Agenda and draft minutes

The Committee is asked to confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 22nd February 2024.

The minutes of the meeting held on 22nd February 2024 were confirmed as a correct record and signed.

To deal with the following question on notice, submitted under Question on Notice Procedure 12.8.

Estate Plan for the Garendon Park SUE and associated matters

Question submitted by Max Hunt.

Mr M. Hunt – Estate Plan for the Garendon Park SUE and associated matters.

1. “The Borough’s latest Annual Monitoring Report indicates that 60 homes on the West of Loughborough (Garendon Park) SUE would be completed by March 2024 and rising to about 200 a year by 2026, how many homes have actually been completed to date?
2. Bearing in mind the importance of occupied properties in the S106 Agreement, how many of the completions have been occupied to date?
3. The Borough Council began work on the Estate Management Plan for the future residents more than five years ago, including the engagement of consultants.  What has been spent on consultants to date?
4. In November 2021 the Committee Chair responded to a question regarding the Estate Plan for the Garendon Park Development that “The Estate Plan required by Schedule 7 of the Section 106 is required to be submitted and agreed prior to the first occupation. and requires that the management companies agreed as part of the Estate Plan are set up prior to the first occupation. The Estate Plan has not been agreed at this point in time and CBC continue to liaise with the developers to progress this issue in line with the timescales set out in the S106 agreement. 

The Estate Plan will be published via Charnwood’s website upon agreement.
After a further 18 months during which up to sixty properties may have been occupied, why has this important Plan still not been agreed?

5. What arrangements will be made for consultation, publication and approval of the Estate Plan?
6. In September 2018 it was confirmed that Para 2.1 of Schedule 7 prevents Occupation of any dwelling until the Estate Plan has been submitted to and approved by the Council. What sanction is available to the Local Planning Authority (LPA) to ensure this and why has it not been used?
7. Para 2.2 requires management in accordance with the approved Estate Plan in perpetuity and prevents occupation other than in accordance with the approved Estate Plan arrangements.  What sanction is available to the LPA to enforce this and why has it not been used?
8. If the LPA does not enforce the S106 agreement triggered by the first occupied home, how can we expect developers to meet other commitments when more homes are occupied?
9. What potential legal and financial risks do purchasers take when signing a deed to maintain contributions to an Estate Plan that doesn’t yet exist?”

A response to the questions had been published on 20th March 2024 within the Extras Report and available at: Agenda for Plans Committee on Thursday, 21st March, 2024, 5.00 pm - Charnwood Borough Council (moderngov.co.uk) .

Mr Hunt was in attendance at the meeting and asked the following supplementary question:

“With regard to question 8, when other works are said to be meeting their obligations (cf trigger points), what progress, if any, has been made on the items in the restoration programme which have failed to meet the S106 Agreement, notably the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 64.

The following disclosures were made:

(i)              by Councillor S. Forrest – in respect of planning application P/23/2050/2 (14-18 Loughborough Road, Mountsorrel) who knew the applicant from work carried out in her Ward but confirmed that she came to the meeting with an open mind.

(ii)             by Councillor Fryer – in respect of planning applications P/23/1931/2 (10 Polyantha Square, East Goscote) and P/23/2058/2 (18 Barrow Road, Sileby) who was Chair of the Children and Families Overview and Scrutiny Committee at Leicestershire County Council but confirmed that she came to the meeting with an open mind.

(iii)           by Councillor Snartt – in respect of planning application P/23/1931/2 (10 Polyantha Square, East Goscote) who knew the objector and the Parish Council member, but confirmed he had not discussed the application and came to the meeting with an open mind. 

(iv)           by Councillor Lawrence – in respect of planning application P/23/2058/2 (18 Barrow Road, Sileby) who was Ward Councillor for the area, had called-in the application and would be speaking on the item.  He sat in the public gallery for the duration of the item.

(v)             by Councillor Bokor – in respect of planning application P/23/0271/2 (Land adj. 1 London Lane, Wymeswold) who was Ward Councillor for the area, but had not called the application in and confirmed that she came to the meeting with an open mind.

The list of planning applications to be considered at the meeting is appended.

Reports of the Head of Planning and Growth, setting out applications P/23/0271/2, P/23/1931/2, P/23/2058/2 and P/23/2050/2 were submitted (item 5 on the agenda filed with these minutes).  An Extras Report in respect of P/23/2050/2 was also submitted (also filed with these minutes).

Three late requests to speak had been received from the following:

1.     Ms Kay Carpenter (agent, on behalf of the applicant) – in respect of application P/23/0271/2;

2.     Ms Leona White-Simmonds (on behalf of the applicant) – in respect of application P/23/1931/2;

3.     Mr Raffaele Russo (applicant) – in respect of application P/23/2050/2.

The Chair and members of the Committee were in agreement for the late requests to speak to be granted.

In accordance with the procedure for public speaking at meetings, the following objectors, applicants or their representatives and representative of a parish council attended the meeting and expressed their views:

(i)              Ms Kay Carpenter (agent, on behalf of the applicant) – in respect of application P/23/0271/2;

(ii)             Mr Malcolm Heaven (objector) – in respect of application P/23/1931/2;

(iii)           Ms Leona White-Simmonds (on behalf of the applicant) – in respect of application P/23/1931/2;

(iv)           Councillor Sue Gerrard (on behalf of East Goscote Parish Council) - in respect of application P/23/1931/2;

(v)             Ms Dawn Diamond (objector) – in respect of application P/23/2058/2;

(vi)           Councillor Elizabeth Jones (on behalf of Sileby Parish Council) – in respect of application P/23/2058/2;

(vii)          Mr Raffaele Russo (applicant) – in respect of application P/23/2050/2.

In accordance with the procedure for Borough Councillors speaking at Plans Committee meetings, the following Councillors attended the meeting and expressed their views:

(i)       Councillor Needham in respect of application P/23/1931/2;

(ii)      Councillor Lawrence in respect of application P/23/2058/2;

(iii)      Councillor Fox in respect of application P/23/2050/2.

A typing error was identified in the planning application number on the agenda front sheet, page 2.  The correct planning application number was P/23/0271/2.

RESOLVED that in respect of application P/23/0271/2 (Land adj. 1 London Lane, Wymeswold) planning permission be granted subject to the planning conditions and reasons as set out in the report of the Head of Planning and Growth and that the Head of Planning and Growth be given delegated authority to determine the final detail of the planning conditions in consultation with the Chair of the Plans Committee.

RESOLVED that in respect of application P/23/1931/2 (10 Polyantha Square, East Goscote) planning permission be granted subject to an additional condition to secure a property management plan, and subject to the planning conditions and reasons as set out in the report of the Head of Planning and Growth and that the Head of Planning and Growth be given delegated authority to determine the final detail of the planning conditions in consultation with the Chair of the Plans Committee.

RESOLVED that in respect of application P/23/2058/2 (18 Barrow Road, Sileby) planning permission be refused as the proposal was considered to result in unacceptable harm to neighbouring amenity, by reason of unsuitability for a care home, evidence of extreme noise and disruption, unsuitability of shared access for this level of care, lack of privacy and limited space in the outside area, parking area not self-contained and was contrary to policy CS2, emerging policy DS5 and saved policy EV/1, and that Officers be given delegated authority to determine the wording for the refusal reason.

RESOLVED that in respect of application P/23/2050/2 (14-18 Loughborough Road, Mountsorrel) planning permission be granted with additional conditions relating to boundary treatments on the northern site boundary for safety due to the proximity of the River Soar and a condition to restrict the permission to the specified use only unless further grant of planning permission, and subject to the planning conditions and reasons as set out in the report of the Head of Planning and Growth, updated to reflect the fact that the development had begun on site, and that the Head of Planning and Growth be given delegated authority to determine the final detail of the planning conditions in consultation with the Chair of the Plans Committee.

A list of applications determined under powers delegated to officers for the period from 13th February 2024 to 12th March 2024 is attached.

A list of applications determined under powers delegated to officers for the period from 13th February 2024 to 12th March 2024 was submitted (item 6 on the agenda filed with these minutes).