officers, he withdrew his motion.

Councillor Furlong then seconded Councillor Cartwright’s motion for refusal.

Upon being put to the vote, the motion was CARRIED and it was

RESOLVED – permission be refused due to the impact on the intrinsic value and character of the countryside and the harm to the countryside outweighing benefits of the development contrary to policy DM4.

Application for residential development of up to 80 dwellings and associated works (Outline- access only).

‘Late items:’

Introduction:-

Since the publication of the committee report, additional information has been received.

Consultations:-

A letter has been received from Pegasus Group which represents Davidsons Developments Ltd. They raise concerns as summarised below:

• The statements made by Desford Parish Council could be extremely misleading as there are significant unresolved issues with the Neighbourhood Plan, especially in the way it has undertaken its site selection process. Davidsons has made representations to the Regulation 14 consultation highlighting significant inconsistencies in the site selection process and the way in which conclusions have been reached.

• As such, they consider that the officer's report is correct to refer to the limited weight that can be afforded to the Neighbourhood Plan in the light of paragraph 48 of the NPPF especially with regard to "the extent to which there are unresolved objections."

Appraisal:-

The advice in paragraphs 8.11 - 8.14 of the Planning Committee Report dated 25 June 2019 remains unaltered in that the emerging Desford Neighbourhood Plan (DNP) is a material consideration in this decision making process and the weight to be given to it is set out in paragraph 48 of the Framework. Factors to be considered to the weight to be given to the DNP include the stage of preparation of the plan and the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies. Therefore, the weight to be given to the DNP at the present time is very limited due to the early stages of its development and the lack of evidence of community support for this preferred site.

Recommendation:-

The recommendation remains to grant planning permission subject to the details outlined in the original Planning Committee Report.

Application for residential development of up to 80 dwellings and associated works (outline – access only).

It was moved by Councillor Cartwright that permission be granted subject to the conditions in the officer’s report, that it be noted that the committee endorsed the condition of delivery within 18 months and that any amendment to the S106 agreement of a minor nature be delegated to the Head of Planning in consultation with the ward councillor(s) and major amendments be brought back to the Planning Committee. The motion was not seconded at this stage.

It was moved by Councillor R Allen and seconded by Councillor Boothby that permission be refused due to being contrary to policy DM4.

Councillor Walker then seconded Councillor Cartwright’s motion to grant permission.

The chairman requested an adjournment to seek procedural advice and the meeting adjourned at 7.45pm and reconvened at 7.50pm.

As the first valid motion, Councillor Allen’s motion was put to the vote and subsequently LOST.

Councillor Cartwright’s motion was put to the vote and CARRIED and it was therefore

RESOLVED – permission be granted subject to:

(i)            The prior completion of a S106 agreement to secure the following obligations:

a.    £640,098 towards education

b.    £184,785 towards provision and maintenance of play and open space

c.    40% affordable housing provision on-site with a mix of 75% social or affordable rent and 25% intermediate tenure and a mix of 66% of the rented accommodation to be two-bedroomed houses and a remainder as a mix of one-bedroomed accommodation. The intermediate tenure should be a mix of two and three bedroomed houses

d.    £51,840 health care provision at Desford and Ratby surgeries

e.    Suitable highways mitigation including:

·         Travel packs at a cost of £52.85 per pack

·         Six month bus passes, two per dwelling at £360 per pass

·         Residential travel plan monitoring fee of £6,000

·         Travel plan co-ordinator

f.     £3,962 towards civic amenity at Barwell

g.    £2,410 for library services at Desford library

h.    Provision of footpath links across Barns Way

(ii)           The conditions contained in the officer’s report;

(iii)          The conditions relating to delivery within 18 months be endorsed;

(iv)         Any amendment to the S106 agreement of a minor nature be delegated to the Head of Planning in consultation with the relevant ward councillor(s) and of a major nature be brought back to Planning Committee.

Application for detached garage.

‘Late items:’

Consultations:-

An additional neighbour letter has been received raising the additional following comments:-

1) Details of how the applicant proposes to create a finished floor level to match the rear of the application site

2) Change of levels across the site could undermine neighbouring properties

3)  Noise and nuisance is experienced due to trading of vehicles at the property

Appraisal:-

Condition 3, requires that prior to commencement of the development, details of the existing and proposed ground levels of the site, and the proposed finished floor levels of the garage are to be submitted and agreed prior to any development being permitted, to ensure that the levels are maintained and acceptable.

Other matters

Any damage to neighbouring properties or any third party land, would be a civil matter, and would not be a material planning consideration which could be taken into account as part of this application, and would be perused under separate legislation.

This application has been submitted as a householder application, and therefore the use is contained to be incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling and for no other purposes. Any unauthorised change of use would be subject to further investigation.

Recommendation:-

The recommendation remains to grant planning permission subject to the details outlined in the original Planning Committee Report.

Application for a detached garage.

Whilst generally in support of the application, concern was expressed about the size of the garage. It was moved by Councillor Allen and seconded by Councillor Cartwright that a condition be added to restrict the use to that ancillary to the domestic use of the home and not for commercial purposes.

Upon being put to the vote, the motion was CARRIED and it was

RESOLVED – permission be granted subject to the conditions contained in the officer’s report and an additional condition to prevent commercial use.

To report on progress relating to various appeals.

Members gave consideration to a report on progress in relation to various appeals. It was moved by Councillor Crooks, seconded by Councillor Cartwright and

RESOLVED – the report be noted.