Agenda and minutes

Development Control Committee
Thursday, 14th April, 2016 7.00 pm

Venue: Council Offices, Station Road, Wigston

Contact: Samuel Ball  Email: samuel.ball@oadby-wigston.gov.uk

Items
No. Item

58.

Apologies for Absence

Minutes:

An apology for absence was received from Councillors F S Broadley, D M Carter, R F Eaton, D A Gamble, J Kaufman and T Barr.

59.

Appointment of Substitutes

Minutes:

Councillors M L Darr and B Fahey substituting for Councillors D M Carter and T Barr, respectively.

60.

Declarations of Interest

Members are reminded that any declaration of interest should be made having regard to the Members’ Code of Conduct. In particular, Members must make clear the nature of the interest and whether it is 'pecuniary' or ‘non-pecuniary'.

Minutes:

None.

61.

Minutes of the Previous Meeting held on 17 February 2016 pdf icon PDF 90 KB

To read, confirm and sign the minutes of the previous meeting in accordance with Rule 17 of Part 4 of the Constitution.

Minutes:

RESOLVED THAT: 

 

The minutes of the previous meeting of the Committee held on 17 February 2016 be taken as read, confirmed and signed.

62.

Petitions and Deputations

To receive any Petitions and, or, Deputations in accordance with Rule 24 of Part 4 of the Constitution.

Minutes:

None.

63.

Report of the Planning Control Manager pdf icon PDF 137 KB

Minutes:

The Committee gave consideration to the report (at pages 7 - 13) as delivered by the Interim Planning Control Manager which should be read together with these minutes as a composite document.

 

1.   Application No. 16/00022/TPO - 16 Knighton Rise, Oadby, Leicester, LE2 2RE

 

The Interim Planning Control Manager summarised the planning application’s site and location, relevant planning history, consultations, representations and planning considerations, identifying the relevant planning policies as detailed in the report (at pages 7 - 13). He summarised the report’s conclusion (at page 12), stating that the application was recommended for refusal of consent to remove the tree.

 

The Interim Planning Control Manager advised that if Members were minded to refuse consent, the applicant may well seek a claim for compensation in respect of the cost of additional works for the remediation of the building affected: however, any claim was said to be limited given that, first, the extent of the damage attribute to the tree in question was, on a balance of probabilities, negligible and, second, limited to the net additional loss or damage that may occur after the application was made or occurring within 12-months of the date of decision.

 

Councillor G A Boulter identified the non-permeable macadam ground surfacing as the most probable reason of desiccation in the clay soils and, therefore, the main attributable cause of movement of, and subsequent damage to, the building. He stated that the evidence before Members did not warrant the removal of the tree at the present time and that the most prudent course of action was to re-saturate the clay soils’ moisture/water levels so to militate against the risks of further damage.

 

Councillor Mrs S Z Haq enquired as to how any claim for compensation was to be quantified, whether the claim could be contested by the Council and if a claim could be brought after the 12-months of the date of decision.

 

The Interim Planning Control Manager advised that there was no definitive formula in quantifying the sum of any claim and that any such claim was nevertheless limited to a net additional loss or damage within a proceeding 12-month period. He reported that the engineers’ reports of January 2014 and December 2015 documented the damage to the building as “very slight” and “slight”, respectively, and that any claim for subsequent damage, albeit a small sum, was to be proven on a balance of probabilities. He further advised that although a claim could be brought after the 12-month period, such a claim was not considered to be persuasive at the present time.

 

Councillor R E R Morris hypothetically enquired as to whether the supplanting of the tree, and its network of roots, would contribute to any resulting ground subsidence.

 

The Interim Planning Control Manager advised that any replacement tree planting would impose its own effects in relation to the building and that, to avoid a permanent detraction of amenity within the area, a like-for-like replacement would be sought.

 

Councillor R E R Morris moved for the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 63.