Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillors C Allen, Boothby, Furlong, Lynch and Smith, with the following substitutions authorised in accordance with council procedure rule 10:

Councillor Morrell for Councillor Allen

Councillor P Williams for Councillor Lynch.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 14 February 2023.

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

RESOLVED – the minutes of the meeting held on 14 February be confirmed and signed by the chair.

Councillors Flemming and Walker stated they sat on Burbage Parish Council’s Planning Committee during consideration of applications 22/01072/FUL and 22/00636/REM but did not take part in the discussion or vote and came to this meeting with an open mind.

Councillor Allen stated he had sat on Earl Shilton Town Council’s Planning Committee during consideration of application 21/01390/FUL but said he hadn’t expressed an opinion and did not participate in the discussion or vote.

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

It was reported that application 22/00648/OUT was subject to a section 106 agreement, application 22/00499/FUL was on the agenda for this meeting and the remaining decisions had been issued.

Outline application for residential dwellings of up to 120 dwellings, all matters reserved, except for access

Late items received after preparation of main agenda:

Consultations:-

Representation received from County Councillor Bedford in objection of the application and raising the following points:

·                Unsuitable location close to primary school

·                Access is via estate roads and congested junctions

·                Contrary to Desford NP.

Outline application for residential dwellings of up to 120 dwellings, all matters reserved, except for access.

An objector, the agent and the ward councillor spoke on this application.

Notwithstanding the officer’s recommendation that permission be granted, members felt that the proposal would have an adverse impact on neighbouring properties and on the amenities of the village and would be detrimental to highway safety due to narrow roads and existing on street parking and was therefore contrary to policies DM10 and DM17 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD.

It was moved by Councillor J Crooks, seconded by Councillor W Crooks and unanimously

RESOLVED – permission be refused as the proposal for up to 120 dwellings would be detrimental to highway safety due to the narrow residential road that provides the access to the site. As a result, and in addition to the existing on street parking issues, the location is considered to be unsuitable for this amount of development and therefore its residual cumulative impact on the local road network would be severe. All traffic from the proposal would pass a primary school and this additional traffic on residential roads would negatively impact upon neighbouring residential amenity as a result of the significant increase in traffic, noise and general disturbance. The scheme is therefore contrary to policies DM10 and DM17 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD 2016, policy T1 of the Desford Neighbourhood Plan and the requirements of paragraph 111 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2021.

Application for the erection of 21 residential holiday lodges and a management building with associated vehicular accesses, parking, surface water balancing and landscaping

Late items received after preparation of main agenda:

Consultations:-

Further comments have been received from LCC Highways summarising the below;

The Local Highway Authority Advice is that, in its view, the impacts of the development on highway safety would not be unacceptable, and when considered cumulatively with other developments, the impacts on the road network would not be severe. Based on the information provided, the development therefore does not conflict with paragraph 111 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2021), subject to the conditions and/or planning obligations outlined in this report.

Conditions:

Condition 1 – Construction traffic management plan

Condition 2 – Access road reconstruction and management

Condition 3 – Access arrangements

Condition 4 – Vehicular visibility splays

Condition 5 – Parking and turning facilities

Condition 6 – Existing gate relocation

Condition 7 – Existing boundary treatment

Condition 8 – Trees and Shrubs

Application for erection of 21 residential holiday lodges and a management building with associated vehicular accesses, parking, surface water balancing and landscaping.

An objector and the agent spoke on this application.

It was moved by Councillor Allen that permission be refused due to the detriment to highway safety. In the absence of a seconder, the motion was not put.

It was moved by Councillor Bray that the Head of Planning be granted authority to approve the application following consultation with the ward councillors to agree conditions to secure delivery of the road and control hardcore on the site. Councillor Allen seconded the proposal and upon being put to the vote, the motion was CARRIED and it was

RESOLVED – the Head of Planning be granted authority to grant permission following consultation with ward councillors to agree conditions.

Application for the construction of stables and change of use of land to equestrian use (re-submission of 22/00092/FUL)

Late items received after preparation of main agenda:

Consultations:-

Following Committee in February the revised plans were submitted just before the agenda was published. Since then the County Ecologist has confirmed that the proposed mitigation strategy is acceptable and that there is plenty of scope for biodiversity enhancements to be undertaken which can be secured via condition. As a minimum this should include bird boxes or swallow cups on the new stables and native species planting and as a preference a grassland buffer around the site.

The agent has confirmed that the applicant is Mr Colin Cately, whose partner and daughter own the horses that are to be stabled.

Four additional representations objecting to the development have been submitted from neighbours.

It is pointed out that while the area of the storeroom has been reduced by 22% the volume of the building has only been reduced by between 8 and 9% and that the building remains significantly larger than would normally be needed to keep two horses and includes a completely unnecessary store area. It is also claimed that the stables will be seen from Desford and from Archers Lane.

In response it is pointed out that, as those members who attended the site visit will have seen the site is surrounded by higher ground on three sides – to the north, east and south. It is not considered that the stables would be seen from Desford and views from Archers Lane, which runs both to the north and west of the site and is no closer than 500 metres of the site at its closest point, will either be dominated by the dwellings of Hill Close which sits on considerably higher ground or are obscured by trees, hedgerows or buildings as the lane runs from north to west of the site.

With regard to the size of the buildings it is pointed out that the size of the individual stables is set out by the British Horse Society and that the proposed stables meet those standards and so reducing them in size would, depending on the size of the horse, conflict with that advice. Separate areas for the storage of hay and feed are commonly included in applications for stables as is a separate area for the storage of tack and associated equipment. It is incorrect therefore to describe the storeroom as unnecessary.

Officers have studied all similar applications for the construction of stables that were received in 2022. Of these four were approved and two refused. The two refused were for buildings significantly larger than the current proposal. All four that were approved were for more stables than are proposed by the current application with two being of similar proportions and two being substantially bigger.

Reference is made in two of the objections to the Committee’s suggestion that a more natural materials is used. One objection refers to  ...  view the full agenda text for item 332.

Application for construction of stables and change of use of land to equestrian use (resubmission of 22/00092/FUL).

In presenting the report, and amendment to condition 5 was recommended to restrict use of the site and building for the applicant’s family’s horses only and for ancillary storage and for no events for commercial or industrial purposes, including as livery stables.

An objector, the agent and the ward councillor spoke on this application.

It was moved by Councillor Allen and seconded by Councillor Hodgkins that permission be granted in accordance with the officer’s recommendation. Councillor Bray proposed an amendment that the Head of Planning be granted delegated powers to grant permission following negotiations to reduce the size of the tractor storage. Councillor Allen and Councillor Hodgkins accepted the amendment and added a request that alternative roofing material be explored.

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

RESOLVED –

(i)            Authority be delegated to the Head of Planning to grant permission following discussions with the applicant with regard to the size of the tractor storage and roofing materials and subject to:

a.    the conditions contained in the officer’s report and late items;

b.    an amendment to condition 5 to restrict use of the site and building for the applicant’s family’s horses only and for ancillary storage and for no events for commercial or industrial purposes, including as livery stables.

(ii)          The Head of Planning be granted authority to determine the final wording of the planning conditions.

Application for a single storey extension and erection of three glamping pods

Application for single storey extension and erection of three glamping pods.

It was moved by Councillor Allen, seconded by Councillor J Crooks and

RESOLVED –

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

(ii)          The Head of Planning be granted authority to determine the final wording of the planning conditions.

Application for part change of use from dwelling to medical services (Class E (e) – dental surgery)

Application for part change of use from dwelling to medical services (class E(e) – dental surgery).

An objector and the applicant spoke on this application.

Notwithstanding the officer’s recommendation that permission be granted, some members felt that the application would have a detrimental impact on residential amenity, including the impact of traffic and parking on neighbours. It was moved by Councillor Bray and seconded by Councillor Walker that permission be refused for these reasons. Upon being put to the vote, the motion was CARRIED and it was

RESOLVED – permission be refused due to the impact on neighbouring amenity contrary to policy DM10 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD.

The meeting adjourned at 8.30pm and reconvened at 8.35pm.

Hybrid planning application comprising: outline application (all matters reserved except for site access from the A5) for the demolition of existing structures and the erection of distribution and industrial buildings (use class B2 and B8) including ancillary offices and associated earthworks, infrastructure and landscaping; a full application for the development of a distribution building (use class B8), including ancillary offices with associated access, hard standing, parking, earthworks and landscaping. The proposals include improvements to increase the height clearance of the existing railway bridge on the A5 Watling Street. A cross boundary application with Rugby Borough Council and Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council (EIA development)

Late items received after preparation of main agenda:

Recommendation:-

Proposed amendments to Planning conditions:

Condition 1:

Development hereby permitted shall be carried out in complete accordance with the details shown on the following submitted plans and documents received by the local planning authority:

Site Location Plan 18-144 PP-01 Rev L

Site Plan – as existing 18-144 PP-02 Rev L

Site Plan – as proposed 18-144 PP-03 Rev L

Unit 1 – Site Plan – as proposed 18-144 PP-04 Rev M

Unit 1 – Overall Building Plan – as proposed 18-144 PP-05 Rev K

Unit 1 – Elevations & Section – as proposed 18-144 PP-06 Rev K

Unit 1 – Roof Plan – as proposed 18-144 PP-08 Rev L

Boundary Treatment & Cycle Shelter Details – as proposed 18-144 PP-09 Rev K

Gatehouse Details – as proposed 18-144 PP-10 Rev K

Illustrative Masterplan (excluding Unit 1) 18-144 PP-03 Rev L

Landscape Concept Proposal 01 Rev H

Landscape Concept Proposal – Spine Road 02 Rev C

Detailed Planting Plan Sheet 1 of 2 03 Rev E

Detailed Planting Plan Sheet 2 of 2 04 Rev A

Landscape Concept Sections 05 Rev A

Detailed Planting Plan Spine Road 06 Rev A

Illustrative Landscape and Green Infrastructure Plan 8815-L-30 Rev M

Accessibility Plan ADC1839-DR-009 Rev P2

Development Parameters Plan 8815-L-08 Rev V

Accessibility Plan ADC1839-DR-009 Rev P2

Design and Access Statement Rev E

Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy (ref 19-7712-FRA Issue 9)

Condition 2:

Prior to, or concurrently with, the submission of the first of the reserved matters application(s), a Site-Wide Phasing Plan shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. The Site Phasing Plan shall include the areas of the application site located within HBBC’s administrative boundary, as well as information relating to which phase(s) such parts of the application site fall within. Any subsequent applications for approval of reserved matters which result in amendments to the phasing shall include an updated Site Wide Phasing Plan submitted for approval by the Local Planning Authority.

Condition 5:

Delete

Condition 6:

Prior to the commencement of any works in any phase within HBBC administrative area, a Demolition and Construction Environmental Management Plan shall be submitted in writing to, and approved by, the Local Planning Authority. This shall take account of the ‘Environmental Statement September 2021’ Chapter 8.6 Mitigation.

Condition 7:

a) Development shall not be occupied until a  ...  view the full agenda text for item 335.

Hybrid application comprising outline application (all matters reserved except for site access from the A5) for the demolition of existing structures and the erection of distribution and industrial buildings (use class B2 and B8) including ancillary offices and associated earthworks, infrastructure and landscaping; a full application for the development of a distribution building (use class B8), and landscaping. The proposals include improvements to increase the height clearance of the existing railway bridge on the A5 Watling Street. A cross boundary application with Rugby Borough Council and Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council (EIA development).

The agent and the ward councillor spoke on this application.

Councillor Allen proposed that permission be granted in accordance with the officer’s recommendation. In the absence of a seconder, the motion was not put.

Members expressed concern about whether lowering the road under the railway bridge was possible. It was moved by Councillor Bray and seconded by Councillor Williams that the application be deferred to invite representatives from Leicestershire County Council and Warwickshire County Council as highways authorities and from Highways England to attend a meeting with the committee members to confirm that the work was possible and that any work undertaken wouldn’t jeopardise further improvements to the A5. Upon being put to the vote, the motion was CARRIED and it was

RESOLVED –

(i)            the application be deferred for further information to be provided with regards to impact upon Hinckley and Nutts Lane specifically, the gradient of works to the A5 under the railway bridge;

(ii)          Representatives of Leicestershire County Council, Warwickshire County Council and Highways England be invited to a meeting with members of the Planning Committee.

Application for approval of reserved matters (appearance, landscaping, layout and scale) for the erection of 135 dwellings pursuant to outline planning permission 19/01405/OUT (appeal ref APP/KR420/W/20/3265143)

Late items received after preparation of main agenda:

Recommendation:-

Change of recommendation:

The following documents were received from the applicant on 28^th February 2023

·                Biodiversity metric 3.1

·                Biodiversity net gain assessment

·                Ecological mitigation and enhancement strategy

·                Grassland turf translocation methodology and management plan

Due to no response being received from LCC Ecology following receipt of the following documents the recommendation is proposed to be amended to:

Reserved Matters be approved subject to:

·                Planning conditions outlined at the end of this report

·                Power to determine the final details of the conditions to be delegated to the Head of Planning

·                Delegated authority to the Head of Planning to approve the application following receipt of final comments from LCC Ecology raising no objections

Amendment to condition 1:

The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out otherwise than in complete accordance with the submitted application drawings as detailed on the Drawing Submitted Schedule 20.03.23

Noise statement:

The applicant has provided the following statement with regards to noise (Officer note, this is covered by outline conditions):

Previously there was a 24hr noise survey that was part of the original outline application. We have now undertaken a 7-day acoustic survey for the site which is more robust and is a truer reflection of the current noise baseline. The survey has highlighted a requirement to provide a 4m acoustic fence along the southern boundary adjacent to the M69, this is the same principal as the adjoining Redrow development on the opposite side of Lutterworth Road. This will be installed prior to any occupation.

Application for approval of reserved matters (appearance, landscaping, layout and scale) for the erection of 135 dwellings pursuant to outline planning permission 19/01405/OUT (appeal ref APP/KR420/W/20/3265143).

The applicant spoke on this application.

Having reached 9.30pm, at this juncture Councillor Bray, seconded by Councillor J Crooks, proposed that the meeting be extended to allow for conclusion of the scheduled business. Upon being put to the vote, the motion was CARRIED and it was

RESOLVED – the meeting be extended beyond 9.30pm to allow for conclusion of the business on the agenda.

Returning to consideration of the application, it was moved by Councillor Allen, seconded by Councillor Bray and

RESOLVED –

(i)            Authority be delegated to the Head of Planning to approve the application following receipt of final comments from LCC Ecology raising no objections, subject to the conditions contained in the officer’s report and late items;

(ii)          The Head of Planning be granted powers to determine the final details of the conditions.

Application for conversion, extension and alteration of former kennels and stables to form seven dwellings, erection of replacement dwelling, erection of garages and formation of new vehicular access

Late items received after preparation of main agenda:

Introduction:-

The main report was written a week before the Examiners Report on the Witherley Neighbourhood Plan was published.  Along with this the Examiner stated the modifications necessary for the plan to proceed to referendum. At the time of writing the main report the Neighbourhood Plan could only be given limited to moderate weight and the report reflects this.

The Examiners Report has now been published however and the Examiner has recommended that Policy’s H1 (Residential Site Allocations) and H2 (Settlement Boundary) are deleted, but on page 39 of his report, the Examiner discusses Policy H3 and no modifications are required to that policy. So Policy H3 (Housing Mix) will remain the same.

Policy H3: Housing Mix - New housing development proposals should provide a mixture of housing types specifically to meet identified local needs in the Plan area as evidenced in the Parish Housing Needs Report (2018); HBBC Housing Needs Study (2019); Midlands Rural Housing Report (2016) and the 2017 HEDNA or more recent documents updating these reports.

Dwellings of 3 bedrooms or fewer and single storey accommodation suitable for older people will be supported where in accordance with other policies.

Affordable housing is required on development proposals of more than 10 dwellings or more than 0.5ha in size and should be designed and delivered to be indistinguishable from market housing and should be distributed and integrated evenly through the development as a whole. Provision of affordable housing for people with a local connection to the Parish is supported.

Once a neighbourhood plan has been independently examined, and a decision statement is issued by the local planning authority outlining their intention to hold a neighbourhood plan referendum, it must be taken into account and can be given significant weight when determining a planning application, in so far as the plan is material to the application. Should the Neighbourhood Plan proceed to local referendum and achieve more than half of votes cast in favour, then the Neighbourhood Plan will form part of the Development Plan and be given full weight in the determination of planning applications and decisions on planning applications in the plan area unless the Borough Council subsequently decide the Neighbourhood Plan should not be ‘made’.

In his review the Examiner states that ‘Core Strategy Policy 12 relating to rural villages applies to Witherley, and Core Strategy Policy 13 applies to Fenny Drayton and Ratcliffe Culey. Those policies refer to Core Strategy Policies 15, 16 and 17. Policy H3 is in general conformity with those strategic policies. Paragraph 62 of the NPPF (which should be read in the context of paragraph 61) states the size, type and tenure of housing needed for different groups in the community should be assessed and reflected in planning policies. The Examiner is satisfied that  ...  view the full agenda text for item 337.

Application for conversion, extension and alteration of former kennels and stables to form seven dwellings, erection of replacement dwelling, erection of garages and formation of new vehicular access.

The agent and a representative of the parish council spoke on this application.

It was moved by Councillor Gibbens and seconded by Councillor Bray that permission be granted with authority delegated to the Head of Planning to incorporate conditions relating to retaining heritage assets such as iron fencing. Upon being put to the vote, the motion was CARRIED and it was

RESOLVED –

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

(ii)          The Head of Planning be granted powers to determine the final detail of planning conditions, including conditions to retain the heritage assets.

Outline planning application for the erection of up to 125 dwellings (including 40% affordable housing) with public open space, landscaping and sustainable drainage system (SuDS) and a vehicular access point (all matters reserved except for means of access)

Outline planning application for the erection of up to 125 dwellings (including 40% affordable housing) with public open space, landscaping and sustainable drainage system (SuDS) and a vehicular access point (all matters reserved except for means of access.

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

RESOLVED –

(i)            It be confirmed that, had it been able, the committee would have refused the application;

(ii)          The Head of Planning be granted powers to determine the final detail of the reasons for refusal with regard to contesting the appeal.

To report on progress relating to various appeals.

Consideration was given to an update on appeals. Members requested that the monthly list of delegated decisions was resumed.

The report was noted.