Agenda item

Agenda item

Planning Applications

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

Minutes:

Reports of the Head of Planning and Regeneration, setting out applications for planning permission, were submitted (items 1 to 4 in the appendix to the agenda filed with these minutes).  Additional Items reports in respect of applications P/18/0602/2, P/18/1161/2, P/17/0881/2 and P/18/0250/2 were also submitted (also filed with these minutes).

 

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

 

(i)            Ms Payal Walker (applicant) in respect of application P/18/0606/2;

(ii)          Mr Jake Locke (objector) and Mr Anil Lad (applicant) in respect of application P/18/1161/2;

(iii)         Ms Anne Bailey (objector) and Ms Lizzie Marjoram (on behalf of the applicant) in respect of application P/17/0881/2;

(iv)         Councillor Margaret Smidowicz (objector) and Ms Frances Turner (applicant) in respect of application P/18/0250/2.

 

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 Huddlestone, speaking on behalf of Councillor Bradshaw, in respect of application P/18/0606/2;

(ii)          Councillor Smidowicz in respect of application P/18/1161/2.

 

In addition the Chair, Councillor Page, read a statement on behalf of Councillor Taylor, who could not be present at the meeting, in respect of application P/17/0881/2.  He stated that the statement contained Councillor Taylor’s views and not his.

 

In addition to the general update on the new version of the National Planning Policy Framework, published by the Government on 24th July 2018, that was contained in the Additional Items report, officers provided the following advice regarding each of the applications as follows:

 

(i)           in respect of application P/18/0606/2 – while there had been slight changes to policy in relation to the application there was nothing of note that would change the recommendation that had been submitted;

(ii)          in respect of application P/18/1161/2 – there was nothing of direct relevance in the changes to the National Planning Policy Framework that altered the weight to be given to the planning considerations or the recommendation set out in the report;

(iii)         in respect of application P/17/0881/2 – there had been changes in relation to considering viability (paragraph 57), the appropriate amount of affordable housing on brownfield sites (paragraph 63), the minimum amount of affordable housing required to be affordable home ownership on major residential sites and exceptions to that requirement (paragraph 64); the Council could now demonstrate a five year housing land supply but that was also the case when the original permission was granted in 2016; it was concluded that there was no need to change the officer recommendation set out in the submitted report;

(iv)         in respect of application P/18/0250/2 – the Council could now demonstrate a five year housing land supply but the absence of one was not given great weight in the planning balance in reaching the recommendation set out in the report; the changes to the policy on design and layout (paragraph 131) added support to the recommendation that planning permission should be refused.

 

Officers provided the following clarification at the meeting:

 

(i)            in respect of application P/18/0250/2 – there had been additional correspondence from the applicant’s agent that had been circulated to members of the Committee and officers after the Additional Items report had been prepared; that correspondence set out the benefits of the proposed scheme including attaching a financial value to those benefits; it was accepted that the scheme would deliver significant benefits and this had been taken into account in preparing the report; the specific financial values set out in the correspondence had not been verified.

 

RESOLVED

 

1.         that, in respect of application P/18/0606/2 (Mrs Payal Walker, 51 Garendon Road, Loughborough), planning permission be granted subject to the conditions, reasons and advice note set out in the report of the Head of Planning and Regeneration;

 

2.         that, in respect of application P/18/1161/2 (Mr Anil Lad, 25 Ashleigh Drive, Loughborough), planning permission be granted subject to the conditions, reasons and advice notes set out in the report of the Head of Planning and Regeneration, but subject to the removal of recommended condition 6 relating to the annexing garden fence;

 

3.         that, in respect of application P/17/0881/2 (Barwood Homes Limited, 129 Cropston Road, Anstey):

 

A.     authority be given to the Head of Planning and Regeneration and the Head of Strategic Support to enter into an agreement under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure improvements, on terms to be finalised by the parties, as set out below:

 

·         the provision of one accessible bungalow on the site gifted to Charnwood Borough Council

·         a sum of £43,150 towards the enhancement of skate park facilities in Stadon Park

·         a sum of £108,891.09 towards improvements at Woolden Hill Primary School

·         a sum of £29,378.41 towards 16+ education at Birstall Cedars Academy

·         a sum of £1,390 towards increasing lending stock at Anstey Library

·         a sum of £12,731 to provide for travel packs for new residents, including possible bus passes, and for improvement to the two nearest bus stops;

 

B.     subject to the completion of the Section 106 legal agreement referred to in resolution A above, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions, reasons and advice note set out in the report of the Head of Planning and Regeneration;

 

4.         that, in respect of application P/18/0250/2 (Future Generation Ltd, Land to the West of Aumberry Gap, Aumberry Gap, Loughborough), planning permission be refused for the reasons set out in the report of the Head of Planning and Regeneration.

 

Supporting documents: