Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillors C Allen, Boothby, Roberts and Smith with the substitution of Councillor Cook for Councillor Roberts authorised in accordance with council procedure rule 10.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 12 April 2022.

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

RESOLVED – the minutes of the meeting held on 12 April be confirmed and signed by the chairman.

Councillor Cook stated that she had spoken to the parish council and residents about application 21/00439/FUL but had not expressed an opinion and came to this meeting with an open mind.

Councillor W Crooks declared a non-pecuniary interest in application 21/00439/FUL as he knew the family of the applicant.

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

It was reported that work was being undertaken towards the S106 agreement in relation to applications 20/00916/FUL and 21/00135/OUT. All other decisions delegated at the previous meeting had been issued.

Application for erection of six detached dwellings.

Late items received after preparation of main agenda:

Consultations:-

The following third party objection has been received following the publication of the Committee agenda making the following points:

-       No reference is made to the recommendations previously made towards application 17/0127/FUL in the Agenda Item for the Committee meeting of May 10th.

-       Concern that without the establishment of a Root Protection Zone, the development proposed on Plot 5 will cause irreparable harm to this rather lovely tree.

-       I am concerned that without the establishment of a Root Protection Zone, the development proposed on Plot 5 will cause irreparable harm to this rather lovely tree (perhaps even affecting its long-term high-wind stability).

The following comments have been received from the HBBC Tree Officer following the publication of the Committee agenda making the following points:

Tree Protection Plan

The Tree Protection Plan and site plans are not accurate in where the tree positions are plotted but the TPP has a barrier specification which should be suitable and protection zone radii have been specified. Trees along the rear boundary should not be a major constraint in the proposed site layout - if any garages for plots 2-4 are located at least 2m. outside the root protection area (rpa) or any parking spaces located outside the rpa.

It is five years since the Arb consultant inspected the site for his report and matters may have changed significantly since then. It has only been validated by the author for two years and is not a thorough assessment of the health and condition of the trees. Details should be updated. An accurate and current TPP should be submitted.

Proposed condition wording should the application be approved:

No work shall commence on site until trees on and adjacent to the site have been securely fenced off with protective barriers to form a construction exclusion zone in accordance with BS 5837:2012 Tree in relation to design, demolition and construction.  A Tree Protection Plan shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  Within the protected areas there shall be no alteration to ground levels, no compaction of the soil, no stacking or storing of any materials and no service trenches shall be dug unless first agreed in writing by the Authority.

Reason - To ensure the existing trees are adequately protected during construction in the interests of the visual amenities of the area. In accordance with Policy 6 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD.

Tree surgery

The pruning recommendations are vague and not suitable for trees protected by TPO.

It is essential that the ivy is cut near ground level and later stripped from the trees when it has withered to allow the stems and main branches to be fully inspected.

Proposed condition for Schedule of tree works should the application be approved:

No development shall commence on site until a detailed arboricultural works programme to be carried  ...  view the full agenda text for item 414.

Application for erection of six detached dwellings.

An objector, the agent and the ward councillor spoke on this item.

Notwithstanding the officer’s recommendation that permission be granted, members felt that the proposal constituted over-development of the site and was out of keeping with the character and appearance of the area and was therefore contrary to policy DM10 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD. It was moved by Councillor Gibbens, seconded by Councillor Bray and unanimously

RESOLVED – permission be refused for the abovementioned reasons.

Application for new roof above existing single storey garage / shop storeroom. Proposed extension of height of boundary (west) wall.

Late items received following preparation of main agenda:

Consultations:-

The following objection has been received following the publication of the Committee agenda making the following points:

-    We have had very little time to respond to the proposed amendments.

-    The Officer had complete their committee report and recommendation prior end of the re-consultation period. This raises concern that further comments will not be considered.

-    The tenant of 44 in the commercial unit was not consulted and not made aware of the plans submitted. She is against any such development. She rents the actual unit and the garage area is not under the tenancy agreement.

Application Description

-    The application put in said this was for a new roof but this will also be an enlargement to the existing external garage with walls , it seems to be taken out which currently divide it from the storage space.

-    It is an application which, as identified by the case officer in his report, clause 3.1 and 10.1 ,  involves the extension of a separate garage and change  of use to residential  for the use of the first floor flat- which has not been applied for in the appropriate manner.

-    The case officer  states in 3.1  "The first floor compromises a flat to which this will provide additional living accommodation". We had not been told in the application this was the intention but was what we suspected and we cannot see how this will work and are concerned it will lead to more noise for the houses in Mansion Street. This part of the description was copied into the committee report in error by the case officer. Case Officer Comment: There is living accommodation located above the shop unit below. The application details were taken on face value and it appears that an intervening courtyard (shared with the flat and shop unit) allows use and access to the detached garage/storage unit. Therefore, notwithstanding an application for Lawful (existing) development, the case officer can only deduce the building (garage/storage) has been and can be used  ancillary for the associated mixed use (residential and retail). However a separate living accommodation or annexe living accommodation permission would be subject to a separate planning application to the LPA.

-    Other objections sent to the LPA previously have pointed out that the shop does not use the garage or storage space- this area is not in the rental agreement and the shop does not need it. It is then confusing and contradictory in that 8.13 of the case officer's document then suggests it will be increased storage capacity for the shop. This also contradicts the far more likely idea to use it for residential reasons (3.1).

-    As regards the case officer's report, recommending approval and done before we have even commented - can we please refer you to clause 3.1 which confirms  ...  view the full agenda text for item 415.

Application for new roof above existing single storey garage / shop storeroom. Proposed extension of height of boundary (west) wall.

The agent spoke on this application.

Notwithstanding the officer’s recommendation that permission be granted, some members felt that the proposal would have an overbearing impact and would be detrimental to residential amenity and therefore contrary to policy DM10 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD. It was moved by Councillor Bray, seconded by Councillor Mullaney and

RESOLVED – permission be refused for the abovementioned reasons.

Application for conversion, extensions and change of use of existing barn to form one dwelling with associated curtilage and new vehicular access (20/00668/FUL resubmission).

The additional below objections have been received following the publication of the Committee agenda making the following points:

-          Loss of greenfield site

-          Potential for further development

-          No need for additional dwellings in Nailstone

-    No special architectural features left to the barn

-    Long drive required - potential noise and dust issues

-    Ecology impact - bats

Application for conversion, extensions and change of use of existing barn to form one dwelling with associated curtilage and new vehicular access (20/00668/FUL resubmission).

An objector, the agent and a representative of the parish council spoke on this application.

Notwithstanding the officer’s recommendation that permission be granted, members felt that they needed to better understand the site and the surrounding area and it was moved by Councillor Allen and seconded by Councillor W Crooks that the application be deferred for a site visit. Upon being put to the vote, the motion was CARRIED and it was unanimously

RESOLVED – the application be deferred for a site visit.

Application for single dwelling with associated landscaping and alterations to existing access.

Late items received following preparation of main agenda:

Consultations:-

The following objection has been received from Market Bosworth Vision Planning Group following the publication of the Committee agenda making the following points:

-    On the plans for the proposal, the minimum access width to the new property is set at 3.25m. The generally accepted minimum width for emergency fire services access is 3.7m and the required width for access to individual premises is 6.1m (www..hse.gov.uk), therefore the application should be rejected on these grounds alone.

-    This proposed development is not in line with the areas for housing as set out in the Market Bosworth Neighbourhood Plan 2016-26.

-     There will be serious blockage of light to the neighbouring properties which will be heavily inconveniently impacted during the building phase.

-     The proposal would result in a form of development which would be contrary to the aspirations of residents of the town as set out in the Market Bosworth Neighbourhood Plan.

Application for single dwelling with associated landscaping and alterations to existing access.

An objector and the agent spoke on this application.

Notwithstanding the officer’s recommendation that permission be granted, some members felt that the proposal was out of keeping with the area as it was backland development and would not enhance or complement the area and was therefore contrary to policy DM10 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD and to policy CE1 of the Market Bosworth Neighbourhood Plan. It was moved by Councillor Cook, seconded by Councillor Allen and

RESOLVED – permission be refused for the abovementioned reasons.

Application for erection of single storey outbuilding in rear garden space.

Application for erection of single storey outbuilding in rear garden space.

It was noted that there was a typographical error in condition 3 whereby “extension” should read “outbuilding”.

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

RESOLVED – permission be granted subject to the conditions contained in the officer’s report and the abovementioned correction.

Application for one dwelling with detached garage and creation of new access.

Application for one dwelling with detached garage and creation of new access.

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

RESOLVED –

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

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

To report on progress relating to various appeals.

Members received an update on appeals.