MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE OF EAST LEAKE PARISH
COUNCIL HELD IN THE PARISH OFFICE ON TUESDAY 25th AUGUST 2015 AT 7.15PM.
PRESENT: Councillors Gary Grayston, Ron Hetherington, Conrad Oatey, Peter Rapley, Glennis
Robinson, Kevin Shaw, Liz Taylor, Carys Thomas (Chair), John Thurman
The Clerk, Lesley Bancroft and Assistant Clerk Sue Lewis were also present
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Cllrs Marie Males and Mel Roper
15/PC/043
CHAIR’S ANNOUNCEMENTS
None
15/PC/044
DECLARATION OF INTEREST IN ITEMS ON THE AGENDA
None
15/PC/045
MATTERS ARISING FROM PREVIOUSLY CONSIDERED
APPLICATIONS

Various items of correspondence has been received from residents on Potters Lane and are
available in the Parish Office if any councillors wishes to see them.

The Field End Close Appeal has been cancelled due to the impact of the Examiners Report
on the Neighbourhood Plan
15/PC/046
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
15/00830/COU
40 Main Street
Change front room from retail shop to residential front room.
Low chain linked fence to be re-installed at front boundary
No Objections
15/PC/047
Agreed Unanimously
CORRESPONDENCE
1. Rushcliffe Borough Council – Notification of Planning Appeal, Land East of Kirk Ley Road – to
be an Agenda on the next Planning Meeting - Noted
15/PC/048
QUESTIONS TO CHAIR (IN ACCORDANCE WITH S.O. 23)
There were no questions.
The meeting closed at 7.23pm
47
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE OF EAST LEAKE PARISH
COUNCIL HELD IN THE PARISH OFFICE ON TUESDAY 15th SEPTEMBER 2015 AT 7.15PM.
PRESENT: Councillors Gary Grayston, Conrad Oatey, Glennis Robinson, Mel Roper, Kevin Shaw, Liz
Taylor, Carys Thomas (Chair),
The Clerk, Lesley Bancroft was also present
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Cllrs Marie Males, Ron Hetherington, John Thurman and Peter Rapley
15/PC/049
CHAIR’S ANNOUNCEMENTS
None
15/PC/050
DECLARATION OF INTEREST IN ITEMS ON THE AGENDA
None
15/PC/051
MATTERS ARISING FROM PREVIOUSLY CONSIDERED
APPLICATIONS
None
15/PC/052
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
15/01419/FUL
5 Woodgate Road
Dropped kerb vehicular crossing
No Objections
15/PC053
Agreed Unanimously
TO DISCUSS MAKING A REPRESENTATION TO THE PLANNING
INSPECTORATE IN RESPECT OF THE APPEAL FOR APPLICATION TO VARY
PLANNING PERMISSION 12/01840/OUT, LAND EAST OF KIRK LEY ROAD, TO
INCREASE THE NUMBER OF DWELLINGS ON THE SITE
It was agreed that the following Comments be made –
The Parish Council opposes this application to increase the number of homes on this site, and we
refer you to our previous detailed reasoned response, covering among other issues:
 Drainage/flooding concerns
 Capacity of the primary schools
 Footpath and cyclepath connectivity
 Traffic and access, including significant errors in the transport assessment
 Loss of 1.04 hectares of woodland and green space by this increased density.
There is concern about the drainage for the site in an area of the village that already floods.
Clarification is needed that the flood attenuation area is capable of dealing with the increased density
on the site, as providing additional capacity at a later stage could prove difficult and costly.
The flood attenuation scheme is immediately adjacent to the children’s play area, and this constitutes
a safety hazard.
The proposed roundabout is a cause for concern. Access to their own drives would become
extremely problematic for three of the existing homes on Brookside and Woodgate. The triangle of
grass as the fork of the two roads is an important visual amenity. The willow tree is a good mature
specimen, a statement tree that links to the village heritage of basket making, in a prominent position
in the village. This needs to be preserved, with appropriate measures to ensure that existing and
altered drainage is not affected by its root structure.
48
The East Leake Neighbourhood Plan (ELNP) Project Team also objected to the variation and
assessed the proposals against the emerging Neighbourhood Plan. This assessment is appended for
ease of reference.
The examiner report for the ELNP has now been received, concluding that with some modifications
the plan meets the “basic conditions” and can proceed to referendum. The Borough Council will
consider whether the ELNP meets the basic conditions and whether it should proceed to referendum
at the meeting on 24 September 2015. If the ELNP is subject to a positive result at a referendum, it
will come into full force as part of Rushcliffe's Development Plan. In the meantime, the ELNP when
read alongside the Examiner's recommendations, should be given considerable weight as a material
consideration when assessing planning applications.
ELNP policy H1 deals with infrastructure. It requires that for any new development, capacity can be
achieved in time to serve the needs of the development, particularly primary school places, health
centre, and sewerage provision. Although this development has prior outline planning permission the
density is significantly increased in this variation, and this policy should apply in respect of the
additional homes. Inclusion of contributions in the S106 agreement will not in itself ensure the
necessary infrastructure improvements are achieved before the homes are occupied and this should
be demonstrated.
The design of the road on the site plan is open to question. There will be some parking on the road. If
the site is to include a new school, the road would form the approach and if so it will need to cater for
buses, dropping off etc. This needs careful attention.
ELNP Policy H2 covers phasing of the “minimum 400” homes over the local plan period to 2028. Not
including the increase on this site, 710 homes have already been approved against this target of 400,
and the need for further homes in East Leake at this time cannot be substantiated.
ELNP policy H3 deals with housing mix. It states that 1 and 2 bedroom homes should form between
30% and 40% of the mix for market homes. A full range of housing types should be provided,
including bungalows. The variation does not appear to improve the housing mix - from the layout plan
the development would be significantly overrepresented with larger homes. Furthermore the bottom
end of this site is one of the best available in the village for provision for less mobile/older residents
with a relatively short and flat route to village facilities, but there is no attempt made to provide this
type of home.
ELNP policy T2 covers footpaths and cyclepaths, and as detailed in the ELNP Project Team
response, this application is deficient in this respect. Furthermore, a holistic planning approach is
needed, including internal connectivity to the Microprop site.
ELNP policy E2 covers native planting and roosting. This variation would lose 1.04 hectares of
woodland and open space.
Modifications to the application should also be made to ensure conformance to H5 (noise
assessment), H6 (design), and the other policies.
Response from East Leake Neighbourhood Plan Project Team (October 2014)
This planning application seeks to increase the number of homes on the Kirk Ley site from 175 to
between 260 and 287 by increasing the density of homes and by removing 1.04 hectares of trees,
hedges, and other green areas.
This response is made with reference to policies in the emerging East Leake Neighbourhood Plan,
which at the present time is out for public consultation. Further rationale and underpinning of these
policies is provided in the draft Neighbourhood Plan, see:
http://www.east-leake.gov.uk/east-leake-neighbourhood-plan
1.
The perimeter footpath is welcomed, particularly as the homes are oriented to provide
surveillance as recommended by standards such as Building for Life, Secured by Design etc
[NP Policy H6].
2.
The footpaths along the brook/SUDs area, linking to the local network of footpaths are also
welcomed. [NP policy T1]
3.
There is no footpath/cyclepath access to the south onto Rempstone road to reduce walking
and cycling journeys in this direction. This is particularly important given the imminent
development of the Stanford Hall site and should be easy and cheap to achieve. [NP Policy
T2]
4.
S106 contributions should be included to further improve the foot/cycle access from this part
of the village towards Stanford Hall. [NP Policy T2]
5.
The loss of 1.04 hectares of woodland and other green space is extremely disappointing opportunities should be taken to increase woodland, not reduce it. [NP Policies E2(b) and E3]
49
Preservation of the occasional tree in a garden provides very little if any mitigation for this
ecological loss.
The increased density of homes is noted. It is hoped that this will enable the development to
meet the housing mix needed rather than provide a concentration of large detatched homes
(which the masterplan currently appears to indicate). The desired mix should be included as
a planning condition:
1 and 2 bedrooms
19%
3 bedrooms
64%
4 bedrooms
16%
5+ bedrooms
1%
In addition there should be a diversity of home types within these categories. The northern
end of the site, nearest the village amenities, should include homes for less mobile/elderly,
including market bungalows. [NP Policy H2]
6.
7.
There is no allowance made for permeability into neighbouring areas that could at some
future time be considered for housing. Future road access should be allowed for from within
the site into the Microporop site, to avoid a third entrance onto Kirk Ley. Footpath (s) should
be provided to connect into this area.
Future road or at least foot and cycle path linkages should be allowed for into the field to the
East of the site, should this ever be developed, particularly as this site could conceivably
include a future primary school, to give children from this development a safe walking route to
the school. [NP Policy T2]
8.
The relocation of the children’s play area away from the entrance is welcomed. NP Policy L1
encapsulates the Parish Council’s policy for the development of play areas, and the
development should contribute towards the play centre in the centre of the village, as well as
provide a small amount of onsite play equipment for younger children.
9.
Given the number of housing applications approved since 12/01840/OUT, the addition of
extra homes cannot be catered for by the primary schools, even if they are extended to their
full capacity. A new school will need to be built to accommodate the changes. A planning
condition should be included to prevent occupation of homes over and above the 175
originally proposed until the additional primary school places have been provided. [NP Policy
H1]
10.
There are similar concerns over Health Centre and sewerage capacity and occupation of
homes over and above 175 should be prevented by planning conditions until these facilities
can demonstrably meet the need of the additional development. [NP Policy H1]
11.
The Transport Assessment neglects to consider the impact of the Stanford Hall development,
and given its proximity to the development this is a major omission. The assessment needs
to be reworked.
12.
There is no indication of the proposed phasing of housing delivery on the site, to help spread
new housing across the plan period of the Core Strategy. [NP Policy H2] In this case it would
be particularly helpful to reference a phasing plan to the opening of the Stanford Hall facility
and the likely demand for market/affordable homes arising from both the defence and national
rehabilitation centres.
15/PC/054
CORRESPONDENCE
Rushcliffe Borough Council granted the following planning applications:



Ref 15/00615/FUL, Car Park North of Health Centre and Library, Gotham Road – Extension
to existing health centre car park; form ramped pedestrian link to Co-op car park to east
Ref 15/01769/FUL, 3 Porritt Close – Retrospective application or single storey extension
Ref 15/01313/FUL, The Spinney 1 West Leake Road – Detached Garage to existing hard
standing area
50


Ref 15/01718/FUL, 13 Brookside – Proposed Conservatory to form dining room extension
and alterations to existing roof
Ref 15/01660/FUL, 41 Twentylands Drive – New raised terrace to rear, loft conversion with
roof windows to front, dormer window and balcony to rear, new front porch, new parking
space, replace existing concrete tiles with composite slates.
15/PC/055
QUESTIONS TO CHAIR (IN ACCORDANCE WITH S.O. 23)
There were no questions.
The meeting closed at 7.29pm
51