Agenda and draft minutes

To receive apologies for absence from Members to determine the quorum of the meeting in accordance with Rule 7 of Part 4 of the Constitution.

An apology for absence was received from Councillor G G Hunt and R E R Morris.

Councillor C S Gore attended the meeting remotely, but in accordance with the provisions in the Local Government Act 1972, he was not considered present for the purposes of voting.

To appoint substitute Members in accordance with Rule 26 of Part 4 of the Constitution and the Substitution Procedure Rules.

None.

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'.

Councillor C S Gore declared a non-pecuniary interest with regard to application no. 24/00080/COU insofar as he was a member of the Wigston Academies Trust and the proximity of the site to Wigston Academy.

Councillor J Kaufman declared a non-pecuniary interest with regard to application no. 25/00053/FUL insofar as he was the applicant’s father, and therefore confirmed would leave the Civic Suite during consideration of the same.

To read, confirm and approve the minutes of the previous meeting in accordance with Rule 19 of Part 4 of the Constitution.

By affirmation of the meeting, it was

UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED THAT:

The minutes of the previous meeting held on 25 February 2025 be taken as read, confirmed and approved.

Report of the Senior Development Control Officer

The Committee gave consideration to the report and appendix (as set out at pages 5- 16 of the agenda reports pack), which sought approval for the change of use of the application site from residential (Class C3) to a care home for one looked after young person (Class C2).

Councillor Martin entered at 7:12pm and was advised that while he may take part in the discussion, because he was not present for the entirety of the report’s presentation he would not be able to vote on this item.

Members raised various issues with the application regarding the fencing around the property, the parking facilities and traffic, safety for the resident and for others, and the true purpose of the site. Members also requested it be put on record that they disagree with and object to the Planning Inspector’s advice that “local need” should be determined as county-wide rather than borough-wide.

Officers advised Members that the Highways authority had deemed the parking and traffic issue to be acceptable and that the other matters raised were not a part of this application and therefore should not be included in the consideration of this application.

It was moved by Councillor G A Boulter, seconded by the Vice-Chair, and

DEFEATED THAT:

The application be DEFERRED to obtain information on the safety and security of the site.

For                  3

Against          5

Abstentions  0

It was moved by Councillor J K Ford, seconded by Councillor G A Boulter, and

UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED THAT:

The application be REFUSED planning permission on the grounds that the proposal was out of character with the existing street scene, there was insufficient parking and there was a lack of local need.

Report of the Senior Development Control Officer

Having declared a non-pecuniary interest, the Vice Chair left the Civic Suite and took no part in the debate on the planning application and voting thereon.

The Committee gave consideration to the report and appendix (as set out at pages 17 – 33 of the agenda reports pack), which sought refusal for application no. 25/00053/FUL.

Councillor C S Gore left the meeting at 8:10pm.

Mr Michael Collins spoke upon the application on behalf of the applicant.

It was moved by the Chair, seconded by Councillor G A Boulter, and

RESOLVED THAT:

That the application be REFUSED planning permission on the following material planning ground(s):

The proposed front gable and rear dormers were considered to significantly harm the character and appearance of the existing property and local surroundings due to the scale, bulk, siting, fenestration, and roof design. The design of the proposed front gable and rear dormers overwhelmed the host dwelling's original roofscape, creating a top-heavy dominant feature that was out of keeping with the character and appearance of the existing dwelling. Additionally, three storey front gables were not a characteristic of the surrounding area; therefore, the proposal would sit at odds within the wider street scene and similarly designed matching dwellings within the cul-de-sac. As a result, the proposal was considered to constitute an incongruous and unsympathetic form of development that would be out of keeping with the existing dwelling and would have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The proposal was therefore contrary to the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies 6 and 44 of the Oadby and Wigston Local Plan (2019), and the Residential Development Supplementary Planning Document (2019).

For                  6

Against          2

Abstentions  0