Issue - meetings

Application for residential development of up to 93 dwellings, public open space, landscaping and SuDS (Outline – access only) (cross boundary application with Charnwood BC)

Late items received after publication of agenda:

Introduction:-

This application was first heard at Planning Committee on 14 December 2021. The recommendation was to approve the application, but the application was deferred to re-consult with LCC Highways and Environmental Health on the impact upon neighbouring residential amenity for car headlights leaving the proposed access. Committee Members also requested that legal advice was sought on the application.

For clarity the following sections within the December Committee report remain unchanged:

·           Heritage

·           Impact upon trees

·           Impact upon highway safety

·           Drainage

·           Impact upon public rights of way

·           Ecology

Consultations:-

LCC Highways comments remain unchanged from that previously reported within the December committee report and they have no further comments in regard to the re-consultation.

HBBC Environmental Health’s comments are within the appraisal section of this late item.

Charnwood Borough Council have formally responded to the consultation on this application and stated that they did not respond within the formal consultation period as they did not wish to pre-determine the application. They also stated that the application within their area now has a resolution to grant.

An additional comment has been received stating that the secondary school contribution has been reported as being directed to the wrong school – this was updated within 14 December Committee Late Item.

Legal Advice Summary:-

HBBC have sought legal advice on the following:

a)        The duty to co-operate in the Localism Act 2011

b)        The soundness of Charnwood Borough Council’s committee decision to grant outline planning permission

c)         The consideration of the application as a whole and its impact upon HBBC and the Markfield Neighbourhood Plan

The advice sought advised the following in respect of the above matters:

a)        Section 110 of the Localism Action 2011 deals with plans and strategies and inserts a new section (33A) into the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. This provision contains the duty to co-operate which details the activities in which authorities should co-operate. The activities specified within this provision are related to the plan-making process. Section 33A of the 2004 Act imposes no duty to co-operate in respect of the determination of planning applications (whether or not those applications are ‘cross-boundary’), and no such duty was imposed upon Charnwood Borough Council (CBC) in this case.

b)        There is no obvious fundamental errors of procedure or law that would warrant a legal challenge. It is considered that all the correct material considerations were considered when reading the committee report and extras report together.

c)         In so far as the application submitted for HBBC’s consideration it is deemed that the assessment of the scheme against policies falls to the respective Local Plan or Neighbourhood Plan covering that area. The description of development relates to housing and therefore the application should be assessed as a housing scheme. However, it falls to the Charnwood Local Plan to assess the development  ...  view the full agenda text for item 332

Application for residential development of up to 93 dwellings, public open space, landscaping and SuDS (outline – access only) (cross boundary application with Charnwood Borough Council).

Attention was drawn to the amended recommendation in the late items.

An objector and a parish council representative spoke on this application.

It was moved by Councillor Furlong, seconded by Councillor Bray and unanimously

RESOLVED – permission be refused for the following reason:

The development, due to its location in the open countryside, would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area and have an urbanising impact on the site. The proposal would have a significant adverse effect upon the intrinsic character and the beauty of the countryside. The proposal would therefore be contrary to policy DM4 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Development Plan Policies (2016), policy M1 of the Markfield Neighbourhood Plan (2021) and this harm would significantly outweigh the benefits when considered against the framework as a whole.