Agenda and minutes

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

Councillor Lay for Councillor Furlong

Councillor Morrell for Councillor R Allen.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 30 March 2021.

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

RESOLVED – the minutes of the meeting held on 30 March 2021 be confirmed as a correct record.

Councillor Flemming, Lynch and Walker declared that they sat on the Burbage Parish Council Planning Committee when application 20/01193/FUL was discussed but came to the meeting with an open mind.

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

It was reported that all decisions made at the previous meeting had been issued, with the exception of 20/00470/FUL which had been deferred and was on the agenda for this meeting.

Application for change of use from retail to vehicle autocentre (B2). External alterations to remove loading dock area and ramp, associated amendments to west elevation and roof, insertion of new glazed shopfront, entrance and roller shutter doors, reconfiguration of car park to facilitate proposed LCC road improvements to Hawley Road and Rugby Road, consisting of alterations to car parking area and layout, and bin storage.

This application has been withdrawn.

This application had been withdrawn.

Application for residential development up to 63 dwellings with associated access, landscaping, open space and drainage infrastructure (Outline - access to be considered)

Late items received after preparation of agenda:

Introduction:-

Following the publication of the committee report the following additional correspondence has been received from a neighbouring business:

    1)        Correspondence from an occupier of one of the Industrial units to the South of Station Road has been received stating that the Council has failed to consider them  in the context of the applicant for the development being  an agent of change under paragraph 182 of the NPPF

Following the publication of the committee report comments from 6 additional residents have been received and raise the following:

    1)        Whether an objection letter received does state that “ The allocated site at Station Field would be compatible with JJ Churchill remaining in its current location, given distances, screening and orientation of the noise-generating activity” (number 17) or is this a typo and the text should read as “The allocated site at Station Field would be incompatible”

    2)        The amount of development proposed in Market Bosworth

    3)        Whilst the section on Transport Sustainability in the report does state that there is a requirement to upgrade the existing bus stops, the contribution required has not been included in the obligations required to be secured as part of a Section 106 Agreement

    4)        Speeding traffic along Station Road makes walking along the footpath scary and frightening, it’s like walking alongside a motorway when walking to the water park

    5)        Contrary to the neighbourhood plan

    6)        The fields here are a welcome break to another wise built up frontage

    7)        Concerns with consultation

    8)        Road congestion if Station Fields went ahead directly opposite it

    9)        Neighbourhood plan has outlined the need for housing with allocated sites

 10)        Objections from local people are being ignored

 11)        Market town is slowly turning into one big housing estate.

 12)        Impacts upon wildlife and the environment

 13)        No green representatives on the councils panel

Further correspondence has also been received from Market Bosworth Parish Council and the Bosworth Vision Planning Group raising the following issues

1)         The Neighbourhood Plan is not out of date

2)         The views of local people have not been taken into account

3)         The character of the area and the harm has not been properly considered

4)         Impact on local businesses

5)         No holistic oversight of speculative development

6)         Opens the door to further development

7)         Insufficient capacity at local schools

8)         There has not be consultation on the amended plans.

Appraisal:-

Noise and impact on the existing industrial estate

The requirement under Paragraph 182 of the NPPF is that:

“Planning policies and decisions should ensure that new development can be integrated effectively with existing businesses and community facilities (such as places of worship, pubs, music venues and sports clubs). Existing businesses and facilities should not have unreasonable restrictions placed on them as a result of development permitted after they were established. Where the  ...  view the full agenda text for item 29.

Application for residential development up to 63 dwellings with associated access, landscaping, open space and drainage infrastructure (outline – access to be considered).

Notwithstanding the officer’s recommendation that permission be granted, it was moved by Councillor Flemming and seconded by Councillor B Crooks that permission be refused as the development, due to its location in the open countryside, would harm the character and appearance of the area and diminish the enjoyment users derive from that area, including designated views as identified in the Market Bosworth Neighbourhood Plan. It would therefore be contrary to policy CE3 (important views and vistas), most notably point 6.1p, 6.1q and point 11 of the Market Bosworth Neighbourhood Plan. They also felt that the development would be contrary to policy DM4 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD 2016 and the application would fail to protect the intrinsic value, beauty, open character and landscape character of the countryside and whilst considering the tilted balance, the harm to the character and appearance of the area would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposed housing.

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

RESOLVED – permission be refused for the following reason:

The development, due to its location in the open countryside, would harm the character and appearance of the area and diminish the enjoyment users derive from that area, including designated views as identified in the Market Bosworth Neighbourhood Plan. It would therefore be contrary to policy CE3 point 6.1p, 6.1q and point 11 of the Market Bosworth Neighbourhood Plan. The development would be contrary to policy DM4 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD  2016and the application would fail to protect the intrinsic value, beauty, open character and landscape character of the countryside and whilst considering the tilted balance, the harm to the character and appearance of the area would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposed housing.

Application for erection of 99 dwellings

Application for residential development of 99 dwellings with associated infrastructure, vehicular accesses and areas of open space.

Notwithstanding the officer’s recommendation that permission be granted, it was moved by Councillor B Crooks and seconded by Councillor Hodgkins that permission be refused on grounds of highway safety contrary to policy DM17 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD 2016 and development in the open countryside contrary to policy DM4 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD 2016. Upon being put to the vote, the motion was LOST.

It was subsequently moved by Councillor Boothby, seconded by Councillor Findlay and

RESOLVED –

(i)            Permission be granted subject to:

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

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

·         100% affordable housing with a split of 50 units as affordable rented and 49 units as shared ownership

·         £3,170.00 for library facilities at Newbold Verdon Library

·         £4,903.00 towards improving existing waste facilities at Barwell HWRC

·         £50,124.98 towards healthcare provision (GP practices)

·         On-site open space requirement of 356.4m² of equipped play area with equipment to a minimum value of £64,839.85; 1663.2m² of casual / informal play space and 8965m² of natural green space along with maintenance costs

·         £184,412.07 towards secondary school education at the Market Bosworth School

·         Travel packs – 1 per dwelling (can be supplied by LCC at £52.85 per pack)

·         Six month bus passes – two per dwelling (2 application forms to be included in travel packs and funded by the developer) (can be supplied by LCC at £360.00 per pass)

·         Travel plan monitoring fee of £6,000

·         Traffic Regulation Order cost of £7,500.

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

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

Application for two storey front, side and rear extensions, including front and rear dormer windows

Application for two storey side and rear extensions, including front and rear dormer windows.

It was moved by Councillor Bray and seconded by Councillor Lynch that permission be granted with an amendment to condition 3 to require samples of materials to be submitted. Upon being put to the vote the motion was CARRIED and it was

RESOLVED –

(i)            Permission be granted subject to the conditions contained in the officer’s report with the abovementioned amendment to condition 3 to require samples of materials to be submitted;

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

Application for installation of Vehicular hardstanding to front garden including dropped kerb access from a B classified highway

Application for installation of vehicular hardstanding to front garden including dropped kerb access from a B classified highway.

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

RESOLVED –

(i)            Permission be granted subject to the conditions contained in the officer’s report;

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

To report on progress relating to various appeals.

Members noted a report which provided a progress update in relation to appeals.

Application for change of use of agricultural land for the storage and operation of coaches, hardstanding

Late items received after preparation of main agenda:

Consultations:-

Further correspondence has been received from Peckleton Parish Council with regards to how their comments were set out in the committee report. They stated that although the report isn’t incorrect it could be misconstrued, in that points 1 and 2 were “residents” concerns. 

They also state that “The point the Parish Council was making was that Highways should be advising on the traffic implications for Peckleton Common” and the Parish Council were raising the question as to how trade effluent would be dealt with.

Appraisal:-

The advice from Highways regarding the traffic implications for Peckleton Common are set out in the main report. The issue of how trade effluent is managed is covered by the submitted drainage plan with which the Borough Councils Drainage Officer has no objections.

Recommendation:-

The recommendation remains unchanged from that set out in the agenda.

Application for change of use of agricultural land for the storage and operation of coaches, hardstanding (retrospective).

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

RESOLVED –

(i)            Permission be granted subject to the conditions contained in the officer’s report;

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