A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

Council and councillors

Agenda and minutes

Venue: Council Chamber, Catmose, Oakham, Rutland, LE15 6HP. View directions

Contact: Marcelle Gamston 

Items
No. Item

263.

MINUTES

To confirm the minutes of the Development Control and Licensing Committee held on 1 September 2015.

Minutes:

 

 

RESOLVED

 

With the addition of the above sentence that the minutes of the Development and Control Licensing Committee held on 1 September 2015 be confirmed and signed by the Chairman.

264.

DECLARATIONS OF INTERESTS

In accordance with the Regulations, Members are invited to declare any disclosable interests under the Code of Conduct and the nature of those interests in respect of items on this Agenda and/or indicate if Section 106 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 applies to them.

Minutes:

Mr M Oxley

Item 1

2013/0583/FUL &

2013/0585/LBA

Mr & Mrs D Coleman

Mr Oxley declared that he had officiated at the funeral of a member of the family some years ago.

 

 

 

Mr T Mathias

Item 1

2013/0583/FUL &

2013/0585/LBA

Mr & Mrs D Coleman

Mr Mathias declared that he knew the applicants and would not take part in the discussion or the vote.

 

265.

PETITIONS, DEPUTATIONS AND QUESTIONS

To receive any petitions, deputations and questions from members of the Public in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rules.

 

The total time allowed for this item shall be 30 minutes.  Petitions, deputations and questions shall be dealt with in the order in which they are received.  Questions may also be submitted at short notice by giving a written copy to the Committee Administrator 15 minutes before the start of the meeting.

 

The total time allowed for questions at short notice is 15 minutes out of the total time of 30 minutes.  Any petitions, deputations and questions that have been submitted with prior formal notice will take precedence over questions submitted at short notice.  Any questions that are not considered within the time limit shall receive a written response after the meeting and be the subject of a report to the next meeting.

Minutes:

In accordance with Procedure Rule 93 (5) the following three late questions had been received:

 

In relation to Agenda Item 5, application 1, 2013/0583/FUL & 2013/0585/LBA, Mr & Mrs D Coleman, three late questions were received from Audrey Riley.

 

Question 1

 

Mention continues to be made in the application and discussion of the ‘screening’ between my home and the eastern elevation of the Rectory.  This ‘screening’ is nothing more that scrub Ash and other saplings, which have been allowed to grow beyond the height allowed for a high hedge.  It does not constitute screening, nor does any other kind of planting of trees and such like which cannot be considered permanent.  I will be applying for a high hedge order as very soon I will be completely towered over.  Why does the council keep accepting that this scrub greenery is reasonable protection of my privacy and therefore a reason for approving the application to develop?

 

The Conservation Officer responded that the presentation on the application would include photographs showing the layout distance involved. That in his view distances of 15 metres for a single storey and 18 metres for a two storey elevation were adequate to avoid a loss of privacy with there being no windows on the first floor rear elevation.  That the decision had not been based on the two metre fence/vegetation alone.

 

 

Question 2

 

Mention continues to be made of the acceptable size of the extension as it ‘replicates the original’.  Why does the council continue to ignore the fact that the building did not have the habitation around it that has now, making this argument irrelevant?

 

The Conservation Officer responded that extensions had previously been considered acceptable and that given the distances involved the impact was acceptable.

 

Question 3

 

It is admitted in the recommendation for approval that there will be impact on neighbouring properties.  As closest, and nearest to the Eastern side of the Rectory I will be most impacted.  But the council considers that the impact will not be ‘overbearing’.  Does the council not agree that this is a qualitative statement?  That there will be impact, but it will not be ‘overbearing’ in the council’s view?  I disagree and say that I will find it overbearing, and question the point of the consultative process if qualitative statements are to be used in the process of final decision-making.

 

The Conservation Officer advised that he considered the impact to be acceptable; that he was satisfied that relevant planning matters had been taken into consideration.

266.

DEPUTATIONS RELATING TO PLANNING APPLICATIONS

To receive any deputations from members of the Public in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 94(4).

 

There will be no limit on the total number of deputations to be received but no more than two deputations will be permitted in respect of each planning application one of which, if required, will be from a statutory consultee.

 

Deputations which relate to a planning application included on the agenda for this meeting will be deferred until the application is considered by Members.

 

Following the deputation, the applicant or his agent will have a right of reply, the maximum time for which will be three minutes.  Members will then have the opportunity to question the deputee and if a response has been made, the applicant or agent, for a maximum of four minutes.

 

 

Minutes:

No deputations relating to planning applications were received.

267.

REPORT NO. 180/2015 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL APPLICATIONS pdf icon PDF 401 KB

To receive Report No. 180/2015 from the Director for Places (Environment, Planning and Transport)

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Report No. 180/2015 from the Director for Places (Environment, Planning and Transport) was received.

268.

Item No. 1 (2013/0583/FUL & 2013/0585/LBA) THE OLD RECTORY, 6, RIDLINGTON ROAD, PRESTON, RUTLAND, LE15 9NN

Minutes:

Application for the construction of two storey and single storey extensions to the east elevation of dwellinghouse.

(Ward: Braunston & Belton; Parish: Preston)

 

RESOLVED

 

2013/0583/FUL & 2013/0585/LBA In accordance with the recommendations set out in Report No. 180/2015 Item 1, the addendum to that report and conditions contained therein, that this application be APPROVED.

269.

Item No.2 (2015/0699/FUL) 1, HORN CLOSE, OAKHAM, RUTLAND, LE15 6FE

Minutes:

Application to remove a fence between the garage and house and replace with a brick wall.

(Ward: Oakham South East; Parish: Oakham)

 

RESOLVED

 

2015/0699/FUL In accordance with the recommendations set out within Report No. 180/2015 Item 2 that this application be APPROVED.

270.

ANY OTHER URGENT BUSINESS

To consider any other urgent business approved in writing by the Chief Executive and Chairman of the Committee.

Minutes:

1.    The Development Control Manager, Mr Pullan advised Members that in relation to the windfarm at Woolfox RES had proposed a trip to see a windfarm in Peterborough and a Questions and Answers session for Members.   Mr Pullan had spoken with the portfolio holder who was agreeable to this being arranged for Members and affected parish councillors.  Officers would be attending.  Members to be advised when a date had been arranged.

 

2.    The Chairman, Mr Baines (Ward Member for Wing Grange) advised that an application relating to Wing Grange would be taken at Committee next month.  Given the nature of the application it was felt that it would be worthwhile to organise a formal site visit.  Members requested that a visit be arranged for a Thursday.  A minibus would not be required.  The Principal Planning Officer, Mr Hodgett to arrange.