Agenda item

Schedule of planning applications and related maps attached.

The Committee considered a schedule of planning applications, together with a list of late items, and the recommendations of the Deputy Chief Executive (Community Direction).

 

(a)        11/00977/FUL – Extensions and alterations to dwelling, 7 Kerry Close, Barwell (Mr Jim Bennett)

 

It was reported that this application had been withdrawn from the agenda.

 

(b)        11/00368/FUL – Erection of 84 dwellings incorporating access, public open space, balancing pond, pumping station and associated earthworks, landscaping, car parking and other ancillary works, Land adjacent to Greyhound Stadium, Nutts Lane, Hinckley (Taylor Wimpey UK Limited)

 

Notwithstanding the officer’s recommendation that the application be permitted subject to a Section 106 Agreement and conditions, Members felt that the development still posed a risk with regard to pedestrian and highway safety. It was MOVED by Miss Taylor and SECONDED by Mr Bill that the application be REFUSED on the grounds of pedestrian and highway safety.

 

The Head of Planning requested that voting on this motion be recorded. The vote was taken as follows:

 

Mr Bill, Mr Gould, Mrs Hodgkins, Mr Hulbert, Mr Inman, Mr Lynch, Mr Mayne, Miss Taylor and Ms Witherford voted FOR the MOTION (9);

 

Mr Allen, Mr Batty, Mr Boothby, Mrs Chastney, Mr Moore, Mrs Smith, Mr Sutton and Mr Ward abstained from voting.

 

The MOTION was therefore declared CARRIED. It was

 

RESOLVED – the application be refused for the following reasons:

 

In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the impact of the development would lead to an increase in pedestrian movements which with the lack of provision of an appropriate safe pedestrian route and crossing, together with the narrow width of the canal bridge and the lack of a proper footway across the bridge would be to the detriment of pedestrian safety. As such the proposal is contrary to Saved Policy T5 of the Hinckley and Bosworth Local Plan and to central government guidance contained within Planning Policy Guidance 13 (PPG13) Transport.

 

(c)        11/00823/FUL – Erection of 52 dwellings with garages and associated infrastructure, Land south of 26 to 28 Britannia Road, Burbage (Mr John Deakin)

 

Notwithstanding the officer’s recommendation that the application be permitted subject to a Section 106 Agreement and conditions, some Members felt that the housing numbers proposed on the site, which formed the basis of the Appeal Inspector’s decision in 2011, were no longer necessary. They also felt that the application site was outside of the settlement boundary. It was MOVED by Mr Moore and SECONDED by Mr Boothby that the application be REFUSED on these grounds.

 

The Head of Planning requested that voting on this motion be recorded. The vote was taken as follows:

 

Mr Bill, Mr Boothby, Mr Inman, Mr Lynch, Mr Mayne, Mr Moore, Mrs Smith and Ms Witherford voted FOR the MOTION (8);

 

Mr Allen, Mr Batty, Mrs Chastney, Mr Gould, Mr Sutton and Mr Ward voted AGAINST the MOTION (6);

 

Mrs Hodgkins, Mr Hulbert and Miss Taylor abstained from voting.

 

The MOTION was therefore declared CARRIED. It was

 

RESOLVED – the application be refused for the following reasons:

 

In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the proposed scheme by virtue of its nature and location, constitutes new residential development outside the settlement boundary of Burbage, with no special overriding justification and is therefore contrary to national guidance contained within Planning Policy Statements 3 and 7, Policy 4 of the Adopted Local Development Framework Core Strategy and Saved Policies RES5 and NE5 of the Adopted Hinckley and Bosworth Local Plan.

 

(d)        11/00791/OUT – Erection of bespoke care home with 48 bedrooms, associated amenities and staff facilities (outline – layout, siting, appearance and access for approval), Glebe Farm, Kirkby Road, Barwell (Mr Konrad Skubala)

 

Whilst acknowledging the officer’s recommendation that the application be refused, members felt that the reason for refusal regarding the site being outside of the settlement boundary was inappropriate as it was on land that in future would form part of the sustainable urban extension (SUE) of Barwell. Some Members felt that, whilst the proposed development was not aesthetically pleasing, the site needed to be tidied up. It was MOVED by Mr Batty and SECONDED by Mr Boothby that the application be APPROVED.

 

Following further discussion, Mr Batty, with the agreement of Mr Boothby, WITHDREW his motion. It was felt that as the design of the building was the only reason for refusal supported by the Members, the application could be delegated to officers to discuss an improved design with the application. It was then MOVED by Mr Mayne and SECONDED by Mr Sutton that the determination of the application be delegated to the Head of Planning but that should an agreement not be reached with the applicant on an acceptable design, the application be brought back to the Committee.

 

Upon being put to the vote, the MOTION was CARRIED.

 

RESOLVED – the Head of Planning be granted delegated authority to determine the application subject to his agreeing to an amended design. Should the Head of Planning not be satisfied with the outcome of changes to the design of the building, the application be brought back to the Committee.

 

(e)        11/00946/FUL – Change of use from public house to convenience store and erection of single storey extension, The New Galaxy, 67 Boyslade Road, Burbage (Punch Partnerships (PTL) and Midlands Assured Consultancy)

 

During debate on this application and having reached 9.30pm, it was moved by Mr Sutton, seconded by Mr Inman and

 

RESOLVED – the meeting be permitted to continue until completion of all business to be transacted.

 

On returning to debate on the application, notwithstanding the officer’s recommendation that the application be permitted, some Members felt that the loss of the public house would be a loss of a valuable community facility and the change of use would cause traffic problems. It was MOVED by Mr Inman and SECONDED by Mr Bill that the application be REFUSED for these reasons.

 

The Head of Planning requested that voting on this motion be recorded. The vote was taken as follows:

 

Mr Bill, Mrs Hodgkins, Mr Inman, Mr Lynch and Mr Moore voted FOR the MOTION (5);

 

Mr Allen, Mr Batty, Mr Boothby, Mrs Chastney, Mr Gould, Mrs Smith, Mr Sutton, Miss Taylor and Mr Ward voted AGAINST the MOTION (9);

 

Mr Hulbert, Mr Mayne and Ms Witherford abstained from voting.

 

The MOTION was therefore declared LOST.

 

It was then MOVED by Mr Sutton, SECONDED by Mr Allen and

 

RESOLVED – the application be permitted subject to the conditions contained in the officer’s report.

 

The meeting adjourned at 9.40pm, at which time Mr Boothby and Mr Bray left the meeting, and reconvened at 9.50pm.

 

(f)         11/00308/FUL – Erection of ten dwellings (part amended scheme of previously approved planning development 08/00349/FUL), Land opposite Superstore, Stoke Road, Hinckley (Miss Clare Guest)

 

On the motion of Mr Sutton, seconded by Mr Hulbert it was

 

RESOLVED – subject to the receipt of a deed of variation of the Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972, the Head of Planning be granted delegated powers to grant planning permission subject to the conditions contained in the officer’s report and late items. Failure to complete the said agreement by 24 February 2012 might result in the application being refused.

 

(g)        11/00918/FUL – Change of use of land for paintballing with ancillary buildings and structures and associated parking, Land adjacent to Lilac Cottage, Cliffe Lane, Markfield (Ms C Tremarco)

 

On the motion of Mr Sutton, seconded by Mr Batty, it was

 

RESOLVED – the application be permitted subject to the conditions contained in the officer’s report and late items.

 

(h)        11/00882/FUL – Erection of one new dwelling, land adjacent to 6 Caldon Close, Hinckley (Mr Frank Downes)

 

Whilst in support of the officer’s recommendation, Members felt that the area had been well maintained and should retain some of its natural habitat and character. It was therefore agreed that conditions be added regarding landscaping.

 

RESOLVED – subject to the receipt of an acceptable Unilateral Undertaking under S106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to provide financial contributions towards off site play and open space, the Head of Planning be granted delegated powers to grant planning permission subject to the conditions contained in the officer’s report and the following additional conditions. Failure to complete the said agreement by 7 February 2012 might result in the application being refused.

 

Additional Conditions:

 

No development shall take place until full details of a soft landscape scheme to the front and rear boundaries has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. REASON: In the interests of visual amenity and in accordance with Policy BE1 of the adopted Hinckley and Bosworth Local plan.

 

The approved soft landscaping scheme shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.  The soft landscaping scheme shall be maintained for a period of five years from the date of planting. During this period any trees or shrubs which die or are damaged, removed, or seriously diseased shall be replaced by trees or shrubs of a similar size and species to those originally planted at which time shall be specified in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: In the interests of visual amenity and in accordance with Policy BE1 of the adopted Hinckley and Bosworth Local plan.