To receive Report No. 125/2020 from the Interim Strategic Director for Places.

Report No. 125/2020 was received from the Interim Strategic Director for Places.

 

Item 1 (2019/0076/FUL & 2019/0147/LBA) Uppingham School, Uppingham Cricket Pavilion, Glaston Road, Uppingham

 

Alterations, upgrading, extension with balcony to the Uppingham School First XI Cricket Pavilion at the Upper Playing field.

 

(Ward: Uppingham; Parish: Uppingham)

 

Mr Nick Hodgett, Principle Planning Officer for the Council, addressed the committee and gave an executive summary of the application, recommending approval.

 

During the executive summary Mr Hodgett made reference to the question from Mrs Muir who was unable to attend the meeting. Mr Hodgett stated that there was provision for overspill parking on the planning application drawings and that the use of the pavilion would not be hired out for events but the use of the pavilion for other events was currently uncontrolled.

 

Mr Lucas, speaking as the agent on behalf of the applicant, addressed the Committee.

 

During questions to the applicant, the following points was noted:

 

·         Cladding was used to give the building a more contemporary look.

 

During discussion the following points were noted:

 

      i.        Concern was raised that new cladding on the side would detract from the existing building.

    ii.        Mr Brown noted that the building was currently unfit for purpose and the proposals complimented the existing thatched building.

   iii.        Mr Ainsley stated that due to the access to the new player’s balcony was only via stairs, this may limit player’s with a disability to access the area.

   iv.        Mr Baines noted that in all years of dealing with planning matters he had not seen Historic England show such a strong opposition.

 

Mr Baines proposed that the application be refused on heritage grounds, that the benefits of the new building would not benefit impact on the listed building.

 

A recorded vote was taken and the votes cast were as follows:

 

COUNCILLOR	FOR	AGAINST	ABSTAINED
AINSLEY	X
BAINES	X
BROWN		X
CROSS	X
HARVEY	X
OXLEY	X
PAYNE		X
RAZZELL		X

 

RESOLVED

 

2019/0076/FUL & 2019/0147/LBA be REFUSED on heritage grounds against the recommendation set out within Report No. 125/2020.

 

---oOo---

 

Item 2 (2019/0800/FUL) Silverwood Farms, Grange Farm Barns, Main Street, Thistleton

 

New dwelling houses.

 

(Parish: Thistleton; Ward: Greetham)

 

Mr Justin Johnson, Development Manager for the Council, addressed the Committee and gave an executive summary of the application, recommending approval.

 

Mr Thain, speaking as the agent on behalf of the applicant, addressed the Committee.

 

During discussion the following points were noted:

 

      i.        A Class Q prior approval application was granted in 2017 for the conversion of the barns on site to dwellings. This application seeks to demolish the barns and erect two new stone dwellings. It was felt by officers that this would be of a higher level design than the Class Q conversion and the building proposed in this application would look more of a traditional agricultural building.

    ii.        It was felt that the benefits of the new application outweighed the Class Q approval.

 

A recorded vote was taken and the votes cast were as follows:

 

COUNCILLOR	FOR	AGAINST	ABSTAINED
AINSLEY	X
BAINES	X
BEGY	X
BROWN	X
CROSS	X
HARVEY	X
JONES	X
OXLEY	X
PAYNE	X
RAZZELL	X

 

 

RESOLVED

 

2019/0800/FUL in accordance with the recommendation set out within Report No. 125/2020, that the application be APPROVED.

 

---oOo---

 

Item 3 (2020/0478/FUL) Brook Farm, Littleworth Lane, Belton-In-Rutland

 

Construction of 3 no. wooden moveable pods; 2 no. shepherds huts; on site facilities pod; Reception hut. Installation of 2 no limestone pathways. Creation of gated access into field one. Creation of limestone tracks. A wooden foot bridge to enable access to the back field.

 

(Parish: Belton; Ward: Braunston & Martinsthorpe)

 

Mr Paul Milne, Planning Officer for the Council, addressed the Committee and gave an executive summary of the application, recommending approval.

 

During the executive summary Mr Milne made reference to the question from Mr Steve Kind who was unable to attend the meeting. Mr Milne stated that the applicant applied for all year round opening hours. Need for justification to restrict hours on an application. No reason to put restriction on times of month can open.

 

A highways condition had been put on in relation to splays. The highways officer believed that such a condition was reasonable both to the applicant and to the highway authority, necessary in the interest of highways safety. The condition is sufficiently worded that if the applicant did not discharge the condition prior to operation of use, the matter could be enforced.

 

Kirsty Brooks spoke as the applicant.

 

During discussion the following point was noted:

 

·         The shepherd huts could be moved for maintenance, however due to conditions within the submitted plans, if the shepherds huts were moved to a different location the development would not be built in accordance with plans and would be a breach.

 

A recorded vote was taken and the votes cast were as follows:

 

COUNCILLOR	FOR	AGAINST	ABSTAINED
AINSLEY	X
BAINES	X
BEGY	X
BROWN	X
CROSS	X
HARVEY	X
JONES	X
PAYNE	X
RAZZELL	X

 

RESOLVED

 

2020/0478/FUL in accordance with the recommendation set out within Report No. 125/2020, that the application be APPROVED.

 

---oOo---

 

Item 4 (2020/0961/RG3) Civic Amenity Site, North Luffenham Road, Morcott

 

Regulation 3 application to create a new vehicular exit route from the site.

 

(Parish: Morcott; Ward: Braunston & Martinsthorpe)

 

Mr Andrew Waskett-Burt, Planning Officer for the Council, addressed the Committee and gave an executive summary of the application, recommending approval.

 

Mr John Judge as a member of the public, asked his question to the Committee/

 

Mr Steve Sprason, Senior Environmental Services Manager provided Mr Judge with the following answer:

 

“The most recent response for the Freedom of Information request went out on the 15^th October which stated ‘The risk assessment undertaken by the Council in relation to the re-opening of the North Luffenham site is attached. There is no documented risk assessment associated with the closure of the Cottesmore site’. The risk assessment was done to show the site could re-open in a COVID-19 safe way. Because we already have in place a full planning consent to use the site for the purposes as we are now we did not need as part of the process to consider the wider highway implications. The reality of the situation is, from my point of view, if for any reason the new access is not built we would simply continue operating on the site as we are today.”

 

Mr Judge asked the following supplementary:

 

“Given that the prior to the closure of the Cottesmore site and North Luffenham taking on the services, Cottesmore was taking 50% more of the waste that was being processed within Rutland. On that basis you are stating that the site now has got 50% more traffic, 50% more heavy goods going through the villages and the narrow roads that surround the area. Do we not feel that this wouldn’t warrant a proper local highways impact assessment and proper consultation with the residents?

 

Mr Sprason responded that there was a full consent in place to operate the site as we do currently, as part of the application process there has been no requirement placed to submit the impact assessments.

 

Mr Judge, speaking on behalf of residents of Morcott against the application, addressed the Committee.

 

During questions to Mr Judge from the Committee, the following point was noted:

 

·         Mr Judge was unsure how the opening of the new access could improve the one way system that was currently in place. In Winter, further issues will arise with agricultural vehicles dragging mud on to the roads. Mr Judge stated that the roads were currently unsuitable for the increase in traffic, and would get worse.

 

---oOo---

The Committee proposed and seconded to extend the meeting for 15 minutes.

---oOo---

 

During discussion the following points were noted:

 

      i.        Mr Turnbull noted that the application should be considered on material considerations only.

    ii.        Members of the committee supported the idea of a strategic review of waste disposal within the county to take place. Mr Razzell stated he would write to the relevant portfolio holder representing the strong views of the residents, ward members and committee members for a strategic review to take place.

 

---oOo---

The Committee proposed and seconded to extend the meeting for a final 15 minutes.

---oOo---

 

Mr Cross proposed to defer the application until a routing strategy had been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. This was seconded by Mrs Harvey.

 

A recorded vote was taken and the votes cast were as follows:

 

COUNCILLOR	FOR	AGAINST	ABSTAINED
AINSLEY	X
BAINES	X
BEGY			X
BROWN			X
CROSS	X
HARVEY	X
JONES		X
OXLEY		X
PAYNE		X
RAZZELL		X

 

RESOLVED

 

The vote ended as a tie. The Chairman made the deciding vote and voted AGAINST the motion. The motion fell.

 

---oOo---

 

Mr Oxley proposed that the application be approved as per the officer recommendation. This was seconded by Mrs Payne.

 

A recorded vote was taken and the votes cast were as follows:

 

COUNCILLOR	FOR	AGAINST	ABSTAINED
AINSLEY			X
BAINES		X
BEGY			X
BROWN	X
CROSS		X
HARVEY			X
JONES	X
OXLEY	X
PAYNE	X
RAZZELL	X

 

RESOLVED

 

2020/0961/RG3 in accordance with the recommendation set out within Report No. 125/2020 and the additional conditions listed in the addendum that state:

 

·         The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the details shown on the submitted plans, numbers; 001 (block plan), 003 (layout proposed), 004 (layout proposed with visibility splays shown), and the details within the submitted ‘North Luffenham HWRC Operating Models Document 7 October 2020’.

 

·         Prior to the new access coming into use, a routing strategy shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall then proceed in accordance with the agreed strategy.

 

That the application be APPROVED.