NWLDC Planning Committee fail Measham

I will try to get overview of the speakers and meeting.

However early indications are the meeting became political.

Plans back Again

This time will be passed

Read the latest application http://minutes-1.nwleics.gov.uk/documents/s2925/A2.pdf

Plans Deferred

Dr O Mulka, supporter, addressed the meeting. He made reference to his long association with the village and the severe impact that the closure of the mine had had upon it. He stated that the best way to improve health and wellbeing was by improving the economy. 

He added that he had started the canal restoration group as this was the only project that could bring back the heart of Measham. He referred to previous the regeneration of the village which had done nothing for the high street. He stated that there would never be another opportunity to regenerate the canal and the high street and this was a unique opportunity to create a leisure attraction.

Mr B Wilson, applicant’s agent, addressed the meeting. He commented that he welcomed the opportunity to change the approach to the Section 106 Agreement. He referred to the June meeting of the Planning Committee where Members had expressed the need for the application to provide benefit locally, as well as restoring the canal. He reiterated the commitment to developing the canal and advised that an access road and bridge would be constructed, and the domestic waste would be removed from the bed of the canal. He made reference to the cost of protecting the route of the canal in addition to the Section 106 Agreement. He placed on record his thanks to the officers for allowing the application to be reconsidered.

Councillor T Neilson stated that he was extremely disappointed that after the June meeting, further talks were made with the applicant when no authority had been granted by the Planning Committee to do so. He stated that a decision had been made by the Committee and he found this to be extremely worrying. He added that if the officer in question was still in post, he would have taken this matter further. He raised a point of order relating to Council Procedure Rule 15.2, in that a motion in similar terms to one which has been rejected at a Council meeting within the past six months cannot be moved unless notice is given and signed by at least one third of the Members. He stated that nothing had been brought before Members to this effect and he sought advice on whether it was constitutional for Members to reconsider this item. He referred to the Money Hill application, in respect of which Members were required to take a vote to reconsider the application.

The Chairman proposed that the application be deferred to enable advice to be sought following the meeting. This was seconded by Councillor M Specht.

The Chairman then put the motion to the vote and it was declared CARRIED.

Its Back in for Approval

Read the latest application http://minutes-1.nwleics.gov.uk/documents/s2446/A3.pdf

RECOMMENDATION:- THAT PLANNING PERMISSION FOR A PARTIALLY POLICY COMPLIANT SCHEME BE APPROVED SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS AS PER THE OCTOBER COMMITTEE REPORT AND UPDATE SHEET AND, to include FULL contributions for the Burton Road access, roundabout and bridge provision, open space provision, remediation works on the canal route, health, education, libraries, highways, Police, leisure and management of the River Mease, and PARTIAL provision of the on site affordable housing with an option to review clause.

Why, why and why

Still meeting folk on walks that have not fully grasped the impact the 450 houses scheme would have on the village.
The spin around the canal situation still working.
People this is NOT the original proposed Canal Restoration we all wanted, the original idea and plan is here Original Plan

Or just read this

Aims

• Advance and accelerate continuing economic regeneration of the area and contribute to rural diversification and social inclusion through opportunities for employment, leisure, recreation, learning and skills.
• Provide a green gateway to the National Forest and develop and link the recreational tourism facilities.
• Improve the environmental quality of the area.
• Provide a recreational, cultural and social resource for the local community.
• Connect Measham, and ultimately Moira, to the national waterways network.

• Reclamation of derelict and under-used land to create a recreational and wildlife corridor acting as a gateway into the National Forest it will leave a valuable and sustainable legacy for future generations.

To get Moira to the National Waterworks Network, should not mean a unsustainable development for the Ashby Canal Restoration Group in Measham

However nice it all sounds

RECOMMENDATION C

RECOMMENDATION C :- THAT THE APPLICATION BE REFUSED ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE DEVELOPER IS NOT AGREEABLE TO THE S106 REQUIREMENTS AND, THEREFORE, THE PROPOSAL DOES NOT REPRESENT SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT.

Councillor Tom Neilson - puts Measham first.

I have asked Tom if he wants to explain his reason to recommendation C

Tom Neilson Blog and explanation can be found here

What are the options?

RECOMMENDATION A :- THAT PLANNING PERMISSION FOR A PARTIALLY POLICY COMPLIANT SCHEME BE APPROVED SUBJECT CONDITIONS AS PER THE OCTOBER COMMITTEE REPORT AND UPDATE SHEET AND SUBJECT TO FURTHER NEGOTIATIONS IN RELATION TO S106 CONTRIBUTIONS and that Delegated powers be authorised in order for Officers to negotiate proportionate figures for contributions sought, other than the canal reinstatement, Burton Road roundabout provision and the River Mease SAC contribution which should be provided in full.

RECOMMENDATION B :- THAT PLANNING PERMISSION FOR A PARTIALLY POLICY COMPLIANT SCHEME BE APPROVED SUBJECT CONDITIONS AS PER THE OCTOBER COMMITTEE REPORT AND UPDATE SHEET AND, to include contributions for the canal reinstatement, Burton Road roundabout provision, the River Mease SAC contribution, and the provision of open space.

RECOMMENDATION C :- THAT THE APPLICATION BE REFUSED ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE DEVELOPER IS NOT AGREEABLE TO THE S106 REQUIREMENTS AND, THEREFORE, THE PROPOSAL DOES NOT REPRESENT SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT.