Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillors Cope and Webber-Jones, with the following substitutions authorised in accordance with council procedure rule 10:

Councillor Glenville for Councillor Cope

Councillor Hodgkins for Councillor Webber-Jones.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 17 June 2025.

It was moved by Councillor Bray, seconded by Councillor S Gibbens and

RESOLVED – the minutes of the meeting held on 17 June be confirmed as a correct record.

Councillor Cook declared a registrable interest in application 22/00882/OUT as the works would affect her due to her address.

With reference to application 22/00882/OUT, Councillor C Gibbens stated she was a contractor for Natural England and DEFRA, however her role was not related to planning or the site in question, therefore she had no disclosable interest.

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

The Head of Planning updated members on decisions delegated at the previous meeting.

Application for demolition of former cottage hospital and development of new day case surgery building with associated landscaping and parking.

Late items received after publication of the agenda:

Additional Support Comments:

Since publication of the report, one additional support comment was received, stating that the building frontage of the old cottage hospital is architecturally insignificant given the huge number of similar properties still in existence.

A petition has been received with approximately 1642 signatures stating “We the undersigned support the £10m investment for a Day Case Unit in Hinckley and ask that Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council permits the planning application.”

The petition contains the names and postcodes for each signatory.

Additional Consultee Comments:

Consultee comments from LCC Ecology have been received. LCC Ecology raise no objection subject to the imposition of conditions which are set out below.

The Bat Roost Survey Report – Buildings (Tetra Tech Ltd., June 2025) found no bats emerging from the remaining building on site. LCC ecology are satisfied that there is sufficient ecological information available to support determination of this application. The mitigation measures identified in the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (Geosphere Environmental, April 2025) will conserve and enhance protected and Priority species particularly those recorded in the locality.

Amended Conditions:

Condition 6 is to be deleted as details of dust and construction hours are contained within Construction Environmental Management Plan included within condition 5.

Additional Conditions:

1. All ecological mitigation measures and/or works shall be carried out in accordance with the details contained in the submitted Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (Geosphere Environmental, April 2025). This will include the appointment of an appropriately competent person e.g. an ecological clerk of works (ECoW) to provide on-site ecological expertise during construction. The appointed person shall undertake all activities, and works shall be carried out, in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To conserve protected and Priority species in accordance with Policy DM6 of the adopted Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Development Plan Document (2016) and allow the LPA to discharge its duties under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended), the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and s40 of the NERC Act 2006 (as amended).

2. Prior to commencement of the development a construction environmental management plan (CEMP: Biodiversity) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

The CEMP (Biodiversity) shall include the following.

a) Risk assessment of potentially damaging construction activities.

b) Identification of “biodiversity protection zones”.

c) Practical measures (both physical measures and sensitive working practices) to avoid or reduce impacts during construction (may be provided as a set of method statements).

d) The location and timing of sensitive works to avoid harm to biodiversity features.

e) The times during construction when specialist ecologists need to be present on site to oversee works.

f) Responsible persons and lines of communication.

g) The role and responsibilities on site of an ecological clerk of works (ECoW) or similarly competent person.

h) Use of protective fences, exclusion barriers and warning signs.  ...  view the full agenda text for item 110.

Application for demolition of former cottage hospital and development of new day case surgery building with associated landscaping and parking.

In presenting the report, the case officer reported that a request had been submitted to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport by a member of the public to review their decision not to list the hospital building, and that should permission be granted for the planning application, the decision would not be issued until the outcome of the review was known. Officers also committed to urging the government department to expedite the review. It was noted that, should the building be listed, the application would need to be brought back to the Planning Committee.

Two representatives of the applicant spoke on the application.

Councillor Bray, seconded by Councillor Lynch, proposed that:

“(i)        Permission be granted subject to the conditions contained in the officer’s report and late items, with authority delegated to the Head of Planning to determine the final detail of the conditions;

(ii)          A note to applicant be added to urge them to continue throughout the construction of the new day case unit to look for ways to work with local heritage groups and others to seek to preserve as many heritage features as possible;

(iii)         Disappointment be expressed that the Secretary of State had not responded to the Leader of the Council’s letter urging the government to look at providing the new day case facilities whilst simultaneously protecting the locally recognised heritage asset;

(iv)         The scaremongering by the Member of Parliament for Hinckley & Bosworth, who sought to distort the position taken by those who have tried constructively to deliver the new facilities whilst seeking a better building design, be condemned;

(v)          The NHS be urged to continue to seek ways to further improve the overall health provision locally. Local people have previously been promised a walk-in / minor injuries unit and we urge the NHS to bring forward these plans.”

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 and late items, with authority delegated to the Head of Planning to determine the final detail of the conditions;

(ii)          A note to applicant be added to urge them to continue throughout the construction of the new day case unit to look for ways to work with local heritage groups and others to seek to preserve as many heritage features as possible;

(iii)         Disappointment be expressed that the Secretary of State had not responded to the Leader of the Council’s letter urging the government to look at providing the new day case facilities whilst simultaneously protecting the locally recognised heritage asset;

(iv)         The scaremongering by the Member of Parliament for Hinckley & Bosworth, who sought to distort the position taken by those who have tried constructively to deliver the new facilities whilst seeking a better building design, be condemned;

(v)          The NHS be urged to continue to seek  ...  view the full minutes text for item 110.

Outline application (all matters reserved) for extension of MIRA Technology Park to comprise employment use (class B2), associated office and service uses (class E g), storage (class B8), new spine road, car parking, landscaping and enabling works (cross boundary application with North Warwickshire Borough Council).

Late items received after publication of agenda:

Following consideration of the item at the Planning Committee of 17 June 2025, the item was deferred to allow for a site visit to take place. A site visit took place this morning, 15 July 2025, to view the junctions of the A5 with Drayton Lane and Woodford Lane, Fenny Drayton.

Further, the item was deferred following comments made with regards to National Highways reviewing information submitted by the objector, Extra Room Self Storage (ERSS). ERSS submitted additional information to National Highways on 19 June 2025, including data underpinning their transport modelling, and an independent audit of their modelling undertaken.

National Highways

National Highways have subsequently confirmed that, as further information has been submitted by a 3^rd party, not by the applicant, National Highways will not review this information. National Highways confirmed to the Council on 20 June 2025 that:

‘...Nationals Highways is unable to consider any further the ‘Updated Review of A5 Mitigation Report’ and the subsequent information supplied by DTA consultants in support of the report, given that this information does not form part of the proposals put forward by the applicant.

Therefore, our position on the proposals remains as stated in the formal conditioned response issued by Russell Gray on 22 November 2024’.

This confirmation was provided by National Highways to ERSS on 3 July 2025.

Information provided by the applicant:

The applicant has provided a summary of the history of the application with regards to proposed works to Drayton Lane and Woodford Lane junctions with the A5. This can be summarised as below:

·         August 2022 – application submitted showing traffic lights to both Drayton Lane and Woodford Lane junctions

·         June 2023 – junctions reassessed following completion of PRTM traffic modelling. Traffic lights at both junctions considered to result in queuing to the A5 and objection from Witherley PC due to potential for increase in rat running through Fenny Drayton

·         October 2023 – left in, left out mitigation proposed to both Drayton Lane and Woodford Lane junctions

·         December 2023 – proposal for junctions to remain unchanged and finacial contribution to National Highways for a feasibility assessment for safety enhancement scheme. Application considered and approved by North Warwickshire Borough Council (NWBC) subject to final approval from highway consultees. Meeting with Police in June 2024 included police concerns over enforcement of a 40mph limit to the A5 and discussions regarding speed cameras. National Highways confirmed average speed camera scheme not supported

·         October 2024 – current proposal for traffic lights at Woodford Lane and left in, left out at Drayton Lane. Design review undertaken and verbal confirmation provided by National Highways, Leicestershire County Council and Warwickshire County Council that proposal would be acceptable and road  ...  view the full agenda text for item 111.

Outline application (all matters reserved) for extension of MIRA Technology Park to comprise employment use (class B2), associated office and service uses (class E g), storage (class B8), new spine road, car parking, landscaping and enabling works (cross boundary application with North Warwickshire Borough Council).

The ward councillor spoke on this application.

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

RESOLVED –

(i)            Permission be granted subject to

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

b.    A S106 agreement to secure off site highways improvements including bus service improvements and with regards to employment and skills training.

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

To report on progress relating to various appeals.

Members were updated on progress in relation to appeals. The report was noted.