Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillors Bannister and Chastney with the following substitutions authorised in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 4.1:

Councillor Cartwright for Councillor Bannister;

Councillor Smith for Councillor Chastney.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 26 June 2012.

It was stated that the resolution under minute 78 (b) (11/00988/OUT – rear of 169 Main Street, Stanton Under Bardon) should read:

“RESOLVED – application 11/00988/OUT be approved subject to the execution of an Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the following conditions:”…

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

RESOLVED – the minutes of the meeting held on 26 June 2012 be confirmed subject to the abovementioned amendment 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.

No interests were declared at this stage.

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

The Development Control Manager reported on the following decisions which had been delegated at the previous meeting:

(a)        12/00341/FUL – it was reported that the S106 agreement was waiting to be signed.

(b)        12/00402/FUL – it was reported that the decision had been issued on 29 June 2012.

(c)        12/00219/OUT – it was reported that the Unilateral Undertaking was awaiting signature.

(d)        12/00229/FUL – it was reported that the decision had been issued on 17 July 2012.

Schedule of applications attached, along with relevant policies and maps.

The Committee considered a schedule of planning applications, together with a list of late items and the recommendations of the Head of Planning.

(a)        11/00634/COU – Change of use of land to the siting of eight mobile homes for gypsies, The Paddock, Watling Street, Higham on the Hill – Mr J Winter

            It was reported that this application had been withdrawn from the agenda.

(b)        12/00250/FUL – Erection of 91 dwellings with garages, parking spaces, open space, landscaping and associated infrastructure, Land east of Groby Village Cemetery, Groby Road, Ratby – Bloor Homes Limited, East Midlands

Whilst in support of the recommendation that the application be refused, Members felt that in addition to the recommended reason for refusal the development was not sustainable as it failed to meet the requirements of Core Strategy Policy 8 due to the lack of GP facilities and lack of future education provision.

Councillor O’Shea, seconded by Councillor Batty, proposed that the abovementioned reasons for refusal be added. The Development Control Manager requested that voting on this amendment be recorded. The vote was taken as follows:

Councillors Allen, Batty, Boothby, Cartwright, Crooks, Hodgkins, Lynch, Moore, O’Shea, Smith, Sutton and Ward voted FOR the amendment (12);

Councillors A Hall, Hulbert, Mayne, Taylor and Witherford voted AGAINST the amendment (5).

The amendment was therefore declared CARRIED. It was then

RESOLVED – the application be refused for the reasons contained in the officer’s report and the following additional reasons:

In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the proposed development is contrary to the objectives of Policy 8 of the Core Strategy which seeks to support the local services and the improvement of GP facilities in Ratby and Groby to provide for the increase in population, and contrary to Paragraph 72 of the NPPF which seeks to ensure that a sufficient choice of school places is available to meet the needs of existing and new communities. Paragraph 72 of the NPPF requires local planning authorities to give great weight to the need to create, expand or alter schools. The existing schools and health care facilities have insufficient capacity to expand and the local planning authority is not satisfied that the developer contributions can mitigate against the impact of development. Therefore the proposals are not considered to be sustainable in accordance with the principles of the NPPF and are considered contrary to Policy 8 of the Core Strategy and Paragraph 72 of the NPPF.

Councillor O’Shea left the meeting at 7.25pm.

(c)        12/00127/FUL – Erection of 50 dwellings, 6 apartments and 4 retail units with associated access, service infrastructure and open space, land south of The Maynard, Station Road, Bagworth – Persimmon Homes North Midlands & Omnivate Ltd

On the motion of Councillor Boothby, seconded by Councillor Batty, it was

RESOLVED – subject to an Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972 or receipt of an acceptable Unilateral Undertaking under S106  ...  view the full minutes text for item 99.

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

Members received an update on appeals lodged and determined since the last meeting. It was reported that two new appeals had been received, one had been determined, and the application determined by Rugby Borough Council for Stretton Croft had been sent to the Secretary of State.

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

RESOLVED – the report be noted.

Councillor Boothby left the meeting at 8.58pm.

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

Members were informed of the progress of various appeals. It was moved by Councillor Crooks, seconded by Councillor Hulbert and

RESOLVED – the report be noted.

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

Members were informed of delegated decisions issued since the last meeting. It was

RESOLVED – the report be noted.