Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillors C Allen, R Allen, Boothby, C Gibbens, S Gibbens and Hollick with the following substitutions authorised in accordance with council procedure rule 10:

Councillor Simmons for Councillor C Allen;

Councillor Sutton for Councillor R Allen;

Councillor Hodgkins for Councillor C Gibbens

Councillor Williams for Councillor S Gibbens

Councillor Glenville for Councillor Hollick.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 7 May.

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

RESOLVED – the minutes of the meeting held on 7 May be confirmed as a correct record.

Councillor Cook declared a non-registrable interest in application 24/00263/FUL as the applicant was known to her.

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

It was noted that all decisions delegated at the previous meeting had been issued, with the exception of 23/00711/FUL and 24/00263/CONDIT which had been deferred and 23/00432/OUT which was subject to a section 106 agreement.

Outline application to include up to 1000 dwellings (C3) up to 5.3 hectares for employment uses comprising a mix of B2, B8 and E(g) uses, a primary school / education uses (F1), retain floor space (E) and hot food takeaway (Sui Generis) as part of a mixed use local centre / community hub (E/F1/F2/C3), two vehicular accesses from the A47, limited access from Breach Lane, vehicular access from Mill Lane, public open space including sustainable urban drainage systems and the provision of associated infrastructure and ancillary works and demolition of former girl guide building (outline – access only) (EIA development).

Outline application to include up to 1000 dwellings (C3) up to 5.3 hectares for employment uses comprising a mix of B2, B8 and E(g) uses, a primary school / education uses (F1), retain floor space (E) and hot food takeaway (Sui Generis) as part of a mixed use local centre / community hub (E/F1/F2/C3), two vehicular accesses from the A47, limited access from Breach Lane, vehicular access from Mill Lane, public open space including sustainable urban drainage systems and the provision of associated infrastructure and ancillary works and demolition of former girl guide building (outline – access only) (EIA development).

Applications 21/01511/OUT and 23/00330/OUT were presented and debated together but voted on separately.

An objector, the agent and two ward councillors spoke on the two applications.

It was moved by Councillor Bray and seconded by Councillor Lynch that permission be granted as recommended in the officer’s report.

Councillor Cook, seconded by Councillor Smith, proposed that the application be deferred to consider the concerns raised. As the second motion, this was not put to the vote.

The motion proposed by Councillor Bray and seconded by Councillor Lynch was put to the vote and CARRIED and it was

RESOLVED – permission be granted subject to:

(i)            A section 106 agreement as set out in the heads of terms in the officer’s report;

(ii)          The conditions outlined in the officer’s report.

Outline application to include up to 500 dwellings, a primary school / education use (Class F1), retail (Class E), community hub (Class E/F1/F2), hot food takeaway (Sui Generis), accesses from Mill Lane and Astley Road and infrastructure including; public open space, SUDS, landscaping, the provision of associated infrastructure and ancillary works. Outline - all matters reserved except for access (EIA development).

Late items received after publication of main agenda:

Consultations:-

1.1.       Since publication of the Planning Committee report, additional objections, from existing objectors, have been received from three addresses.

i.)            Objection number 1 raises the following points:

·               Access to property, signage to property and access to services to property required during construction period;

·               Impact of noise during construction period;

·               Request for a new mains water supply south of Clickers Way;

·               Background mapping of plans, including for bridleways and nearby properties is out of date;

·               Impact of street lighting to new junctions;

Officer response to points raised:

All of the above points raised are matters for relevant planning conditions already included, including for construction management, or for matters related to reserved matters or highway related matters that will be considered through the relevant S278 or S38 process with Leicestershire County Council.

ii.)           Objection number 2 raises the following points:

·               Contrary to AAP with regards to location of employment provision, with no buffer to Union Mill Close proposed;

·               No assessment of noise from employment uses to nearby residents of Union Mill Close;

·               Union Mill Close not assessed through the Environmental Statement;

·               Developability of the employment units proposed queried due to restrictive planning condition;

·               Application 20/01225/OUT not considered with regards to highways and noise impact

Officer response to points raised:

The above points are considered to be able to overcome at reserved matters stage or through suitable planning conditions. The application is outline only with parameters to guide reserved matters.

Application 20/01225/OUT referenced is not consented, as suggested in the objection, instead the application is pending determination and will consider the wider impacts of the whole development.

The agent has provided a detailed response to all points raised in this objection taking each point raised in turn with their response in blue text.

iii.)          Objection number 3 raises the following points:

·               Impact upon access roads and highway safety

Officer response to points raised:

The above highways matters are covered within the Committee Extract.

Response to Union Mill Close objection

1.2.       The outline application and supporting masterplanning material for the SUE has been carefully prepared in the context of the development plan and having regard to the surrounding land uses to ensure any impact is minimised. This approach extends equally to existing residential areas at Union Mill Close, and has involved a wide range of technical studies, including an Environmental Impact Assessment. To demonstrate this, the following note responds to each of the points raised by the Union Mill Close objection dated 29th May 2024 as they appear in the correspondence.

Objector Comment:   Union Mill Close was constructed before the Earl Shilton and Barwell  ...  view the full agenda text for item 34.

Outline application to include up to 500 dwellings, a primary school / education use (class F1), retail (class E), community hub (class E/F1/F2), hot food takeaway (Sui Generis), accesses from Mill Lane and Astley Road and infrastructure including public open space, SUDS, landscaping, the provision of associated infrastructure and ancillary works. Outline – all matters reserved except for access (EIA development).

Applications 21/01511/OUT and 23/00330/OUT were presented and debated together but voted on separately.

An objector, the agent and two ward councillors spoke on the two applications.

It was moved by Councillor Bray and seconded by Councillor Lynch that permission be granted as recommended in the officer’s report.

Councillor Cook, seconded by Councillor Smith, proposed that the application be deferred to consider the concerns raised. As the second motion, this was not put to the vote.

The motion proposed by Councillor Bray and seconded by Councillor Lynch was put to the vote and CARRIED and it was

RESOLVED – permission be granted subject to:

(i)            A section 106 agreement as set out in the heads of terms in the officer’s report;

(ii)          The conditions outlined in the officer’s report.

Application for erection of two subterranean golf holiday lodges with associated works.

Late items received after preparation of main agenda:

Appraisal:-

1.1.       The applicant has confirmed that foul drainage will drain to a cesspit.

Application for erection of two subterranean golf holiday lodges with associated works.

The applicant spoke on this item.

It was moved by Councillor Bray and seconded by Councillor Flemming that permission be granted as recommended in the officer’s report.

Councillor Cook, seconded by Councillor Simmons, proposed that the application be refused due to harm to the countryside, amenity of occupiers and failure to complement the character of the surrounding area. As the second motion, this was not put to the vote.

The motion proposed by Councillor Bray and seconded by Councillor Flemming was put to the vote and CARRIED and it was

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

Having declared a non-registrable interest in this following item, Councillor Cook left the meeting at 7.57pm.

Application for erection of single storey self-build / custom-build dwelling (resubmission of 23/00923/FUL).

Late items received after preparation of main agenda:

Consultations:-

1.1.       Following publication of the report the Parish Council has written as follows:

Sheepy Parish Council submitted its response to this application on 30 April and we note that this has been acknowledged in the Head of Planning’s report to the Committee and that it has made an important contribution to this report, its conclusions, and the recommendation for refusal of the application.

As indicated in the Parish Council’s representation, the Parish Council believes that the application does not comply with a number of the legally binding policies in the Sheepy Neighbourhood Plan and additionally the application contains a number of errors. It therefore supports your recommendation (as Head of Planning) for refusal of this planning application. The Parish Council will therefore not take up the invitation to speak at the Planning Committee meeting.

Appraisal:-

1.2.       The Applicants have also drawn officers’ attention to two reports. The first is the Market Bosworth Neighbourhood Plan Housing Needs Assessment (Dec 2022). This is considered to be of limited relevance though as the site does not lie within the area covered by the Neighbourhood Plan.

1.3.       The point that the Applicants are seemingly making is that there is a high proportion of older people in the area and that the 2011 Census shows that many households are occupying dwellings that are too big for them. The Applicants point out that approval of the single storey dwelling will allow them to move out of the current house in to the new purpose built accommodation and allow the main dwelling to be occupied by a larger family.

1.4.       This is considered a national issue and not one that is limited to or prevalent within the local area and the benefits to the Applicants of a new purpose built dwelling are understood. It is noted that the Assessment states that specialist housing for older people should only be provided in sustainable, accessible locations that offer services and facilities, public transport options, and the necessary workforce of carers and others. It is not considered though that there are any wider planning benefits that should attract weight in the planning balance given the isolated and unsustainable location of the site.

1.5.       The second document is an assessment of the Council’s position regarding self-build dwellings that was commissioned by an applicant elsewhere, in different circumstances, in support of their application for a new self-build dwelling. The Applicants consider that the report shows that there are significant issues related to the Council’s self-build register and how it is compiled and maintained.

1.6.       The report concludes that an average of 16 individuals have been added to the self-build register every year but that there is consensus within Government research and other evidence that local authority self and custom build registers are not representative of the full demand, and as such there is a need for more self and custom  ...  view the full agenda text for item 36.

Application for erection of single storey self-build / custom-build dwelling (resubmission of 23/00923/FUL).

The applicant spoke on this item.

It was moved by Councillor Bray and seconded by Councillor Crooks that the application be deferred for a site visit and to urge the applicant to seek advice from Design Midlands. Upon being put to the vote, the motion was CARRIED and it was

RESOLVED – the application be deferred for a site visit and to seek advice from Design Midlands.

Councillor Cook returned to the meeting at 8.20pm.

Application for variation of condition 2 (approved plans) of planning application 15/00678/REM (part retrospective).

This application was deferred at a previous meeting, therefore no public speaking is permitted in accordance with the council’s constitution.

Late items received after preparation of main agenda:

Recommendation:-

1.1.       Following publication of the report there are a number of clarifications required as follows:

1.2.       To add to paragraph 2.3, it should be pointed out that the trees to the rear of the site  between the gardens and the industrial premises to the north are covered under Tree Protection Order. The Order was made in 1997 and protects the mainly leylandii and some pine trees. It is considered necessary to add the following planning condition;

Prior to commencement of the outbuilding, an Arboricultural Method Statement prepared by a suitably qualified arboriculturist shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The statement shall include full details of the technical structural engineering design and specification of the proposed outbuilding in relation to critical roots of the adjacent TPO trees. The development shall then be Page 5 of 5 implemented in strict accordance with the approved Arboricultural Method Statement and no tree shall be damaged as a result of construction works.

Reason: To ensure that adjacent TPO trees are retained and adequately protected during and after construction in the interests of the visual amenities of the area and biodiversity in accordance with Policies DM6 and DM10 of the adopted Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Development Plan Document (2016).

1.3.       For clarity, planning permission is often not required for an outbuilding within a garden where it is used for a purpose incidental to the main dwellinghouse and where it complies with the size limits set out in the Town and Country Planning General Permitted Development Order. Key to the use of the outbuilding is that it has to be incidental to the main dwelling. This means, for example, that an outbuilding cannot provide independent, self-contained, accommodation and cannot be used for commercial purposes.

1.4.       It is important to point out that the drawing approved under application 15/00678/REM showed the two adjacent dwellings having the same eaves and ridge height as the

proposed dwelling. This was not the case, and the two adjacent dwellings should have accurately been shown as having significantly lower eaves and ridge heights. Contrary to what is stated at paragraph 8.5 the as built dwelling is only approximately 0.2m taller than the dwelling approved under 15/00678/REM with the discrepancy in the respective heights being mainly attributable to the inaccuracy of the height of the adjacent dwellings. It should be noted that application 15/00678/REM had a different applicant and agent than the current application.

Application for variation of condition 2 (approved plans) of application 15/00678/REM (part retrospective).

Notwithstanding the officer’s recommendation that permission be granted, members expressed concern about the potential impact on neighbours in particular due to noise. It was moved by Councillor Lynch and seconded by Councillor Bray that permission be refused due to being contrary to policy DM10 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD. Upon being put to the vote, the motion was CARRIED and it was

RESOLVED – permission be refused by reason of the effect of the garden room on neighbours, in particular as a result of noise.

To report on progress relating to various appeals.

Members were provided with an update on appeals.