Agenda and minutes

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

Councillor Collett for Councillor Smith

Councillor Cook for Councillor C Allen

Councillor Ladkin for Councillor R Allen.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 16 June 2020.

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

RESOLVED – the minutes of the meeting held on 16 June 2020 be confirmed and signed by the chairman.

Councillor Collett declared a non-pecuniary interest in application 19/01256/FUL as he had submitted comments but stated he had come to the meeting with an open mind.

Councillors Flemming, Lynch and Walker declared non-pecuniary interests in application 19/01112/OUT as members of Burbage Parish Council but confirmed that they had come to the meeting with an open mind.

Councillor Hollick declared a non-pecuniary interest in application 19/01060/S106 as a member of Groby Parish Council but confirmed that he had come to the meeting with an open mind.

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

It was noted that all decisions delegated at the previous meeting had been issued with the exception of 20/00143/FUL which was subject to a S106 agreement.

Application for construction of a 62 hectare solar park to include the installation of solar photovoltaic panels to generate electricity with access from Wharf Lane and Stapleton Lane and associated substations, inverters, perimeter stock fencing, access tracks, CCTV and landscaping

Late items:

Consultations:-

Final comments have been received from LCC Highways who do not object to the proposal subject to conditions.

Final comments have been received from LCC Archaeology who object to the proposal

Appraisal:-

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 109 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), subject to the conditions and/or planning obligations outlined in this report.

The Applicant has submitted PFA Consulting drawing number E197/03 Rev C, which details a revised site access. The submitted tracking drawing details that vehicles will be able to exit the site without crossing the centreline. The Applicant has proposed to reduce the radii of the access following construction at the request of the LPA. While the reduction in access width is not considered essential to the LHA, this reduction is accepted and the LHA would have no objection to the access radii being reduced as detailed once construction is complete.

The Applicant has advised they will manage HGVs on Fenn Lanes by way of radio communication on the basis that outbound HGV's from the site would be held on-site and only released from the site when inbound HGV's to the site are clear of the Fenn Lanes/ A444 junction and Sutton Wharf Bridge. The Applicant will include these measures within a Construction Traffic Management Plan, which the LHA would advise is secured by condition.

The final comments from LCC Highways therefore confirm that the additional information satisfactorily addresses the concerns raised and there are no outstanding Highways matters that require addressing.

LCC Archaeology refer back to previous detailed comments as, broadly speaking, their views and concerns regarding the adverse impacts upon the setting and special character of the registered battlefield remain unchanged.   LCC Arch. retains their outstanding concerns regarding the harm that the development would have on the rural and historic setting of the battlefield.  LCC Arch. refer to the revised and detailed comments issued by Historic England, and are fully supportive of their position in objecting to this scheme.

In addition to the above expressed concern, LCC Arch. also wish to reiterate their concerns regarding the absence of proper assessment of the below-ground archaeological potential of the site. While in response to previous comments, the applicant has commissioned a geophysical survey of the application area, LCC Arch. do not consider this to provide an adequate assessment of the archaeological potential that the site holds.

Having reviewed the submitted report on geophysical survey, it has been noted that the work has been effective in  ...  view the full agenda text for item 400.

Application for construction of a 62 hectare solar park to include the installation of solar photovoltaic panels to generate electricity with access from Wharf Lane and Stapleton Lane and associated substations, inverters, perimeter stock fencing, access tracks, CCTV and landscaping.

It was moved by Councillor Collett, seconded by Councillor Findlay and

RESOLVED – permission be refused for the reasons contained in the officer’s report and late items.

Application for residential development (outline – access only)

Late items:

Consultations:-

The Council is in receipt of two further letters of objection following the publication of the committee agenda making the following points:

1)           The committee extract explains why the access should be granted planning permission on the basis that the future residential development is sustainable and not in breach of local policy

2)           We were strongly advised as neighbours to comment on access only not the potential development

3)           Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council is adopting a dual standards approach by clearly demonstrating that non-submitted, non-considered application considerations could be taken in to account as material considerations

4)           Only 20% of the document is dedicated to the access itself. It almost looks like that the potential development has already been considered as good to go

5)           The Committee Extract document has been uploaded onto the planning portal which appears to be giving a green light for the whole development to proceed instead of just the access proposal

6)           Very little notice has been given for the Committee preparation which takes an entirely new spin and vector now. There is absolutely no chance to defend residents grounds within 3 minutes against this in what appears to be a foregone decision

7)           This change of emphasis on the application cannot and should not be considered at all without further public consultation

8)           A satisfactory explanation should be provided as to why the approach to the application has been significantly altered and application 19/01112/OUT is still going to be considered.

Appraisal:-

The proposal has a development description of “Residential development (outline- access only)” this description appears on the publication of the planning application, including the site notice and neighbour letters that were sent. Therefore, publication of this application was carried out correctly and in accordance with statutory requirements.

Outline planning applications are designed to establish the principle of development, in this instance residential development of the site. However, the applicant has the option to reserve some matters for consideration later. With this particular application the applicant reserved all matters for consideration other than access. At this stage consideration is given to the access of the site, as well as the principle of residential development. The content of the Committee Report covers the relevant material planning considerations as part of the assessment of the application.

No changes to the proposal have been made without further publicity of the application with the exception of an indicative layout plan. However as this plan is indicative it is not for approval as part of this application as the layout of the development is still a matter for consideration. This plan makes no material change to the considerations of the described proposed development.   

Notification of the planning committee has been carried out in the same way via post or in the majority of cases via email to the address from which the objection was sent. Notification that the application would be reported to committee has therefore been  ...  view the full agenda text for item 401.

Application for residential development (outline – access only).

It was moved by Councillor Ladkin and seconded by Councillor Boothby that permission be granted subject to the conditions contained in the officer’s report. Upon being put to the vote, the motion was LOST.

It was then moved by Councillor Roberts and seconded by Councillor Findlay that permission be refused. This motion was then withdrawn.

It was moved by Councillor Findlay and seconded by Councillor Roberts that the application be deferred for a site visit. Upon being put to the vote, the motion was CARRIED and it was

RESOLVED – the item be deferred for a site visit.

Application for deed of variation to amend the section 106 agreement relating to 15/00767/OUT to provide an all affordable housing scheme comprising of 10 affordable units and 20 shared ownership and removal of all other obligations

Late items:

Consultations:-

Groby Parish Council have provided additional comments, and object to the removal of S.106 payments. Groby Parish Council state that contributions are particularly important in this type of case, as the most probable occupants of the houses are likely to be in need of the facilities supported by S.106 contributions, such as school, health services, libraries, public transport and play and open space.

Recommendation:-

The recommendation is unchanged from that which is printed on the agenda.

Application for a deed of variation to amend the S106 agreement relating to 15/00767/OUT to provide an all affordable housing scheme comprising 10 affordable units and 20 shared ownership and removal of all other obligations.

Notwithstanding the officer’s recommendation that the modification to the S106 agreement be approved, some members felt that the loss of any contribution was unacceptable. It was moved by Councillor Cartwright and seconded by Councillor Hollick that the proposed modification be refused. Upon being put to the vote, the motion was CARRIED and it was

RESOLVED – the modification to the S106 agreement be refused.

Application for erection of six dwellings and alterations to the existing public house

Application for erection of six dwellings and alterations to the existing public house.

Notwithstanding the officer’s recommendation that permission be granted, some members felt that the removal of the requirement for traffic calming measures was unacceptable. It was moved by Councillor W Crooks and seconded by Councillor Cartwright that permission be refused. Following further consideration, Councillor Cartwright withdrew as seconder and the motion was not put to the vote.

Following expressions of concern about Leicestershire County Council having amended their requirement for contributions for traffic calming measures since approval of the application in August 2019, it was requested that a stern letter be sent to the county council via Councillor Bill as Executive Member for Planning regarding their inconsistent approach to highways matters on planning applications and the item be deferred to allow for this and for further discussion with the county council. It was moved by Councillor J Crooks and seconded by Councillor Findlay that the application be deferred. Upon being put to the vote, the motion was CARRIED and it was

RESOLVED – the application be deferred.

Councillor Ladkin left the meeting at this juncture.

To report on progress relating to various appeals

Members received an update on appeals.

RESOLVED – the report be noted.