To receive Report No. 163/2021 from the Strategic Director of Places.

Item 2 – 2020/0059/FUL – Land on the North East side of Pingle Lane, Morcott. Erection of dwelling in line with Para 80 NPPF.

 

(Parish: Morcott; Ward: Braunston and Martinsthorpe)

 

Nick Hodgett, Principal Planning Officer, addressed the Committee and gave an executive summary of the application, recommending approval subject to the conditions set out in the report and addendum.

 

Prior to the debate, the Committee received deputations from David Joyce as a member of the public opposed to the application, Andrew Johnson on behalf of Morcott Parish Council and Duncan Hartley as the agent. The Committee also had the opportunity to ask questions of these speakers.

 

Duncan Hartley confirmed, as set out in paragraph 72 of the report that a verbal agreement was in place between 2 parties for construction traffic on the development to be routed from the north via Glebe Road. Sherrie Grant, Planning Solicitor confirmed that the lack of a written agreement would not be considered a material consideration to consider refusing the application as this was a civil matter. Justin Johnson, Development Manager stated that there were conditions outlined within the addendum whereby development could not commence until a Construction Management Plan was provided and construction access would only be used via Glebe Road as indicated on the approved plans.

 

Councillor W Cross, as Ward Member set out that having visited the site his view was that due to the impact on the pasture land and the stream and the comments received that the development was not suitable for the site proposed and he would not be able to support the application.

 

During the debate several Members praised the exceptional quality of the proposed development but some highlighted that the development could not be seen therefore would not enhance the immediate setting. In the NPPF it stated that outstanding or innovative designs should fit in with the overall form and layout of the surroundings and due to the development being adjacent to listed buildings and not remote, this was not the case.

 

Several Members raised concerns regarding the archaeological aspect of the site, the access to the site from Glebe Road due to its blind spots and narrow points and the location of the proposed development.

 

It was moved by Councillor P Browne that the application be approved subject to the conditions in the report and addendum. This was seconded and upon being put to the vote with 5 votes in favour and 5 against the vote was tied. The Chair then used his casting vote to defeat the motion.

 

It was moved by Councillor K Bool that the application be refused based on the reasons outlined by Councillor G Brown in the debate. This was seconded and upon being put to the vote and with 5 votes in favour and 5 against the vote was tied. The Chair then used his casting vote to carry the motion.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That application 2020/0059/FUL for the following reasons, with the exact wording to be agreed with Councillors G Brown:

 

1)    The application did not meet the test of paragraph 80e of the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

2)    The application did not fit in with the overall form or layout of its surrounding as outlined in paragraph 134 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

3)    The potential impact would be greater than anticipated.

 

4)    The loss of ridge and furrow.

 

5)    The village Design Statement had not been addressed in the documentation.

 

The full list of reasons can be found on the planning application page of the Council’s website https://www.rutland.gov.uk/my-services/planning-and-building-control/planning/view-planningapplications-and-decisions/ 

 

 

---o0o---

Councillor W Cross left the meeting at this point and did not return

---o0o---

 

Item 3 – 2021/0091/FUL – Development on Land at Hawksmead Business Park, Lands End Way, Oakham. Application for coffee shop with drive thru facility and ancillary works.

 

(Parish: Oakham; Ward: Barleythorpe)

 

Darren Burbeary, Senior Planning Officer, addressed the Committee and gave an executive summary of the application, recommending approval subject to the conditions set out in the report and addendum.

 

During the debate, in response to Members the Senior Planning Officer confirmed that the advertising for the site would be considered under a separate application that had already been submitted, that a Litter Management Plan would be required prior to the commencement of the development and 3 electric car charging points would be included on the site.

 

In response to Members questions regarding a letter that had been submitted by Leicestershire Police requesting CCTV and the storage of the commercial wheelie bins to avoid arson, the Senior Planning Officer confirmed that 2 informatives would be added to the conditions regarding CCTV and the storage of the commercial wheelie bin.

 

In response to a query regarding whether identifiable packaging could be used to help prevent littering, the Development Manager confirmed that an informative could be provided to the applicant requesting this, but this could not be enforced.

 

Members requested that the site utilise a mixed species hedgerow on the edge of the site and that this be included in the conditions.

 

It was moved by the Councillor N Begy that the application be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the report and additional conditions as outlined within the debate. This was seconded and upon being put to the vote, with 10 votes in favour the motion was unanimously carried.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That application 2021/0091/FUL be APPROVED subject to the conditions in the report and the following additional conditions outlined during the debate:

 

1)    Informatives to be added to the conditions in relation to CCTV and safe storage of the commercial wheelie bin.

 

2)    A mixed species hedgerow to be required.

 

 

The list of reasons can be found on the planning application page of the Council’s website https://www.rutland.gov.uk/my-services/planning-and-building-control/planning/view-planningapplications-and-decisions/

 

---o0o---

Having declaring interests in the following application, Councillor P Browne stepped away from the Committee and took no part in the debate or vote on the item, and Councillor E Baines left the meeting and Councillor N Begy took the chair.

---o0o---

 

Item 3 – 2021/0698/FUL – Brooke Priory School, Station Approach, Oakham, Rutland, LE15 6QW. Construction of a new artificial multi use games area (MUGA) with associated sports lighting, fencing and ancillary features for pupils at Brooke Priory School. Included a change of use from

domestic gardens to school.

 

(Parish: Oakham; Ward: Oakham North East)

 

Darren Burbeary, Senior Planning Officer, addressed the Committee and gave an executive summary of the application, recommending refusal subject to the conditions set out in the report.

 

Prior to the debate, the Committee received deputations from David Norell as a member of the public in support of the recommendation to refuse, and Karen Brightman as the agent. The Committee also had the opportunity to ask questions of these speakers.

 

In response to questions from Members, Karen Brightman confirmed that pitches were now required as there were some issues at times with Brooke Priory being able to use Oakham School facilities. It was confirmed that flood lighting was now required, and these would possibly be used during the winter months for after school clubs due to Health and Safety reasons, but this would only be in use up until 5pm. The area would not be used during weekends or school holiday periods.

 

Members raised concern that the previous application had been refused and that this application only showed the fences being placed closer to the school. Concerns were also raised in regard to the flood lighting and loss of residential amenity.

 

It was moved by the Councillor G Brown that the application be refused for the reasons set out in the report. This was seconded and upon being put to the vote with six votes in favour and one abstention, the motion was carried.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That application 2021/0698/FUL be REFUSED for the reasons outlined within the report.

 

The list of reasons can be found on the planning application page of the Council’s website https://www.rutland.gov.uk/my-services/planning-and-building-control/planning/view-planningapplications-and-decisions/

 

---o0o---

Councillor E Baines returned to the meeting and resumed the Chair.

---o0o---