Agenda and minutes

An apology for absence was received from Councillors R E Fahey, J Kaufman, Mrs L Kaufman and Dr T K Khong.

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'.

None.

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

RESOLVED THAT:

The minutes of the previous meeting of the Committee held on 14 December 2017 be taken as read, confirmed and signed.

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

None.

Report(s) of the Planning Control Team Leader and the relevant Planning Control Officer(s).

Dr A Rahman, applicant, spoke upon the application. Since the last meeting, he said several amendments had been made to the application including: a half-metre reduction to both sides, the removal of the side-entrance and side-stairs; a different front-porch design; and a reduction in development height by 15 cms. He stated that he had been in contact with a timber framework company who had since confirmed that the height on the plans would not be exceeded. He also said that no hedges would be removed. He opined that, although he was working with the Council, he did not consider a larger reduction in the proposed property size as acceptable.

Councillor Mrs Samia Z Haq, Ward Councillor for the Oadby Uplands Ward, spoke upon the application. She stated that she was unsure as to whether the recommendation to refuse was in fact substantiated. She said that the proposed property would sit on a large plot, that the applicant had made alterations and had been very cooperative with the Council. She urged Members to grant the application.

The Committee gave consideration to the application (at pages 5 - 12) as delivered and summarised by the Senior Planning Control Officer which should be read together with these minutes as a composite document.

A debate thereon was had whereby the majority of Members felt that, although the applicant had moved some way towards making alterations to render the application somewhat more acceptable, the proposed dwelling-house was still of such a large visual bulk and an assertive character that it would not be in keeping with the distinctive local area. It was also still considered that a number of features of the proposed development would have an adverse detrimental impact on amenity.

In particular, whilst Members’ acknowledged that the additional side entrance and associated staircase had been removed, they expressed concern as there appeared to be a ground floor “cupboard” on the revised plans which, as Officers confirmed, could possibly accommodate the installation of an internal staircase in the future.

It was moved by the Chair, seconded by the Vice Chair and

RESOLVED THAT:

The application be REFUSED planning permission for the reasons as set out in in the foregoing minutes.

Votes For                  7

Votes Against          0

Abstentions             1

Mr Miles Drew spoke upon the application on behalf of the applicant, Jelson Homes.  He opined that the Council did not have an up-to-date housing target yet formally featuring in an emerging development plan document and that, according to the National Planning Policy Framework, where the development plan was out-of-date, the presumption in favour of sustainable development applied. He stated that, in the absence of any material harm to the Green Wedge, or any technical constraints to development, in Jelson’s opinion, there were no adverse impacts that would significantly or demonstrably outweigh the range of benefits of the development.

Mr Colin Reynolds spoke upon the application on behalf of those residents living on/nearby the estate adjacent to the application site as an objector. The main objections cited were: the loss of privacy as site was at a higher level than the existing estate; the site’s access leading to a potential increase in traffic to/from the existing estate and; the site being built on was designated Green Wedge.

Mr Michael Creasey, local resident, spoke upon the application as an objector. He said he had lived on the estate for 48-years and regularly enjoyed walks with their family and dog/s across the fields and along the footpaths to/from Brocks Hill County Park, often meeting many other people doing the same thing. He stated that the Green Wedge area was of the upmost importance to his and others’ quality of life.

The Committee gave consideration to the application (at pages 13 - 32) as delivered and summarised by the Planning Control Team Leader which should be read together with these minutes as a composite document.

A debate thereon was had whereby Members expressed concern at the potential and significant increase in traffic, if approved, and did not agreed with the Highway Authorities’ representations on the matter. There were also concerns in relation to the construction traffic having to enter/exit via the Meadows Estate and increasing encroachments into the Green Wedge. There was a further concern raised regarding the increase in primary-aged school children, as the two local schools were already at capacity with little or no room for expansion. Members also sought reassurance that, if refused and the applicant went to appeal, that the Council would have strong material planning grounds in relation to the land being designated Green Wedge.

The Committee was advised that the land in question was identified on both the adopted and emerging Local Plans as Green Wedge and therefore could see no reason as to why any Planning Inspector would overrule that. He also advised the that the Council had a housing land supply in excess of the required 5-year period, plus 5% as defined in Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment and, therefore, the development would be an inappropriate one in a non-designated area.

It was moved by the Chair, seconded by the Vice Chair and

UNAMIMOUSLY RESOLVED THAT:

The application be REFUSED planning permission for the reasons as set out in in the foregoing minutes.