Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillors Hodgkins, Hollick, Ladkin and Witherford, with the following substitutions authorised in accordance with council procedure rules:

Councillor Bill for Councillor Hodgkins;

Councillor Bray for Councillor Witherford;

Councillor Cartwright for Councillor Hollick.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 25 April 2017.

It was moved by Councillor Sutton, seconded by Councillor Crooks and

RESOLVED – the minutes of the meeting held on 25 April 2017 be confirmed and signed by the chairman.

Councillors Bill, Bray and Crooks declared a non-pecuniary interest in application 17/00278/DEEM as members of Leicestershire County Council (the applicant).

Councillor Boothby wished it to be recorded that although he had submitted a statement in relation to application 16/01019/CLUE, he had not formed a view in relation to the application and had come to the meeting with an open mind.

Councillor Crooks declared a personal interest which might lead to bias in application 16/01019/CLUE as the applicant was a close associate. He stated he would leave the meeting during consideration of the application.

Councillor Mrs Cope declared a personal interest in application 17/00278/DEEM as she lived near to the site. Councillor Mr Cope, who was in attendance as ward councillor, also declared the same interest.

It was reported that all decisions delegated at the previous meeting had been issued.

Application for widened vehicular access and new driveway.

Supplementary information:

Consultations:-

A full 21 day re-consultation was carried out due to the applicant submitting an amended site location plan with a revised site boundary outlined in red.

Representation received with further comments raising additional points:

LCC Highways

1)    By allowing the two properties to be accessed independently, there will be a reduced chance of priority conflicts as the proposed northern track will provide two way capacity in addition to that of the existing track.

2)    Current visibility splays from the existing access is below current standards in a southerly direction. The proposal offers an improvement to visibility, which whilst still not to current standards (this is not considered possible) is a betterment.

Representations received but no further conditions or comments raising any additional points from the following:

LCC Ecology

No comment received from:

LCC Public Rights of Way

Ramblers Association

Peckleton Parish Council

One further letter of representation has been received from occupiers of one nearby property. The letter received raises the same concerns as the residents raised previously.

Appraisal:-

All letters of representations and concerns raised through the re-consultation and the initial consultation have been addressed in the officer’s report.

The additional comments from LCC Highways reiterate the assessment provided within the officer’s report that the creation of a two way capacity will lead to a reduction of priority conflict as vehicles no longer have to share the single existing track. LCC Highways further argue that though the visibility splay in a southerly direction will not be up to current standards. However, it will be an improvement on the southern visibility splay that is provided by the existing track. The additional comments from LCC Highways support the assessment within the officer’s report that the proposed widening of the access and new driveway would not have an adverse impact on highway safety in accordance with Policy DM17 of the SADMP.

Application for widened vehicular access and new driveway.

It was moved by Councillor Bray and seconded by Councillor Sutton that the application be approved.

Councillor Boothby felt that the proposal was dangerous and moved that it be refused. In the absence of a seconder, the motion fell.

It was subsequently

RESOLVED –

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

(ii)           The Head of Planning & Development be granted delegated powers to grant planning permission subject to no further letters of objection raising new and significant material planning objections being received prior to the expiry of the public consultation period ending on 28 June 2017.

Application for residential development of up to 23 dwellings (outline – access only)

Application for residential development of up to 23 dwellings (outline – access only).

Whilst generally in support of the application, concern was expressed that there was no contribution to health recommended as part of the S106 agreement. In response it was explained that this was because the health authority had not responded to the consultation with a request for a contribution. Councillor Cartwright, seconded by Councillor Sutton, moved that the decision to grant planning permission be delegated to the Head of Planning and Development following discussion with the health authority on requirement for a contribution to health. Upon being put to the vote, the motion was CARRIED and it was

RESOLVED – permission be granted subject to:

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

(ii)           Prior completion of a S106 agreement to secure the following obligations:

·         20% affordable housing units subject to a reduction for vacant building credit

·         Public play and open space facilities contribution of £1,427.74 per unit with a 25% reduction for each on bedroom unit

·         Primary school sector education facilities contribution of £66,786.54

·         A contribution towards healthcare services if agreed by the Head of Planning and Development following discussions with the relevant health authority;

With the Head of Planning and Development being granted delegated powers to determine the terms of the S106 agreement including trigger points and claw back periods.

Application for certificate of (existing) lawful development for the use of a mobile home/caravan as permanent living accommodation.

Application for certificate of (existing) lawful development for the use of a mobile home/caravan as permanent living accommodation.

Having declared a personal interest which might lead to bias on this item, Councillor Crooks left the meeting at 7.18pm.

Notwithstanding the officer’s recommendation that the certificate of (existing) lawful development be refused, members felt that there was sufficient evidence that the applicant had been living in the mobile home on the site for over ten years. It was moved by Councillor Boothby and seconded by Councillor Bray, that the certificate of lawful development be approved. Upon being put to the vote the motion was CARRIED and it was

RESOLVED – a lawful development certificate for an existing use of land at Thornton Stables, Thornton for use of a mobile home / caravan for residential purposes be granted.

Councillor Crooks returned to the meeting at 7.43pm.

Application for wood store to the rear of garage and reduction in the size of garage.

Supplementary information:

Consultations:-

An additional comment has been received stating that planning officers were not in favour of a two storey house on the site next door to the site and that was not as high as this garage.

Appraisal:-

On the basis of the additional comment each planning application is assessed on its own planning merits, with this particular application being assessed within the body of the main report.

In regard to the garage it is worth noting that the garage within this application is smaller than what was originally approved and therefore the impact on the surrounding area would be less if this application is granted than what would have been the case if the original garage were built.

Application for wood store to the rear of garage and reduction in the size of garage.

In presenting the application, the Head of Planning and Development informed members of an inaccuracy in paragraphs 2.1 and 8.7 of the report which referred to the measurements for the garages and wood store. The correct measurements were reported and it was noted that the application proposed a small increase in floor area rather than a reduction.

It was moved by Councillor Crooks, seconded by Councillor Bray and

RESOLVED – permission be granted subject to the conditions contained in the officer’s report, with the final detail of the conditions delegated to the Head of Planning and Development.

Application for construction of 3 detached dwellings.

Supplementary information:

Introduction:-

An additional consultation response has been received.

Consultations:-

Health and Safety Executive raise no objection.

Appraisal:-

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is a statutory consultee for developments within specified distances of major hazard sites/pipelines. The proposed development is within the consultation distance of a major hazard pipeline. HSE have not advised against the granting of planning permission on safety grounds but have recommended the local planning authority consult the pipeline operator prior to determination. Cadent Gas and National Grid were initially consulted on the application but no response has been received.

Recommendation:- No change.

Application for construction of three detached dwellings.

In introducing the report, it was highlighted that a recommendation to delegate the details of the planning conditions to the Head of Planning and Development had been omitted. It was moved by Councillor Sutton and seconded by Councillor Crooks that the officer’s recommendation, along with the additional recommendation be approved. Upon being put to the vote, the motion was CARRIED and it was

RESOLVED – permission be granted subject to:

(i)            The prior completion of a S106 agreement to secure a contribution to green space and play provision and maintenance of £7,388.99;

(ii)           The conditions contained in the officer’s report, with the final detail of the conditions delegated to the Head of Planning and Development.

Application for creation of an agricultural access.

Application for creation of an agricultural access.

In introducing the report, it was highlighted that paragraphs 1.2 and 10.2 which referred to the terms of the S106 agreement being delegated to the Head of Planning and Development should not refer to a S106 agreement but should read that the final details of the planning conditions be delegated to the Head of Planning and Development.

It was moved by Councillor Boothby that the application be refused on grounds of highway and public safety. In the absence of a seconder, the motion was not put.

It was moved by Councillor Sutton, seconded by Councillor Taylor and

RESOLVED – permission be granted subject to the conditions contained in the officer’s report, with the final detail of the conditions delegated to the Head of Planning and Development.

To update members on progress of appeals.

In considering the report, members highlighted that since the report had been dispatched, additional appeal decisions had been received that weren’t reflected within the report.

A member asked whether it would be possible for ward councillors to be informed of an appeal decision as soon as notification was received. In response it was explained that appeals were often withdrawn before being assigned a start date so never became appeals, but officers agreed that in sensitive cases the ward councillor could be informed sooner.

RESOLVED – the report be noted.

To update members on enforcement cases.

Members received an update on enforcement cases. Concern was expressed about costs accrued clearing land following illegal incursions and whether this could be claimed back.

A member thanked officers for their work in relation to two cases in Groby. Another member asked for an update on the Good Friday site. Officers were also asked to assist in relocating a business that needed to leave their current premises (paragraph 3.6 of the officer’s report refers) and asked that the case in relation to Trinity Vicarage Road be prioritised (paragraph 3.7 of the report refers).

RESOLVED – the report be noted.

To update members on major projects.

It was moved by Councillor Crooks, seconded by Councillor Taylor and

RESOLVED – the report be noted.