Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillor Furlong, with the substitution of Councillor Lay authorised in accordance with council procedure rule 10.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 12 November 2019.

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

RESOLVED – the minutes of the meeting held on 12 November 2019 be confirmed and signed by the chairman.

Councillors RG Allen and CM Allen declared non-pecuniary interests in applications 19/00674/FUL and 19/00742/FUL as members of Earl Shilton Town Council’s Planning Committee which had considered the applications.

Councillors Lynch and Walker declared non-pecuniary interests in application 19/01190/HOU as members of Burbage Parish Council’s Planning Committee which had considered the application.

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

It was noted that the decision in relation to application 19/00901/FUL had been issued.

Application for residential development for up to 176 dwellings with public open space, landscaping and sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) (Outline - access only).

‘Late items:’

Consultations:-

Further comments have been received from Councillor M. Cook making the following points;

• Although Market Bosworth Community Library is housed in a former school building it is completely annexed from the nearby school.  It has its own entrances, car parking and facilities and it is open over the seven days and evenings per week and run entirely by volunteers.

• At a recent Sunday science workshop in Market Bosworth Library, three of the 10 children attending lived in Barlestone. At a recent primary school event held in the HUB, of the four randomly selected children representing Market Bosworth Primary School - two lived in Barlestone.  If a little evidence gathering had taken place, given my local knowledge, I am certain it would have shown that both libraries are used equally.  Both communities work hard to maintain the library and its services and deserve all the support we can give.

• The proximity to both Newbold Verdon and Market Bosworth is as equal as it can be:  (AA route planner)

            • Barlestone to Market Bosworth - 5 minutes 2.7 miles

            • Barlestone to Newbold Verdon - 6 minutes - 2.5 miles

• Dare I suggest that this is the reason LCC requested the provision for both libraries?

Appraisal:-

The Officer Report sets out the sum of money that was requested towards Library services, LCC initial response does suggest that this should be split equally between both libraries given the equal distance from the site. However, the Officer report is worded as such following discussions with the ward Councillor for Barlestone and Officers of LCC who agreed that the money would be best directed to Newbold Verdon Library as although the libraries are equal distance apart, the route to those libraries is more accessible to residents when travelling to Newbold Verdon, given there is a footpath route that links the two settlements, this is not the case to Market Bosworth.

Recommendation:-

The recommendation remains unchanged from as set out on the agenda.

Application for residential development for up to 176 dwellings with public open space, landscaping and sustainable drainage systems (outline – access only).

Notwithstanding the officer’s recommendation that permission be granted, some members felt that the development was out of keeping with the character of the area. It was MOVED by Councillor WJ Crooks and SECONDED by Councillor Cartwright that the application should be refused. The meeting adjourned at 7.10pm for the mover and seconder to draft their reasons for refusal and reconvened at 7.18pm.

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

RESOLVED – permission be refused for the following reasons:

(i)            The development would be out of keeping with the character of the area and therefore, contrary to policies DM4 and DM10 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD;

(ii)          The site is accessed via an unclassified road with on-street parking and the nearby junctions are over capacity, the proposal is therefore detrimental to highway safety contrary to policy DM17 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD.

Application for erection of 8 dwellings and associated access.

Application for erection of 8 dwellings and associated access.

Whilst in support of the officer’s recommendation that the application be permitted, concern was expressed about drainage and the lack of continuous footpath outside of the site. It was MOVED by Councillor Cartwright and SECONDED by Councillor RG Allen that it be delegated to the Planning Manager to approve the application subject to a footpath being deliverable and an additional condition in relation to submitting details of surface water treatment and, should delivery of a footpath not be deliverable, the application be brought back to the Planning Committee for determination. Upon being put to the vote, the motion was CARRIED and it was

RESOLVED – the Planning Manager be granted delegated authority to approve permission subject to:

(i)            The conditions contained in the officer’s report;

(ii)          An additional condition in relation to surface water drainage;

(iii)         A condition requiring provision of a footpath along the frontage of the site;

(iv)         An additional note to applicant regarding notifying the coal authority.

Application for erection of ten bungalows (extension to Markfield Court Retirement Village).

‘Late items:’

Introduction:-

Since the publication of the committee report, an additional letter of support has been received.

Consultations:-

A further letter of support has been received from a local resident and is summarised below:

1) The application site is untidy and is barren land;

2) There is a need for more retirement bungalows as the population is ageing and hospitals have a lot of elderly patients "bed blocking" as they are unable to return to their houses;

3) The proposed scheme would not generate additional traffic;

4) The proposal would create employment opportunities for carers;

Appraisal:-

The proposed bungalows would be an extension of the existing Retirement Complex and the occupants would be able to use the community facilities and services within this Complex. The recommendation includes a planning condition restricting occupation of the bungalows to persons aged 55 or over to ensure that these properties provide accommodation for older persons.

Recommendation:-

The recommendation remains to grant planning permission subject to the details outlined in the original Planning Committee Report.

Application for erection of ten bungalows (extension to Markfield Court Retirement Village).

Following a discussion on the possibilities of including a condition that residents of the proposed properties have use of the existing on-site facilities, the meeting adjourned at 8.29pm to seek advice and reconvened at 8.35pm.

It was MOVED by Councillor RG Allen and SECONDED by Councillor Boothby that permission be granted with an additional condition that the residents of the new properties will have access to the facilities on site. Upon being put to the vote, the motion was CARRIED and it was

RESOLVED – permission be granted subject to:

(i)            Completion within three months of this resolution to a S106 agreement to secure the following obligations:

a.    40% of the total number of the bungalows shall be affordable units and shall be delivered on site with a mix of 75% social or affordable rent and 25% intermediate tenure. The bungalows shall be 2 bed 4 person units

b.    Contribution towards library services of £300

(ii)          The conditions contained in the officer’s report;

(iii)         Additional conditions requiring:

a.    that residents of the new properties have access to the existing facilities;

b.    that the residents have access to fibre optic broadband;

c.    the retention of the hedgerow across the frontage of the site.

Councillor Lay left the meeting at 8.40pm.

Application for erection of one dwelling (outline - all matters reserved).

‘Late items:’

Consultations:-

In response to the objections received in regards to highways safety, the applicant has provided the following response:

A hammerhead access was constructed in the build of The Manse and Lychgate Cottage by the applicant. The deeds of both properties include a covenant whereby the applicant has rights to the access, including the right to pass over into the proposed site. Turning facilities are already limited in within Church Lane and therefore the additional of one dwelling is unlikely to significantly increase this issue.

Appraisal:-

The recommendations to committee have not changed from the original report.

Application for erection of one dwelling (outline – all matters reserved).

It was moved by Councillor Roberts, seconded by Councillor Boothby and

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

Application for erection of 4 flats (resubmission of 18/00618/FUL).

‘Late items:’

Consultations:-

One additional letter of objection has been received in regards to this application in regards to:

1) Highway and safety concerns regarding the volume of traffic and potholes along Heath Lane South;

2) Future overdevelopment of the site;

The total objection letters received are therefore 35 letters from 18 separate addresses.

Application for erection of four flats (resubmission of 18/00618/FUL).

It was MOVED by Councillor RG Allen and SECONDED by Councillor CM Allen that permission be refused. Following further discussion, Councillor RG Allen and Councillor CM Allen withdrew the proposal.

It was MOVED by Councillor RG Allen and SECONDED by Councillor Roberts that permission be granted with an additional condition requiring a hard boundary between the site and the properties on Hinckley Road. Upon being put to the vote, the motion was CARRIED and it was

RESOLVED – permission be granted subject to the conditions contained in the officer’s report and an additional condition requiring a hard boundary between the site and the properties on Hinckley Road.

Application for demolition of existing bungalow and erection of 2 no dwellings.

Application for demolition of existing bungalow and erection of two dwellings.

Notwithstanding the officer’s recommendation that permission be granted, some members felt that the proposal constituted over development of the site. It was MOVED by Councillor Cartwright and SECONDED by Councillor Roberts that permission be refused for this reason.

At this juncture, it having reached 9.30pm, it was moved by Councillor MJ Crooks, seconded by Councillor Findlay and

RESOLVED – the meeting be permitted to continue in accordance with council procedure rule 8.

Returning to Councillor Cartwright’s motion to refuse permission, which had been seconded by Councillor Roberts, the motion was put to the vote and CARRIED. It was therefore

RESOLVED – permission be refused due to the proposal resulting in the overdevelopment of the site contrary to policy DM10 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD.

Application for single storey side extension, and front porch extension.

Application for single storey side extension and front porch extension.

Notwithstanding the officer’s recommendation that permission be granted, some members felt that the proposed development would be overbearing in terms of its height and would result in loss of light and would be over-development of the site. It was MOVED by Councillor Roberts and SECONDED by Councillor Gibbens that permission be refused for these reasons. Upon being put to the vote, the motion was CARRIED and it was

RESOLVED – permission be refused due to the overbearing nature of the development in terms of its height and resulting loss of light, breaching the 45 degree rule which would have an adverse impact on residents, and the overdevelopment of the site contrary to policy DM10 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD.

Application for two storey side and front extension with single storey side extension.

Application for two storey side and front extension with single storey side extension.

It was moved by Councillor Findlay, 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 powers to determine the final detail of planning conditions.

Application for erection of four apartments.

Application for erection of four apartments.

Concern was expressed about lack of parking on site and restrictions for on street parking and in local car parks. It was MOVED by Councillor RG Allen and SECONDED by Councillor Gibbens that the application be deferred to investigate the possibility of requiring the applicant to provide parking permits for the nearby car park. Upon being put to the vote, the motion was CARRIED and it was

RESOLVED – the application be deferred.

Application for extensions and alterations to dwelling comprising single-storey side extension, front porch and replacement detached garage.

‘Late items:’

Consultations:-

One additional letter of objection has been received:-

1) Impact on the privacy of our garden from the dormer window which is to be obscure glazed but will still be able to be opened

2) Impact on the future value of our property.

Appraisal:-

The dormer window has been removed from the plans and therefore it is not a consideration as part of this planning application. 

The Officer recommendation remains unchanged.

Application for extensions and alterations to dwelling comprising single-storey side extension, front porch and replacement detached garage.

On the motion of Councillor RG Allen, seconded by Councillor Lynch, it was

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

To provide an update on various major schemes in the Borough.

Members received a report which provided an update on major projects. Concern was expressed in relation to Leicestershire County Council’s report about the Barwell SUE and it was noted that a meeting had been requested. It was moved by Councillor WJ Crooks, seconded by Councillor Flemming and

RESOLVED – the report be noted.

To provide an update on the number of active and closed enforcement cases within the Borough.

Members were updated on enforcement cases. A member asked for a briefing note on successful cases, with photographs.

RESOLVED – the report be noted.

To report on progress relating to various appeals.

The committee received an update on appeals.

RESOLVED – the report be noted.