Agenda and minutes

Planning Committee - Tuesday, 2 August 2022 6.30 pm

Venue: De Montfort Suite, Hinckley Hub. View directions

Contact: Rebecca Owen  Democratic Services Manager Email: rebecca.owen@hinckley-bosworth.gov.uk

Note: See media below to watch meeting on Youtube 

Media

Items
No. Item

97.

Apologies and substitutions

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Walker, with the substitution of Councillor Sheppard-Bools authorised in accordance with council procedure rule 10.

98.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 120 KB

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 5 July 2022.

Minutes:

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

 

RESOLVED – the minutes of the meeting held on 5 July be approved and signed by the chairman.

99.

Declarations of interest

To receive verbally from Members any disclosures which they are required to make in accordance with the Council’s Code of Conduct or in pursuance of Section 106 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992. This is in addition to the need for such disclosure to be also given when the relevant matter is reached on the agenda.

Minutes:

Councillor W Crooks stated he had attended public meetings where application 21/01395/FUL had been discussed and had answered questions but had not expressed an opinion.

 

Councillors Flemming and Lynch stated they had sat on Burbage Parish Council’s Planning Committee when applications 21/00502/OUT and 22/00132/FUL had been considered but did not take part in the voting thereon.

 

Councillor Furlong stated he had received representations and been involved with discussions with residents on application 22/00284/HOU but came to the meeting with an open mind.

100.

Decisions delegated at previous meeting

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

Minutes:

It was noted that decisions in relation to applications 22/00078/FUL and 22/00369/HOU had been issued.

101.

21/00502/OUT - land to the south west of Lutterworth Road, Burbage pdf icon PDF 721 KB

Outline planning application for the erection of up to 80 residential dwellings (use class C3), open space provision and associated infrastructure, with all matters reserved except access.

 

Late items received after preparation of main agenda:

 

Consultations:-

 

Additional response received from Leicestershire County Council S106 requesting the following contributions:

 

·                Revised Summary of Infrastructure Requirements:

·                Waste - Barwell RHWS - £3,962.40

·                Primary Education - Burbage Church of England Infant School and Burbage Junior School - £189,433.92

·                Post 16 Education Hinckley Academy and John Cleveland Sixth Form Centre - £51,023.28

·                Libraries - Burbage Library £2,422.08

Total £246,841.68

 

The above request now includes a proposed contribution towards education where previously one was not identified by LCC.

 

The recommendation at 1.2 needs to include delegation of powers to deal with the S106, as is stated in Para 10.3;

 

Reference is made to 'Starter Homes', this should be changed to 'First Homes'; and

 

Include reference to the Burbage Neighbourhood Plan -  Policy 1 of the NP which states that "residential development on land within or adjacent to the settlement boundary, as shown on Figure 2, page 19 will be supported, subject to complying with other development plan policy." The scheme is considered to be in accordance with the Neighbourhood Plan.

Minutes:

Outline planning application for the erection of up to 80 residential dwellings (use class C3), open space provision and associated infrastructure, with all matters reserved except access.

 

An objector and the agent spoke on the application.

 

Notwithstanding the officer’s recommendation that permission be granted, some members felt that the development would have a significant adverse impact on the intrinsic value, beauty and open character of the countryside contrary to policy DM4 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD and that it would have a significant impact on highway safety, generating a significant increase in traffic movements on an already busy road, particularly the junction of Lutterworth Road and Flanders Close and through Flanders Close to the site, and was therefore contrary to policy DM17. It was moved by Councillor Flemming and seconded by Councillor Lynch that permission be refused for these reasons. Upon being put to the vote, the motion was unanimously CARRIED and it was

 

RESOLVED – permission be refused for the following reasons:

 

(i)            The development would have a significant adverse impact on the intrinsic value, beauty and open character of the countryside contrary to policy DM4 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD;

 

(ii)          The development would have a significant impact on highway safety, generating a significant increase in traffic movements on an already busy road, particularly the junction of Lutterworth Road and Flanders Close and through Flanders Close, contrary to policy DM17 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD.

102.

21/01395/FUL - Church Farm, Washpit Lane, Barlestone pdf icon PDF 1000 KB

Application for installation and operation of a renewable energy generating station comprising ground-mounted photovoltaic solar arrays and battery-based electricity storage containers together with substation, point of connection mast, switchgear container, inverter/transformer units, site access, internal access tracks, security measures, access gates, other ancillary infrastructure and landscaping and biodiversity enhancements.

 

Late items received after preparation of main agenda:

 

Since the publication of the committee report, a response has been received by the Highway Authority (Leicestershire County Council) following receipt of extra information from the applicant in connection with the site access points. The Highways Authority is satisfied with the additional information and subsequently raises no objection to the proposed development subject to the inclusion of their recommended conditions and informatives on any forthcoming decision notice should members be minded to approve the application. Their response is appended to this late items paper.

 

Further objections received -

 

3 objections post publication of the Planning Committee report have been received that raise the following matters:

·                         Loss of agricultural land;

·                         Biodiversity impact;

·                         Use of brownfield land preferred

 

In addition an objection has been received from Nailstone Parish Council.

 

The points raised in the recent objections are considered to be sufficiently addressed in the Committee report.

 

In addition to those outlined in para 5.2 (page 31) of the Committee report, a further 13 objections and 94 representations of support have been counted by the Planning Admin team today which have not been included within the committee report. The points raised are already captured in paras 5.2 and 5.3 of the report, with all matters considered to be addressed in the report.

 

Planning Conditions:-

 

Amendment to Planning Condition:

 

17.        No development approved by this planning permission shall take place until such time as infiltration testing has been carried out (or suitable evidence to preclude testing) to confirm or otherwise, the suitability of the site for the use of infiltration as a drainage element, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason: To demonstrate that the site is suitable (or otherwise) for the use of infiltration techniques as part of the drainage strategy to accord with Policy DM7 of the adopted Site Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD and the NPPF.

 

Conditions 17 and 21 as per the committee report are duplicates and so the suggested wording above amalgamates the two. 

 

Clarification:

 

Para. 6.3 states that LCC Archaeology object to the proposal. To clarify, LCC Archaeology do not object to the proposal, instead they recommend trial trenching to be pre-determination rather than pre-commencement as proposed through planning conditions outlined in the report.

Minutes:

Application for installation and operation of a renewable energy generating station comprising ground-mounted photovoltaic solar arrays and battery-based electricity storage containers together with substation, point of connection mast, switchgear container, inverter/transformer units, site access, internal access tracks, security measures, access gates, other ancillary infrastructure and landscaping and biodiversity enhancements.

 

An objector, the applicant and a representative of Nailstone Parish Council spoke on this application.

 

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

 

RESOLVED –

 

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

 

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

 

(iii)         The Planning Manager be requested to review landscape screening proposed prior to issuing the decision.

103.

22/00335/HOU - 19 Fern Crescent, Groby pdf icon PDF 528 KB

Application for two storey rear and first floor side and rear extension and other alterations.

Minutes:

Application for two storey rear and first floor side and rear extension and other alterations.

 

The agent spoke on the application.

 

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

 

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.

104.

22/00284/HOU - 14 The Hawthorns, Markfield pdf icon PDF 553 KB

Application for first floor and single storey side, front and rear extensions and other alterations.

Minutes:

Application for first floor and single storey side, front and rear extensions and other alterations.

 

Two objectors and the agent spoke on the application.

 

Notwithstanding the officer’s recommendation that permission be granted, some members felt that the proposal would have a detrimental impact on neighbouring amenity due to the scale, massing, elevated siting, proximity to the boundary with number 10 and its overbearing nature and would therefore be contrary to policy DM10 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD. It was moved by Councillor Furlong and seconded by Councillor Bray 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 significant detrimental impact on neighbouring amenity as a result of the scale, massing, elevated siting, proximity to the boundary and the overbearing nature of the proposed development thereby being contrary to policy DM10 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD.

105.

22/00132/FUL - 14 Johns Close, Burbage pdf icon PDF 446 KB

Application for demolition of existing property and replacement with new 2.5 storey dwelling whilst retaining ridge height and new front boundary wall, with associated internal garage.

Minutes:

Application for demolition of existing property and replacement with new 2.5 storey dwelling whilst retaining ridge height and new front boundary wall, with associated internal garage.

 

An objector and the agent spoke on this application.

 

Notwithstanding the officer’s recommendation that permission be granted, Councillor Flemming, seconded by Councillor Bray, proposed that permission be refused due to the impact on neighbours, being out of keeping with the streetscene and not complementing the surrounding area.

 

Councillor Lynch, seconded by Councillor Sheppard-Bools, proposed that the application be deferred to allow for further discussion with the applicant to mitigate objections in relation to the impact on neighbours. Councillor Flemming and Councillor Bray subsequently withdrew their original motion in order to support the motion to defer the application.

 

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

 

RESOLVED – the application be deferred for further discussion with the applicant.

106.

Appeals progress pdf icon PDF 261 KB

To report on progress relating to various appeals.

Minutes:

Members received an update on appeals. The report was noted.