Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Mr Bannister, Mr Crooks, Mrs Hall and Mr O’Shea with the following substitutions authorised in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 4.1:

Mr Hulbert for Mrs Hall

Mr Inman for Mr Bannister

Mr Lynch for Mr Crooks

Mrs Smith for Mr O’Shea.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 10 January 2012.

On the motion of Mrs Witherford, seconded by Mr Hulbert it was

RESOLVED – the minutes of the meeting held on 10 January 2012 be confirmed and signed by the Chairman.

To receive verbally from Members any disclosures which they are required to make in accordance with the Council’s Code of Conduct or in pursuance of Section 106 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992. This is in addition to the need for such disclosure to be also given when the relevant matter is reached on the agenda.

Mr Mayne declared a personal interest in application 11/00882/FUL.

The Deputy Chief Executive (Community Direction) to report progress on any decisions delegated at the previous meeting.

The Head of Planning reported on the following decisions which had been delegated at the previous meeting:

(i)         11/00901/EXT – it was reported that the decision would be issued by 13 February 2012 as set out in the resolution;

(ii)        11/00856/REM – it was reported that the decision had been issued on 11 January 2012;

(iii)       11/00822/FUL – it was reported that the decision had been issued on 12 January 2012.

Mr Allen arrived at 6.34pm.

Schedule of planning applications and related maps attached.

The Committee considered a schedule of planning applications, together with a list of late items, and the recommendations of the Deputy Chief Executive (Community Direction).

(a)        11/00977/FUL – Extensions and alterations to dwelling, 7 Kerry Close, Barwell (Mr Jim Bennett)

It was reported that this application had been withdrawn from the agenda.

(b)        11/00368/FUL – Erection of 84 dwellings incorporating access, public open space, balancing pond, pumping station and associated earthworks, landscaping, car parking and other ancillary works, Land adjacent to Greyhound Stadium, Nutts Lane, Hinckley (Taylor Wimpey UK Limited)

Notwithstanding the officer’s recommendation that the application be permitted subject to a Section 106 Agreement and conditions, Members felt that the development still posed a risk with regard to pedestrian and highway safety. It was MOVED by Miss Taylor and SECONDED by Mr Bill that the application be REFUSED on the grounds of pedestrian and highway safety.

The Head of Planning requested that voting on this motion be recorded. The vote was taken as follows:

Mr Bill, Mr Gould, Mrs Hodgkins, Mr Hulbert, Mr Inman, Mr Lynch, Mr Mayne, Miss Taylor and Ms Witherford voted FOR the MOTION (9);

Mr Allen, Mr Batty, Mr Boothby, Mrs Chastney, Mr Moore, Mrs Smith, Mr Sutton and Mr Ward abstained from voting.

The MOTION was therefore declared CARRIED. It was

RESOLVED – the application be refused for the following reasons:

In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the impact of the development would lead to an increase in pedestrian movements which with the lack of provision of an appropriate safe pedestrian route and crossing, together with the narrow width of the canal bridge and the lack of a proper footway across the bridge would be to the detriment of pedestrian safety. As such the proposal is contrary to Saved Policy T5 of the Hinckley and Bosworth Local Plan and to central government guidance contained within Planning Policy Guidance 13 (PPG13) Transport.

(c)        11/00823/FUL – Erection of 52 dwellings with garages and associated infrastructure, Land south of 26 to 28 Britannia Road, Burbage (Mr John Deakin)

Notwithstanding the officer’s recommendation that the application be permitted subject to a Section 106 Agreement and conditions, some Members felt that the housing numbers proposed on the site, which formed the basis of the Appeal Inspector’s decision in 2011, were no longer necessary. They also felt that the application site was outside of the settlement boundary. It was MOVED by Mr Moore and SECONDED by Mr Boothby that the application be REFUSED on these grounds.

The Head of Planning requested that voting on this motion be recorded. The vote was taken as follows:

Mr Bill, Mr Boothby, Mr Inman, Mr Lynch, Mr Mayne, Mr Moore, Mrs Smith and Ms Witherford voted FOR the MOTION (8);

Mr Allen, Mr Batty, Mrs Chastney, Mr Gould, Mr Sutton and Mr Ward voted AGAINST the MOTION (6);

Mrs Hodgkins, Mr Hulbert and Miss Taylor abstained from voting.

The MOTION was therefore  ...  view the full minutes text for item 376.

Report of the Deputy Chief Executive (Community Direction) attached. The appendices to this report are circulated separately.

Members received a report which advised them of the relevant policies within the development plan for use in the determination of planning applications. It was

RESOLVED – the report be noted.

Report of the Deputy Chief Executive (Community Direction) attached.

Members were informed of the consultation on the proposed submission draft of the Blaby District Council Core Strategy and associated officer comments.  Members expressed concern that the areas of green wedge in both districts should continue to join, and in response it was explained that most districts had signed up to a green wedge review joint methodology which helped to encourage this and officers had recommended that Blaby District also sign up.

Further concern was expressed regarding the impact of Blaby District Council’s Gypsy and Traveller site allocations policy on Groby and Ratby, the M69 junction near to Sapcote, and developments near to this borough’s planned SUE.

It was moved by Mr Mayne, seconded by Miss Taylor and

RESOLVED – the above comments be noted and proposed response be supported.

Report of the Monitoring Officer attached.

Members were informed of the implications of Section 25 of the Localism Act 2011 relating to pre-determination which came into force on 15 January 2012.  In summary it was explained that one would not be considered to have a closed mind just because they had previously commented on a matter and indicated their view. It was, however, noted that in previous case law this ‘common sense’ approach had usually been adopted, and also that it would be very hard to prove that someone had a closed mind.

RESOLVED – the report and provisions be noted.

Report of the Deputy Chief Executive (Community Direction) attached.

A summary of appeals lodged and determined since the last meeting was submitted. It was

RESOLVED – the report be noted.

Report of the Deputy Chief Executive (Community Direction) attached.

A schedule was submitted to the Committee indicating the stages that various appeals against planning decisions had reached. It was

RESOLVED – the report be noted.

Report of the Deputy Chief Executive (Community Direction) attached.

Details of delegated decisions issued were presented to Members. On the motion of Miss Taylor, seconded by Mr Bill, it was

RESOLVED – the report be noted.

Whilst not a matter of urgency, at this juncture Members raised their concerns regarding the Highways Authority and asked if representatives of the County Council Highways department could be invited to the Planning Committee to respond to Members’ concerns.

Reference was also made to the request at the previous meeting that a letter be sent to Leicestershire County Council regarding weight restrictions on roads near to the Sketchley Brook site. In response it was noted that a letter had been sent on 11 January but as yet no response had been received.