Agenda and draft minutes

Planning Committee - Tuesday, 16 June 2020 5.30 pm

Venue: Virtual meeting - Zoom. View directions

Contact: Rebecca Owen  Democratic Services Manager Email: rebecca.owen@hinckley-bosworth.gov.uk

Link: View the meeting on YouTube here

Media

Items
No. Item

375.

Apologies and substitutions

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillors L Mullaney and Smith, with the following substitutions authorised in accordance with council procedure rule 10:

 

Councillor Bray for Councillor Mullaney

Councillor Collett for Councillor Smith.

376.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 122 KB

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 19 May 2020.

Minutes:

It was noted that there had been an omission in the minutes of the previous meeting in relation to application 19/01437/FUL as a member had requested that any member that had concerns about the conditions imposed on the granting of permission contact the Planning Manager within 48 hours. There was, however, no change to the motion or resolution in relation to that item.

 

It was moved by Councillor Bray, seconded by Councillor W Crooks and

 

RESOLVED – the minutes of the meeting be approved subject to the abovementioned amendment.

377.

Declarations of interest

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.

Minutes:

Councillor R Allen reported that he had been approached by the applicant in relation to application 19/01324/OUT and had offered factual information but had not formed a view.

 

Councillor Collett stated that, whilst he had made comments in relation to application 19/01324/OUT, he had come to the meeting with an open mind and would listen to the debate before forming a view.

 

Councillor J Crooks stated that she was ward councillor for application 20/00143/FUL but had come to the meeting with an open mind.

 

Councillor W Crooks stated that he had spoken against the previous application on land south of Cunnery Close, Barlestone.

378.

Decisions delegated at previous meeting

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

Minutes:

It was noted that all decisions delegated at the previous meeting had been issued.

379.

19/01324/OUT - Land At Wykin Lane, Stoke Golding pdf icon PDF 247 KB

Residential development of up to 55 dwellings (Outline - access only)

 

Late items:

 

Consultations:-

 

An additional letters of objections have been received raising the following additional matters:-

 

1)         In view of the of the significant amount of construction traffic that the site will generate should the scheme be granted, would LCC (Highways) be prepared to require the off site elements prior to commencement

2)         The development of the site will generate a lot of lorry traffic, increasing the traffic flow. A condition should be considered to require construction traffic to be parked on site.

 

Appraisal:-

 

Other matters

 

A condition is proposed to require a construction management plan to be submitted to address concerns raised in respect of the management of the site during the course of the development, to ensure that the development does not become a hazard to road users.

 

Recommendation:-

 

The recommendation remains unchanged from as set out on the agenda.

 

Additional condition:-

 

26.       No development shall commence on the site until such time as a construction traffic management plan, including as a minimum details of wheel cleansing facilities, vehicle parking facilities, and a timetable for their provision, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The construction of the development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details and timetable.

 

Reason: To reduce the possibility of deleterious material (mud, stones etc.) being deposited in the highway and becoming a hazard for road users, to ensure that construction traffic does not use unsatisfactory roads and lead to on-street parking problems in the area to accord with Policy DM17 of the adopted Site Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD (2016).

Minutes:

Residential development of up to 55 dwellings (outline – access only)

 

Notwithstanding the officer recommendation that permission be granted, some members felt that the proposal would result in an unacceptable increase in traffic movement which would be detrimental to highway safety and would cause substantial harm to the intrinsic value, beauty and open character of the village which was not outweighed by the benefit of the provision of 55 homes. It was moved by Councillor Collett and seconded by Councillor R Allen that permission be refused for these reasons.

 

Councillor Collett, supported by two further councillors, requested that voting on the motion be recorded. The vote was taken as follows:

 

Councillors C Allen, R Allen, Boothby, Collett, Furlong, Gibbens, Hollick and Roberts voted FOR the motion (8);

 

Councillors Bray, Cartwright, J Crooks, Findlay, Flemming, Lynch and Walker voted AGAINST the motion (7);

 

Councillor Cope and W Crooks abstained from voting.

 

The motion was therefore declared CARRIED and it was

 

RESOLVED – permission be refused for the following reasons:

 

(i)            The proposed development would lead to an unacceptable increase in traffic movements, including commuter and deliver vehicles, especially in the evening, along Wykin Lane which is a single track road. This would result in a severe impact upon the safety of vehicular traffic as well as cyclists and pedestrians and is therefore contrary to policy DM17 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD (2016);

 

(ii)           The application proposes development which would extend further to the south, beyond the historic settlement of Stoke Golding and into the countryside. This would be detrimental to the intrinsic value, beauty and open character of the countryside and the harm would therefore be demonstrable and the benefits of the proposal would not outweigh the harm identified. The development is therefore contrary to policy DM4 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD (2016).

380.

20/00102/OUT - Land South of Cunnery Close, Barlestone pdf icon PDF 345 KB

Residential development for up to 176 dwellings with public open space, landscaping and sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) (Outline - access only) resubmission of 19/01011/OUT

 

Late items:

 

Consultations:-

 

An additional letter of objection has been received, raising the following points:-

 

1)         Already granted 100 houses to be built when the schools, doctors and sewerage are already under pressure

2)         176 would not be possible without major works to the road infrastructure

3)         Development of this scale should be directed to urban areas where the infrastructure exists

4)         More than one access point should be provided

 

Appraisal

 

The additional objection does not raise any additional matters which have not already been addressed within the committee report.

 

Recommendation:-

 

The recommendation remains unchanged from as set out on the agenda.

Minutes:

Application for residential development for up to 176 dwellings with public open space, landscaping and sustainable drainage systems (outline – access only) resubmission of 19/01011/OUT

 

Notwithstanding the officer’s recommendation that permission be granted, some members felt that the proposed development would be out of keeping with the character of the area and that it would be detrimental to highway safety due to access being via an unclassified road with on street parking and junctions operating above capacity. It was moved by Councillor W Crooks and seconded by Councillor R Allen that permission be refused for these reasons.

 

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

 

RESOLVED – permission be refused for the following reasons:

 

(i)            The development would be out of keeping with the character of the area and therefore contrary to policies DM4 and DM10 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD (2016);

 

(ii)           Access to the site is via an unclassified road which has on-street parking and where the junctions operate above practical capacity. The development would therefore be detrimental to highway safety and contrary to policy DM17 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD (2016).

381.

20/00143/FUL - Land South of Bosworth Lane, Newbold Verdon pdf icon PDF 255 KB

Residential development of 116 dwellings

 

Late items:

 

Consultations:-

 

There is amendment to the report at 5.3.  There have been 11 letters of objection and no letters of support.  Additional objections have raised the following points:-

 

1)      The layout of the development has a large cluster of affordable units within a small area of the site undermining Policy H6 of the emerging NDP

2)      The site does not provide for housing that meet M(4) of Building Regulations, wheelchair access homes contrary to Policy H1 of the emerging NDP

3)      Erecting traffic lights will undermine the visual amenity of the area, leading to an urbanisation of the setting

4)      Money towards the doctors is not enough, especially if to be shared with Desford

 

Newbold Verdon Parish Council have provided the following additional comments:-

 

1)         Whilst there is a traffic flow measure in the form of traffic lights, a roundabout which was first proposed is believed to be a better solution to avoid urbanisation of the rural landscape

2)         Whilst technically there are 3 clusters of affordable housing, the fact is they are next to each other, which creates a large group of 37, which undermines Policy H6 of the Neighbour Plan

3)         There is a disproportionately small amount of money to be spent at the Doctors Surgery of Newbold Verdon which is shared with Desford. This amount is not sufficient.

4)         Can it be confirmed that Bloors will be setting aside funds to help pay for the adaption of dwellings for people who require help with mobility, to accord with Policy H5 within the neighbourhood plan

 

Updated consultation responses to be received from:- 

 

LCC (Highways)

 

Appraisal:-

 

Impact upon highway safety and transport

 

Since the publishing of the committee report, an updated response has been received from Leicestershire County Council (Highways) following an updated internal layout plan. As confirmed in the committee report there is no objection to the proposal, however further works were required to the internal layout to ensure the proposal would be constructed to an adoptable standard. The revised internal layout has been considered by Leicestershire County Council (Highways) who have confirmed that the proposed development would be suitable for adoption.

 

A roundabout was initially considered at the Junction with B585 Bosworth Lane / B585 Barlestone Road as outline in Policy H1 of the Newbold Verdon Neighbourhood Plan. However due to underground services which would add significant cost to the proposals and there is no technical evidence within the Neighbourhood Plan which justifies the need for the roundabout, the applicant has proposed a signalised junction. LCC (highways) have considered the proposed signalised junction, and have no objection. The proposed junction works as proposed on WYG Drawing No.101 Rev D, have been subject to a stage 1 Road Safety Audit and capacity study, and will be subject to detailed design stage through a S.278 agreement.

 

The scheme also proposes to reduce the speed limited in the area to 40mph, this would extend the existing 40mph on Barlestone Road north of  ...  view the full agenda text for item 381.

Minutes:

Application for residential development of 116 dwellings

 

It was moved by Councillor Findlay and seconded by Councillor Bray that permission be granted with the final detail of the conditions to be delegated to the Planning Manager in consultation with the chairman and ward councillors.

 

Councillor Cartwright proposed an amendment that any application to vary the section 106 agreement be brought back to the Planning Committee and Councillor J Crooks proposed that a condition be added in relation to management of the grassed areas. The mover and seconder of the original motion accepted these amendments.

 

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

 

RESOLVED

 

(i)            Permission be granted subject to:

 

a.    The completion within three months of this resolution of a S106 agreement to secure the following obligations:

·         NHS West Leicestershire CCG: £58,790.82

·         Education: £925,038.07

·         Civic amenity: £5,745.00

·         Libraries: £3,380.00

·         Affordable housing: 40%

·         Play and open space: £248,203.28

·         Off-site highway improvements to Bosworth Lane / Barlestone Road junction;

 

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

 

(ii)           The Planning Manager be granted delegated powers to determine the final detail of the planning conditions in consultation with the ward members;

 

(iii)          The Planning Manager be granted delegated powers to determine the terms of the S106 agreement including trigger points and claw back periods;

 

(iv)         Any application to vary the S106 contributions be brought back to the Planning Committee.

 

The meeting adjourned at 7.52pm and reconvened at 8.03pm.

382.

20/00020/FUL - Land Adjacent Lodge Farm, Wood Road, Nailstone pdf icon PDF 76 KB

Change of use of part of land for the siting of storage container units (Use Class B8) and a machinery and maintenance building, vehicular access, screen wall and screen planting

 

Late items:

 

Introduction:-

 

Since the publication of the committee report, the owner of the site, Benjamin Smith, has submitted a statutory declaration with the application in which he declares that should the application be successful he would not subsequently be making any further applications to the Council for planning permission for the property for use as a gypsy site. Mr Smith has also declared that he would on disposal of the property impose a restrictive covenant on any future owner prohibiting the use of the land for a gypsy site.

 

The statutory declaration was duly sworn before a solicitor but it does not comply in its format with the requirements of section 106 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and cannot therefore bind the land the subject of the planning application

 

The means by which a restriction can be placed on the land in these circumstances is through an agreement or a unilateral undertaking pursuant to section 106

 

To that end Mr Smith has submitted a unilateral undertaking pursuant to section 106 in which he covenants that he will not apply for planning permission for a caravan site provided that the application has been approved by the Council and if the application is successful he would impose a restrictive covenant on any future owner prohibiting its use as a caravan site

 

The Community Infrastructure Regulations 2010 are relevant here. Regulation 122 states that a planning obligation may only constitute a reason for granting planning permission for the development if the obligation is

 

a)            Necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms,

b)            Directly related to the development

c)            Fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development

 

All three tests must be met

 

It is clear that the undertaking is not necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms. It has no relevance to the acceptability or otherwise of the proposed development. Members are therefore advised that it should not be taken into account in the consideration of this application, which should be considered on its own merits

 

The applicant has been notified that this is the advice that will be given to committee in relation to the undertaking and the planning application.

 

It has also been drawn to the Council's attention that the committee report includes reference to Wood Road having a speed restriction of 60 mph. It is accepted that this speed limit has only recently been reduced to 50 mph. The speed survey submitted with the planning application detailed 85% speeds of 51mph in a northerly direction and 50mph in a southerly direction. It is confirmed that the evidence used in the highway section of the report and in the consultation response received from LCC as Highway Authority was based on vehicular speeds of between 50-51mph along Wood Road.

 

Recommendation:-

 

The recommendation in  ...  view the full agenda text for item 382.

Minutes:

Application for change of use of part of land for the siting of storage container units (use class B8) and a machinery and maintenance building, vehicular access, screen wall and screen planting

 

Notwithstanding the officer’s recommendation that permission be refused, some members felt that the application should be approved as it would bring the land back into use.

 

At this juncture, it having reached almost 8.30pm, it was moved by Councillor J Crooks, seconded by Councillor Findlay and

 

RESOLVED – the meeting be permitted to continue past 8.30pm.

 

It was moved by Councillor W Crooks and seconded by Councillor Bray that permission be granted with final detail of the conditions delegated to the Planning Manager in consultation with ward councillors but to include conditions relating to time restrictions, plans, restriction to storage containers and landscaping.

 

It was subsequently moved by Councillor Cartwright and seconded by Councillor Roberts that permission be refused for the reasons outlined in the officer’s report.

 

Being the first motion received, the vote was taken on Councillor W Crooks’ motion. The motion was CARRIED and it was therefore

 

RESOLVED – permission be granted with the conditions delegated to the Planning Manager in consultation with ward councillors.

 

 

383.

Appeals progress pdf icon PDF 45 KB

To report on progress relating to various appeals.

Minutes:

Consideration was given to a report which provided an update on appeals.

 

Councillor Bray left the meeting at 8.35pm.

 

It was moved by Councillor W Crooks, seconded by Councillor R Allen and

 

RESOLVED – the report be noted.