Industrial logistics unit at E M E B Sports And Social Club, Hinckley

What officers recommended

Officers recommended permission, finding that limited adverse impacts would not significantly outweigh the employment and regeneration benefits.

“To consider the benefits of the development, there are clear social and economic benefits associated with the regeneration of a disused plot of land on the edge of an employment park, the provision of a high quality, purpose built employment complex, which will create the equivalent of up to 253 FTE jobs which will contribute to the provision of skilled employment in the local…”

“Taking all material planning considerations into account it is considered that the limited adverse impacts of the proposed development would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the NPPF when taken as a whole. The proposal is therefore considered to represent sustainable development, and it is recommended that permission be granted.”

Officer report

What consultees said

Most consultees raised no objection subject to conditions, while Sport England objected and the tree officer requested retention of a Category B tree.

“LCC Ecology – No objection subject to conditions • LCC Highways – No objection subject to conditions & planning obligations • LCC Archaeology – No objection • LCC LLFA – No objection subject to conditions • HBBC Drainage – No objection subject to conditions • HBBC Environmental Health – No objection subject to conditions • HBBC Tree Officer – Requests B Cat Tree be incorporated into design plus conditions • HBBC Waste Team – No objection subject to conditions • Canal &…”

“Active Travel England – provides standing advice • Leicestershire Constabulary – provides design advice…”

Officer report

What residents said

Five objections raised concerns about losing recreational land, traffic, flooding, residential amenity, visual impact, biodiversity and wildlife.

“The application has been publicised by sending out letters to local residents. A site notice was also posted within the vicinity of the site and a notice was displayed in the local press.”

“Five letters of objection were received from interested parties. The following provides a summary of the concerns raised during the public consultation exercise: • Loss of recreational land/sports facility • Increase in traffic movements including HGVs • Highway safety and disruption during “bridge strikes” • Flood risk and increase in impermeable areas • Residential amenity concerns – scale, height, loss of light, 24 hr operation, noise disturbance, air pollution and…”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicant and a [name withheld] spoke on the application.

Members’ concerns

Members were concerned that the building’s scale, height and proximity would harm neighbouring residential amenity, and asked the applicant to reconsider the proposals.

“Notwithstanding the officer’s recommendation that permission be granted, some members felt that the scale of the development would have an adverse impact on the residential amenity of neighbouring properties. The building’s height and proximity were of particular concern. It was acknowledged that extant permission for solar panels existed on the site, and that the proposal was for further employment use in an employment area.”

Minutes

The vote

Councillor Lynch moved deferral, Councillor Bray seconded it, and the motion was carried unanimously.

“It was moved by Councillor Lynch and seconded by Councillor Bray that the application be deferred.”

“A vote was taken on the motion to defer, which was CARRIED unanimously and therefore:”

Minutes