Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillors Cope, Lynch, Mullaney and Webber-Jones, with the following substitutions authorised in accordance with council procedure rule 10:

Councillor Glenville for Councillor Cope

Councillor Williams for Councillor Mullaney

Councillor Hodgkins for Councillor Webber-Jones.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 20 May 2025.

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

RESOLVED – the minutes of the meeting held on 20 May be confirmed as a correct record.

Councillor Cook declared a registrable interest in application 22/00882/OUT as she lived near the site.

Councillor Bray wished it to be acknowledged  in relation to application 24/00560/HYB that the council owned some land on the site, although this didn’t constitute a disclosable interest for any members.

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

Members were updated on decisions delegated at the previous meeting.

Hybrid application for full permission for residential development of up to 135 dwellings along with landscaping, public open space, drainage infrastructure and new access following demolition of two existing dwellings; and outline permission (all matters reserved except for point of acces) for 0.6ha of employment uses (classes E(g)(i, ii and iii), B2 and B8).

Hybrid planning application seeking full planning permission for residential development of 135 dwellings along with landscaping, public open space, drainage infrastructure and new access following demolition of two existing dwellings; and outline planning permission (all matters reserved except for point of access) for 0.6ha of employment uses (classes E (g) (i, ii and iii), B2 and B8.

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

Whilst in support of the recommendation, the need to reflect policy BD1 of the Market Bosworth Neighbourhood Plan was highlighted. It was moved by Councillor Cook and seconded by Councillor Bray that permission be granted with clarification in the S106 agreement of the cascade arrangements for affordable housing which would be allocated in the first instance to those with a local connection to Market Bosworth, then to neighbouring parishes, and finally to those with a local connection to the borough. Upon being put to the vote, the motion was CARRIED and it was

RESOLVED –

(i)            Permission be granted subject to:

a.    The conditions contained in the officer’s report;

b.    The completion of a S106 agreement to secure the required financial contributions and other measures detailed in the report, with the S106 agreement outlining the correct cascade arrangements for allocation of affordable housing in accordance with policy BD1 of the Market Bosworth Neighbourhood Plan.

(ii)          The Head of Planning be granted powers to determine the final detail of the conditions;

(iii)         The Head of Planning be granted powers to determine the detailed terms of the S106 agreement.

Outline application for the erection of up to 100 dwellings (including 40% affordable housing) with public open space, landscaping, sustainable drainage system, a vehicular access point and the demolition of one residential dwelling. All matters reserved except for means of access (re-submission of 22/00167/OUT).

Outline application for the erection of up to 100 dwellings (including 40% affordable housing) with public open space, landscaping, sustainable drainage system, a vehicular access point and the demolition of one residential dwelling. All matters reserved except for means of access.

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

Whilst in support of the recommendation that permission be refused, it was moved by Councillor Bray and seconded by Councillor Cook that permission be refused and officers go back to Leicestershire County Council as highways authority to discuss addition of a reason to refusal in relation to highway safety, with final agreement of reasons for refusal delegated to the Head of Planning following the discussions. Upon being put to the vote, the motion was CARRIED and it was

RESOLVED –

(i)            Permission be refused for the reasons set out in the officer’s report;

(ii)          Officers be instructed to discuss with the highways authority the addition of a reason for refusal in relation to highway safety;

(iii)         Agreement of the final reasons for refusal be delegated to the Head of Planning following the abovementioned discussions.

Application for construction of a 72-bed residential care home (C2) and associated solar panels, access, parking and landscaping (cross-boundary application with Charnwood Borough Council).

Application for construction of a 72-bed residential care home (C2) and associated solar panels, access, parking and landscaping (cross boundary application with Charnwood Borough Council).

An objector and a ward councillor spoke on this application.

Following discussion, officers agreed to raise members’ concerns with the development located in Charnwood Borough with the case officer at Charnwood Borough Council.

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

RESOLVED –

(i)            Permission be granted subject to:

a.    The conditions contained in the officer’s report;

b.    Approval of application P/23/2197/2 by Charnwood Borough Council.

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

Having declared an interest in the following item, Councillor Cook left the meeting at 7.37pm.

The meeting adjourned at 7:37pm to allow members the opportunity to read the late items in relation to the following application and reconvened at 7.44pm.

Outline application (all matters reserved) for extension of MIRA Technology Park to comprise employment use (class B2); associated office and service uses (class E g); storage (class B8); new spine road; car parking; landscaping and enabling works (cross boundary application with North Warwickshire Borough Council).

Late items received after preparation of main agenda:

Following publication of the Planning Committee report ahead of the meeting of 22 April, the item was withdrawn from the Planning Committee agenda. This was because the Council was sent a copy of a pre-action protocol letter ahead of a potential judicial review from a solicitor acting on behalf of an objector (Extra Room Self Storage (ERSS)) to North Warwickshire Borough Council (NWBC).

This letter received by North Warwickshire Borough Council seeks to challenge the decision taken by NWBC to approve the application at their February Planning Committee meeting, subject to completion of a S106 agreement. This letter suggests the following to NWBC:

·         That it failed to take into account the necessity of the proposed Drayton Lane works to amend this junction to be ‘left in, left out’ only and whether the potential restrictions on the objectors business were unreasonable when taking into account para 200 of the NPPF;

·         That it failed to take into account the view of statutory consultees in assessing alternative options for the Drayton Lane junction proposed by the objector; and

·         It acted irrationally and misled Members in deciding not to seek statutory consultee review of alternative options proposed by the objector

Following receipt of this letter, the item was withdrawn from the HBBC Planning Committee of 22 April and NWBC have considered the letter, assessed the legal implications and have then taken the matter back to their Planning Committee on 9 June for consideration, given that the decision notice had not been issued.

At its meeting of 9 June, NWBC resolved to grant permission subject to a S106 agreement.

In consideration of the item at their meeting on 9 June, NWBC Officers confirmed that, in their view, the proposed works to Drayton Lane / A5 junction would not be unreasonable restrictions and that they will not inhibit the ERSS business through being unduly onerous.

With regards to alternative proposals for the junction being provided by the objector and any statutory consultee review of these alternative proposals, these proposals are not submitted by the applicant and do not form part of the application to be determined. There is no requirement for alternative proposals submitted by 3^rd parties, in this case an objector, to be assessed by statutory consultees, in this case including National Highways and two Local Highway Authorities. The statutory consultees have been engaged in this application since its submission in 2022 and are satisfied that the proposals put forward by the applicant as part of the application are satisfactory.

The applicant has submitted a final proposal for all off site highway works, and this has been accepted by the relevant statutory consultees as being acceptable in highway terms. Planning Committee  ...  view the full agenda text for item 41.

Outline application (all matters reserved) for extension of MIRA Technology Park to comprise employment use (Class B2), associated office and service uses (Class E g); storage (class B8), new spine road, car parking, landscaping and enabling works (cross boundary application with North Warwickshire Borough Council).

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

Whilst in support of the wider development, concern was expressed about the highway works which were the only aspect of the application within the boundary of Hinckley & Bosworth Borough. It was moved by Councillor Bray and seconded by Councillor C Gibbens that the application be deferred for a site visit. During discussion upon the motion, it was suggested that further discussions could take place in relation to potential alternative highway solutions. Upon being put to the vote, the motion was CARRIED and it was

RESOLVED – the application be deferred for a site visit.

To report on progress relating to various appeals.

Members were updated on progress in relation to various appeals.