Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillor Taylor with the substitution of Councillor Bray authorised in accordance with council procedure rule 10.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 7 November 2017.

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

RESOLVED – the minutes of the meeting held on 7 November 2017 be confirmed and signed by the chairman.

Councillors Bray, Cope, Crooks, Hodgkins, Hollick and Witherford declared a personal interest in application 17/01035/REM as the agent was a colleague.

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

It was noted that all decisions had been issued with the exception of 15/01221/HYB, for which the negotiations on the S106 agreement were still ongoing.

Application for erection of 60 dwellings including engineering infill operation and

associated works.

Late items:

Introduction:-

Additional consultation response has been received.

Additional information is provided on the long term maintenance of the reinstated watercourse and the compensatory flood storage area.

Consultations:-

Leicestershire County Council (Developer Contributions) – concern has been raised that contributions requested by the county council are not being sought. Clarity is requested as to how a contribution can be sought for off-site sports provision and maintenance but not education and how each of the infrastructure requirements was prioritised for a contribution.

Appraisal:-

Developer contributions and viability

Paragraph 8.63 of the officer’s committee report identifies that in order to be compliant with Policy 19 of the Core Strategy, a contribution of £62,115.94 should be sought. In the subsequent section of the report, it is clarified at paragraph 8.83 that the proposed development would fail to provide the off-site infrastructure contributions sought; this is inclusive of the off-site sports provision. As the scheme is unviable and there would be no off-site S106 contributions, there has been no need for the prioritising of contributions sought by the requesting parties.

The officer’s committee report at paragraph 8.64 identifies that the significant public benefit of the delivery of 60 affordable outweighs the harm caused by not providing contributions towards the requested infrastructure requirements. This assessment and conclusion is still considered accurate and therefore there is no change to the recommendation.

Maintenance of the drainage system

Following the committee site visit, clarity is sought on the long term maintenance of the reinstated watercourse and compensatory flood storage area. It is not possible for the Borough Council to calculate an accurate contribution towards the long term maintenance of the sustainable urban drainage features on-site which would allow them to request a right to adopt the space following the works. Therefore, the Borough Council will not seek to adopt the feature and an associated maintenance contribution is not sought. In addition condition 20 of the officer’s committee report requires the submission of details in relation to the long term maintenance of the sustainable surface water drainage system. The submitted details would need to be approved by the local planning authority and implemented in perpetuity by a management company appointed, and paid for, by the applicants/owners. However, to enable easier enforcement of the approved maintenance scheme, it is considered reasonable and necessary to secure the maintenance scheme through a S106 agreement.

Recommendation:- Grant planning permission subject to

•       The prior completion of a S106 agreement to secure the following obligations:

·         100% affordable housing

·         Play and open space plan and maintenance scheme

·         Sustainable surface water drainage system maintenance scheme

•       Planning conditions outlined at the end of the officer’s committee report.

Application for erection of 60 dwellings including engineering infill operation and associated works.

Members raised a number of concerns about the potential impact of the site. These included loss of open space, its non-viability, overdevelopment, loss of amenity, noise/vibration, unsustainability and several members indicated that they would propose refusal of the application.

In response, officers emphasised the following:

·         That the site had an extant outline planning permission for residential development together with the infilling of the pit which had been granted on appeal in December 2014 and which was a significant material planning consideration which established the loss of the open space, along with the filling of the pit and redevelopment of the site for residential

·         That Leicestershire County Council had refused the appealed application in 2014 and had had costs awarded against it for not pursuing one of the reasons for refusal in relation to flood risk

·         That the main considerations relating to the development of the site, namely drainage and flooding, highway safety and traffic movement, nature conservation interests and amenity (as a result of the proposed engineering works) had been taken into account by the Inspector at the 2014 appeal who considered that, subject to appropriate safeguards and mitigation measures which would be secured by conditions, the development would not unacceptably worsen the living conditions of neighbours or future residents and it would not adversely affect nature conservation interests

·         That these same considerations applied in relation to the current application and the same conditions imposed by the Inspector would be re-imposed leading to the same conclusion on the impact of the development

·         That, specifically and significantly, no objections to the current proposal had been received (subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions) from the following statutory and other consultees:

o   Environment Agency

o   Leicestershire County Council (drainage)

o   Leicestershire County Council (highways)

o   Leicestershire County Council (Ecology)

o   HBBC Environmental Health (pollution)

o   HBBC Environmental Health (drainage)

·         That the proposal was for the provision of 100% affordable housing which itself was a significant policy consideration for the committee

·         That there were no substantive and material planning grounds for refusing the application and that a refusal would be likely to be lost on appeal with a consequent award of costs against the council.

Notwithstanding this advice from officers, refusal of the application was proposed by Councillor Kirby and seconded by Councillor Hodgkins. The committee was advised that, in accordance with paragraph 2.12 of the Planning Committee procedure rules, any such motion shall be deemed to be a motion of “minded to refuse” and that consideration of the application would be deferred to the next meeting of the committee.

Councillor Witherford, along with two other councillors, requested that voting on this motion be recorded.

The vote was taken as follows:

Councillors Boothby, Bray, Cook, Cope, Crooks, Hodgkins, Hollick, Kirby, Roberts, Smith, Witherford and Wright voted FOR the motion (12);

Councillors Ladkin, Surtees, Sutton and Ward voted AGAINST the motion (4).

The motion was therefore declared CARRIED and it was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 241.

Application for approval of reserved matters (layout, scale, appearance and

landscaping) of outline planning permission 16/00902/OUT for the

erection of one dwelling.

Application for approval of reserved matters (layout, scale, appearance and landscaping) of outline planning permission 16/00902/OUT for the erection of one dwelling.

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

RESOLVED – permission be granted subject to the conditions contained in the officer’s report.

Application for erection of timber post and wire fence adjacent to Kennel Lane

(resubmission of 17/00310/FUL).

Late items:

Introduction:-

Additional information has been provided by the applicant in way of the reason for the application including a statutory declaration from the occupier of No. 8 Hunters Walk. The following which has been provided from the applicant is to address concerns raised by Witherley Parish Council.

Concern that this application could serve as a precedent for future loss of public amenity space – The application site is a highways ditch owned by residents of Hunters Walk. For over 25 years it was proactively managed by the residents to maintain a thick impenetrable barrier. The flat roadside grass verge at the top of the ditch slope has been left clear to allow for a future footpath.

Security concerns within the immediate area as part of the rationale for the application - A Statutory Declaration from No.8 Hunters Walk has been submitted which confirms that it is the professional opinion of the local police beat officer that such a hedge will help the security issues related to this area. The Police Crime Map website shows that in 2017 to date there have been 2 reported incidents in Hunters Walk and 15 incidents in the wider area. This part of the village contains approximately 25% of the village houses and has experienced 54% of the reported crime in the village this year. 

Highway concerns which have formed part of the rationale for the application - The Parish Council have suggested that the average speed along this stretch of Kennel Lane is 26 mph and then in subsequent evidence indicated that in fact the recorded 85%-percentile speeds were significantly over the 30-mph speed limit. Published Government traffic research shows that reducing the perceived width of verge by vegetation, as proposed in this application, would reduce traffic speeds.

Concerns regarding future maintenance of ditch and resultant impact on its role as storm run soak away area - LCC Highways and HBBC Drainage have not raised this as a problem. Responsibility for maintaining the ditch will revert to the landowners.

Encroachment on public space for the benefit of private landowners - The land is not a public space. For over 25 years it has been covered by a thick belt of trees and shrubs on the ditch bank. It is in private ownership and the proposed ditch regrowth will improve the security of this area of the village.

Highways status is not a land ownership status. Having planning permission for the parcel of land allows the applicant to then formally apply for the land to be removed from highways status using Section 247 of the Town and Country Planning Act. The land would then become non-highways status but would still continue to receive surface water runoff from the highway.

Consultations:-

One consultation response has been received from Leicestershire County Council Highways stating the following:

-       the residual cumulative impacts of development are not considered severe in  ...  view the full agenda text for item 243.

Application for erection of a timber post and wire fence adjacent to Kennel Lane (resubmission of 17/00310/FUL).

It was noted that members had been minded to refuse this application at the meeting on 10 October 2017 and it was therefore before the committee tonight for a decision.

Councillor Wright left the meeting at 8.03pm.

Notwithstanding the officer’s recommendation that permission be granted, members felt that the fence was detrimental to visual amenity due to the materials used and that it would enclose an area that was currently open. It was moved by Councillor Cook and seconded by Councillor Crooks that the application be refused for this reason. Upon being put to the vote, the motion was CARRIED and it was

RESOLVED – permission be refused due to being detrimental to visual amenity.

Councillor Hall left the meeting at 8.10pm.

Application for approval of reserved matters (appearance, landscaping, layout,

scale) of outline planning permission 14/00982/OUT for one dwelling.

Application for approval of reserved matters (appearance, landscaping, layout, scale) of outline planning permission 14/00982/OUT for one dwelling.

On the motion of Councillor Sutton, seconded by Councillor Crooks, it was

RESOLVED – permission be granted subject to the conditions contained in the officer’s report.

To report on progress relating to various appeals.

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

RESOLVED – the report be noted.