Agenda and minutes

An apology for absence was received from Councillors D M Carter, D A Gamble, T K Khong, R E R Morris and R H Thakor.

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.

By affirmation of the meeting, it was

UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED THAT:

The minutes of the meeting of the previous Committee held on 14 February 2019 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.

In accordance with Rule 14.1 of Part 4 of the Constitution, a motion needs to be proposed and seconded before the Committee can debate a planning application. This is an administrative process designed to assist the Chair to manage the meeting effectively and efficiently. This is not an indication of how the proposer and seconder intend to cast their votes at the conclusion of the debate. Members can only make a decision once they have considered the content of the debate and all of the information in front of them.

The Committee gave consideration to the report as set out on pages 6 -16 of the agenda, which asked it to determine a planning application for demolition of garage buildings and development of 36 dwellings and ancillary works, along with construction of a new roundabout junction to Welford Road.

Miss H Bareford spoke upon the application on behalf of the applicant, following which the Senior Planning Control Officer provided the Committee with a brief summary of the report.

It was confirmed that in respect of the Notes to Applicant on page 15 of the report, note 4 inadvertently referred to “the scheme required by condition 3”, whereas it should have referred to the scheme required by condition 5. The Committee were also notified that Natural England had requested that an alternative form of wording be used in relation to condition 3, albeit to achieve the same desired outcome.

A Member of the Committee noted that they had recently seen the removal of a number of large trees situated very close to the proposed development site, and asked for confirmation that these works related to another development, rather than the application site, as well as confirmation that the trees were not subject to any preservation orders. Officers confirmed that no preservation orders were in place, and undertook to check that other neighbouring developments were not interfering with trees on adjoining land.

The Committee requested clarification as to why the breakdown of 36 properties proposed in the report distinguished between standard two, three and four bedroomed properties and affordable one, two and three bedroomed properties, and requested confirmation that the building standards applied to both property types did not differ in any way. Officers confirmed that the building standards applied equally to all properties in the proposed development, and often the only visual difference in the properties was the absence of any garage(s) attached to affordable housing.

The Committee did express some significant concerns in relation to flood risk and highway safety, however it was noted that the Responsible Authorities for these functions had not raised any objections. A Member of the Committee also welcomed in particular the East Leicester and Rutland CCG seeking Section 106 funding to increase capacity at the South Wigston Health Centre, as to his knowledge this was the first time such an opportunity had arisen in the Borough.

A Member of the Committee expressed disappointed that the development did not include provision for bungalows, which were said to be in particular demand for the Borough due to the ageing demographic. It was however acknowledged that the Council had no power to force developers to include such properties in their plans. A Member of the Committee also asked that particular attention be given to ensuring the developer’s compliance with condition 14, as current construction projects in other parts of the Borough had caused a particular problem of mud being deposited onto the highway.

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

RESOLVED THAT:

The application  ...  view the full minutes text for item 54a

The Committee gave consideration to the report as set out on pages 17-22 of the agenda, which asked it to determine a planning application for creation of an artificial grass pitch with perimeter fencing and floodlighting and refurbishment of tennis courts with replacement fencing and floodlighting at Beauchamp College.

The Senior Planning Control Officer provided the Committee with a brief summary of the report. A Member of the Committee expressed concern regarding possible light pollution around neighbouring properties from the proposed floodlights, although attention was drawn by Officers to condition 2 which offered assurance that the pitch and tennis courts shall not be lit beyond 22:00 hours on any day that the facilities are in use to safeguard the amenities of nearby homes and gardens.

A Member of the Committee also noted that whilst there was good parking provision at the site, access was controlled by gates, therefore it was imperative that access arrangements were fully considered in relation to condition 4, to avoid any issues in relation to non-educational establishment’s users accessing the proposed facilities.

It was moved by the Chair, seconded by Councillor J Kaufman and

UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED THAT:

Condition 4 be supplemented by an additional sentence to make it more explicit that well managed parking and community access arrangements need to be included in the community use agreement before use of the development can commence.

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

UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED THAT:

The application be GRANTED planning permission in accordance with the submitted documents and plans and subject to the prescribed conditions (as amended).

The Committee gave consideration to the report as set out on pages 23-28 of the agenda, which asked it to determine a planning application for the erection of a two storey side extension and a single storey rear extension.

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

UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED THAT:

The application be GRANTED planning permission in accordance with the submitted documents and plans, subject to the prescribed conditions.

The Committee gave consideration to the report as set out on pages 29-36 of the agenda, which asked it to determine a planning application for extension to the side of John Monks sports pavilion and erection of a lean-to timber store to the rear.

The Planning Control Team Leader provided the Committee with a brief summary of the report.

The Committee noted that the two representations received appeared to have no direct connection with the proposals, and thus it was presumed that the objections related to a different application and had been inadvertently submitted with this application, meaning they had to be included in the report. The Committee requested that Officers write to the two objectors and inform them that their representations should be re-submitted in respect of the correct application.

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

UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED THAT:

The application be GRANTED planning permission in accordance with the submitted documents and plans, subject to the prescribed conditions.