Agenda and minutes

In the absence of the chair and vice-chair, it was moved by Councillor Bools, seconded by Councillor Lynch and

RESOLVED – Councillor Bray be appointed chair for this meeting only.

Councillor Bray requested that Councillor Gibbens sit alongside him in the vice-chair’s seat, which was agreed.

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

Councillor Bools for Councillor Crooks;

Councillor Glenville for Councillor Moore.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 19 September 2023.

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

RESOLVED – the minutes of the meeting held on 19 September be confirmed as a correct record.

Councillor Green declared an other registrable interest in application 23/00455/FUL as a friend of the applicant and stated she would leave the meeting during consideration of the item.

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

It was reported that all decisions delegated at the previous meeting had been issued with the exception of applications 21/01146/FUL and 22/00563/LBC which was still subject to negotiation with the applicant and Natural England in accordance with the committee’s resolution.

Application for change of use of land to provide a dog day care facility and associated fence.

Late items received after publication of main agenda:

Introduction:-

1.1.       A rebuttal statement has been received since the publication of the report.

Rebuttal Statement – Hinckley Pets in Home

The purpose of this statement is to bring to the members attention the preapplication work that was carried out pre and post application. It also seeks to address areas where we consider the determining officer has not provided the members with demonstrable and significant evidence to support their findings and recommendation with the aim to ask the members to support our application.

Pre & Post Application

We held a meeting in December 2022, with the Chief Executive, Leader of the Council, Head of Planning and Regeneration Manager in December 2022. This meeting all parties was positive & supportive resulting in the following points:

1.         Malcolm Evans offered us land near Montgomery Road, Earl Shilton for our use but this would be subject to planning permission and was ear marked for ES SUE. It was deemed this was not appropriate due to its locality to housing, access, and cost as we own Dawsons Lane

2.         We were recommended we wait to submit another application until after the local elections as it was felt our application could become contentious with the upcoming elections.

3.         Mr Brown would work with our planning consultant to address the RFR in the New Year.

4.         Meet with Poors Platt and discuss the plans.

5.         Speak with local resident to offer discuss our proposals and offer an apology for any previous confusion or antagonism..

6.         Overall the meeting was supportive of our proposal.

Following on from the December meeting we me with Chris Brown in February 2023. This meeting was productive, constructive with these outcomes:

1.         Mr Brown recommended moving the proposed day care structure to the top of the site to reduce the impact on the land and the wider landscape.

2.         Mr Brown recommended the scale of the building be reduced, to reduce its visual impact on the character of the area.

3.         We would draw up options for Mr Brown to review regarding the site location to alleviate his concerns.

4.         The RFR number 3 was erroneous as the incorrect interpretation of the policy had been used.

Prior to submitting the new application Mr Johnson spoke with Mr Brown who stated ‘the changes appease our concerns’

August 2023 we held a site visit with David Spring and Emma Baumber. The proposed location and size of the day care building and associated fencing was shown and discussed in detail with the officers.

The main points and outcomes were:

1.         The proposed day care site was to be shown to both in layout and scale.

2.         The proposed planting scheme around the land and around the day care site and how active planting with the Woodland Trust would obscure the site and building.

3.         The brick and tile building in the  ...  view the full agenda text for item 170.

Application for change of use of land to provide a dog day care facility and associated fence.

Two objectors, the applicant and the agent spoke on this application.

It was moved by Councillor R Allen, seconded by Councillor Smith and

RESOLVED – refused for the reasons contained in the officer’s report.

Application for approval of reserved matters (appearance, landscaping, layout and scale) of outline planning permission 21/01147/OUT (residential development of up to 61 dwellings including a shop, open space, new access and associated works).

Late items received after preparation of main agenda:

Consultations:-

1.1.            Waste and road adoption, the agent has confirmed that this is to be dealt with via s.38 or s.73 – HBBC Waste have not objected so we have left it with Owl and Cerda to a find a solution. Likewise with Highways, the plan is to adopt at minimum the main access spine road but they are yet to confirm full details. LCC Highways have no objection to this.

Appraisal:-

1.1.       Amendment to paragraph 6.1 of the report. The text highlighted in bold is the addition;

“Officer comment: The principle of development outside the settlement boundary has been established via the outline permission. Therefore members are being asked to consider the appearance, landscaping, layout and scale of the development pursuant to national and local policies.  At the outline stage the Local Highway Authority and National Highways have assessed the impact of the development upon the Highway Network and have no objections subject to conditions/ S106 provisions. Therefore highways considerations have been considered in full when the outline permission was granted subject to the comments in 6.2 in respect of the internal road network.”

1.2.       Addition to paragraph 8.16 of the report:

“The side elevation of 2a Main Street borders the eastern boundary of the site. There are no principal windows facing the site, however there is a balcony projecting from the west side elevation. The separation distance between the west side elevation of 2a Main Street and the east side elevation of Plot 1 is 12.87m which is acceptable in accordance to the adopted Good Design Guide. The side (east) elevation features a bathroom window at first floor level which is to be obscurely glazed. Plot 1 also features a single storey double garage between its east side elevation and the boundary with 2a Main Street. The single storey and fully hipped roof design, along with the siting which is set back from the direct outlook of the balcony, is considered acceptable and would not result in any overbearing impacts upon 2a. In terms of the amenity of the prospective occupiers of Plot 1, there is not considered to be any overlooking or loss of privacy concerns due to the separation distance between the balcony and the garden area, including the intervening development (garage) and boundary treatments which will screen any views.”

Application for approval of reserved matters (appearance, landscaping, layout and scale) of outline planning permission 21/01147/OUT (residential development of up to 61 dwellings including a shop, open space, new access and associated works).

An objector and the applicant spoke on this item.

Whilst in support of the application, members requested that a note to applicant be added to ask that the roads be made to adoptable standards and asked that a condition be added requiring ultra-fast broadband if it wasn’t already a requirement of the outline application. It was moved by Councillor R Allen, seconded by Councillor Green and

RESOLVED –

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

(ii)          The final detail of the conditions, including the abovementioned additional condition relating to broadband if required, be delegated to the Planning Manager.

Application for erection of 36 holiday lodges and a management building with associated vehicular accesses, parking, surface water balancing and landscaping (revised scheme of application 21/01390/FUL).

Late items received after publication of main agenda:

Introduction:-

1.1.       A supplementary statement to the original Landscape Visual Impact Assessment has been received from the applicant and states the following:

“This statement has been prepared to accompany planning application 23/00767/FUL which proposes to increase the number of holiday lodges on site from 22 (including the management lodge) to 37 (including the management lodge). It is noted that the maximum height of the proposed lodges has reduced from 4.7 metres to 3.5 metres in the revised submission. 

Whilst it is accepted that the number of lodges has increased, the overall visual impact is considered to remain low and accordingly the proposal would not detract from the rural landscape as concluded in the original LVA referenced above.”

Appraisal:-

1.2.       Amendments to paragraphs 9.11 and 9.56 of the report. The text highlighted in bold is the addition;

9.11.     “The previous scheme was approved by the Council earlier in 2023 for 21 holiday lodges and associated infrastructure. This extant permission has a realistic prospect of being developed if planning permission is not granted subject to this application therefore constitutes a material consideration.”

9.56.   “The extant permission for 21 holiday lodges and associated infrastructure is a fall back position and is to be given weight in the consideration of the revised scheme.”

Application for erection of 36 holiday lodges and a management building with associated vehicular accesses, parking, surface water balancing and landscaping (revised scheme of application reference 21/01390/FUL).

The agent spoke on this application.

Notwithstanding the officer’s recommendation that permission be granted, members felt that the site would be cramped with 36 holiday lodges and concern was expressed about highway safety due to the narrow width of the access road. It was moved by Councillor R Allen and seconded by Councillor C Allen that permission be refused due to being contrary to policy DM10 of the site allocations and development management policies DPD in respect of overdevelopment of the site. Upon being put to the vote, the motion was CARRIED and it was

RESOLVED – permission be refused due to the proposal constituting overdevelopment contrary to policy DM10 of the site allocations and development management policies development plan document.

Application for variation of condition 2 of planning permission 20/00421/FUL to amend approved plan and design.

Proposal for variation of condition 2 of planning permission 20/00421/FUL (amendment to approved plan and design).

An objector and the applicant spoke on this item.

Notwithstanding the officer’s recommendation that permission be granted, it was moved by Councillor Cook and seconded by Councillor R Allen that permission be refused due to the proposed development being of an incongruous nature in terms of its size and design and therefore contrary to policy DM10 of the site allocations and development management policies DPD. Upon being put to the vote, the motion was LOST.

Councillor Lynch, seconded by Councillor Flemming, proposed that permission be granted in accordance with the officer’s recommendation. 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;

(ii)          Determination of the final conditions be delegated to the Head of Planning.

Application for ground mounted solar array.

Application for ground mounted solar array.

The agent spoke on this application.

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

RESOLVED –

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

(ii)          Authority be delegated to the Head of Planning to determine the final conditions.

To report on progress relating to various appeals.

An update on appeals was provided. As an aside, members thanked officers for their hard work making representations in objection to the national rail freight interchange.

The report was noted.