COMMITTEE MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT …

MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

DATE: WEDNESDAY, 24 JUNE 2015 TIME: 5:30 pmPLACE: MEETING ROOMS 1 AND 2, CITY HALL,115 CHARLES

STREET, LEICESTER, LE1 1FZ

Members of the Committee

Councillor Shelton (Chair)Councillor Corrall (Vice Chair)

Councillors Chohan, Dr Chowdhury, Cutkelvin, Govind, Hunter, Khote, Dr Moore and Unsworth

Members of the Committee are summoned to attend the above meeting to consider the items of business listed overleaf.

for The Monitoring Officer

Officer contact: Julie Harget/Jason TylerDemocratic Support,

Leicester City CouncilCity Hall, 115 Charles Street, Leicester, LE1 1FZ

(Tel. 0116 454 6357 454 6359 Email: [email protected] /[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:/[email protected]

Information for members of the public

Attending meetings and access to information

You have the right to attend formal meetings such as full Council, committee meetings, City Mayor & Executive Public Briefing and Scrutiny Commissions and see copies of agendas and minutes. On occasion however, meetings may, for reasons set out in law, need to consider some items in private.

Dates of meetings and copies of public agendas and minutes are available on the Council’s website at www.cabinet.leicester.gov.uk, from the Council’s Customer Service Centre or by contacting us using the details below.

Making meetings accessible to all

Wheelchair access – Public meeting rooms at the City Hall are accessible to wheelchair users. Wheelchair access to City Hall is from the middle entrance door on Charles Street - press the plate on the right hand side of the door to open the door automatically.

Braille/audio tape/translation - If you require this please contact the Democratic Support Officer (production times will depend upon equipment/facility availability).

Induction loops - There are induction loop facilities in City Hall meeting rooms. Please speak to the Democratic Support Officer using the details below.

Filming and Recording the Meeting - The Council is committed to transparency and supports efforts to record and share reports of proceedings of public meetings through a variety of means, including social media. In accordance with government regulations and the Council’s policy, persons and press attending any meeting of the Council open to the public (except Licensing Sub Committees and where the public have been formally excluded) are allowed to record and/or report all or part of that meeting. Details of the Council’s policy are available at www.leicester.gov.uk or from Democratic Support.

If you intend to film or make an audio recording of a meeting you are asked to notify the relevant Democratic Support Officer in advance of the meeting to ensure that participants can be notified in advance and consideration given to practicalities such as allocating appropriate space in the public gallery etc.

The aim of the Regulations and of the Council’s policy is to encourage public interest and engagement so in recording or reporting on proceedings members of the public are asked:

to respect the right of others to view and hear debates without interruption; to ensure that the sound on any device is fully muted and intrusive lighting avoided; where filming, to only focus on those people actively participating in the meeting; where filming, to (via the Chair of the meeting) ensure that those present are aware that they

may be filmed and respect any requests to not be filmed.

Further information If you have any queries about any of the above or the business to be discussed, please contact Julie Harget, Democratic Support on (0116) 454 6357 or Jason Tyler, Democratic Support on (0116) 454 6359 or email [email protected] or [email protected] or call in at the City Hall.

For Press Enquiries - please phone the Communications Unit on 0116 454 4151

http://www.cabinet.leicester.gov.uk/

http://www.leicester.gov.uk/



PUBLIC SESSION

AGENDA

NOTE:

This meeting will be webcast live at the following link:-

http://www.leicester.public-i.tv

An archive copy of the webcast will normally be available on the Council’s website within 48 hours of the meeting taking place at the following link:-

http://www.leicester.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcasts

1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Members are asked to declare any interests they may have in the business to be discussed on the Agenda.

Members will be aware of the Code of Practice for Member involvement in Development Control decisions. They are also asked to declare any interest they might have in any matter on the committee agenda and/or contact with applicants, agents or third parties. The Chair, acting on advice from the Monitoring Officer will then determine whether the interest disclosed is such to require the Member to withdraw from the committee during consideration of the relevant officer report.

Members who are not on the committee but who are attending to make representations in accordance with the Code of Practice are also required to declare any interest. The Chair, acting on advice from the Monitoring Officer will determine whether the interest disclosed is such that the Member is not able to make representations. Members requiring guidance should contact the Monitoring Officer or the Committee's legal adviser prior to the committee meeting.

3. MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING Appendix A

The minutes of the meeting of the Planning and Development Control Committee held 22 April 2015 are attached Members are asked to confirm them as a correct record.

4. PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND CONTRAVENTIONS Appendix B

The Committee is asked to consider the recommendations of the Director, Planning and Economic Development contained in the attached reports, within

http://www.leicester.public-i.tv/

http://www.leicester.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcasts

the categories identified in the index appended to the reports.

5. ADDENDUM REPORT 24 JUNE 2015

(i) 20140245 46 RENDELL ROAD B1

(ii) 20141434 GOODING AVENUE, BRAUNSTONE HALL, BRAUNSTONE PARK

B2

(iii) 20141435 GOODING AVENUE, BRAUNSTONE HALL, BRAUNSTONE PARK

B3

(iv) 20141459 69 DRUMCLIFFE ROAD B4

(v) 20142397 15 RAVENSBRIDGE DRIVE, MAHER COMMUNITY CENTRE

B5

(vi) 20150240 4 WESTCOTES DRIVE B6

(vii) 20150365, 7 TRINITY LANE, TRINITY HALL B7

(viii) 20150376 717 WELFORD ROAD, LAND AT REAR OF

B8

(ix) 20150454 25 WESLEY ST B9

(x) 20150484 16 ROMWAY AVENUE B10

(xi) 20150616 120 COLCHESTER ROAD, LEACROFT

B11

(xii) 20150645 1 ABINGDON ROAD B12

(xiii) 20150706 165 QUEENS ROAD B13

(xiv) 20150781 2 VICARAGE LANE, HUMBERSTONE B14

(xv) 20158001A 1 NARBOROUGH ROAD B15

(xvi) 20148027A 11 ST AUGUSTINE'S ROAD, SITE OF

B16

(xvii) 20148029A 48 LONDON ROAD B17

(xviii) 20148030A 1 BRUIN STREET B18

6. NORTH EAST OF LEICESTER SUSTAINABLE URBAN EXTENSION (SUE) - SECTION 106 AGREEMENT TO SECURE OFF-SITE HIGHWAY WORKS AND OTHER TRANSPORT IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE CITY

Appendix C

The Director of Planning, Transportation and Economic Development submits a report that seeks authority for the City Council as Highway Authority to be a party to a Section 106 agreement to secure highway works within the City required to support the proposed development of the SUE.

The Committee are recommended to give authority to the Director of Planning, Transportation and Economic Development to conclude the terms of the Section 106 Agreement and enter in to the agreement to secure the obligations benefitting its administrative area.

7. ANY OTHER URGENT BUSINESS

1

Minutes of the Meeting of thePLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

Held: WEDNESDAY, 22 APRIL 2015 at 5:30 pm

P R E S E N T :

Councillor Kitterick (Chair) Councillor Shelton (Vice Chair)

Councillor Dr BartonCouncillor Dr Chowdhury

Councillor JoshiCouncillor Dr Moore

Councillor Unsworth

In accordance with the provisions of the Constitution (Part 4A, Rule 42) the following Councillors attended the meeting and with the sanction of the Committee spoke on the items indicated but did not vote.

Councillor: Application details:

Councillor Cassidy 20132033, 7 Nugent Street

* * * * * * * *177. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Fonseca.

178. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Members were asked to declare any interests in the business on the agenda, including under the Council’s Code of Practice for Development Control Decisions.

Councillors introduced themselves and made the following declarations:

Councillor Shelton declared that in relation to application 20141811, Greenhithe Road, Riverside Dyeworks, he had spoken to a resident who had complained about the dyeworks; however her complaint was not in relation to the planning application.

Councillor Joshi declared that application 20150167, 42 Vicarage Lane was in

Appendix A

2

the Belgrave Ward, where he was a ward councillor. He had an open mind on the application.

Councillor Kitterick declared that in relation to application 20150361, 95 and 173 Avenue Road Extension, Baitul Ikram Mosque, a number of objectors had attended his ward surgery, but he had expressed no opinion on the application. He had invited a planning officer to come along and discuss the plans. He added that the Members of the committee had been involved in previous discussions relating to Lancaster Place.

179. MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING

RESOLVED:that the minutes of the previous meeting of the Planning and Development Control Committee held on 1 April 2015 be confirmed as a correct record.

180. PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND CONTRAVENTIONS

The Chair explained that he would take the planning applications and reports out of the order given in the agenda, due to the attendance of officers, ward, councillors and members of the public who had registered to speak in objection to applications, and in the interests of people in the public gallery.

RESOLVED:that the report of the Director of Planning, Transportation and Economic Development dated 22 April 2015 on applications and Planning Inspectorate Appeal Decisions, together with the supplementary reports and information reported verbally by officers, be received and action taken as below:

181. 20132033 7 NUGENT STREET

Ward: FosseProposal: DEMOLITION OF EXISTING FACTORY BUILDING AND REDEVELOPMENT WITH A TERRACE OF NINE HOUSES (9 X 3 BED) (AMENDED)Applicant: MR IQBAL GAFFAR

During the deliberation of this application, the Chair called for a brief adjournment between 5.39 and 5.44 pm, to allow time for officers to investigate technical problems with the sound equipment.

Councillor Cassidy addressed the committee in respect of the application.

Members considered the application and officers responded to the comments and queries raised. Officers drew Members’ attention to the amended recommendation as detailed in the Supplementary Report.

RESOLVED:

3

that the application be APPROVED IN PRINCIPLE, with the decision delegated to officers subject to the receipt of additional information in respect of flood risk being received and being acceptable, and the conditions out below:

CONDITIONS

1. The development shall be begun within three years from the date of this permission. (To comply with Section 91 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990.)

2. No development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The details shall include the preparation of a one square sample of the proposed brickwork at the site for inspection by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.(To ensure only appropriate materials are used on the exterior of the building, in the interests of the appearance of the development, in accordance with the aims of Core Strategy policy CS03)

3. No development shall take place until a site investigation of the nature and extent of contamination has been carried out in accordance with a methodology which has previously been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The results of the site investigation shall be made available to the local planning authority before any development begins. If any contamination is found during the site investigation, a report specifying the measures to be taken to remediate the site to render it suitable for the development hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The site shall be remediated in accordance with the approved measures before development begins. If, during the course of development, any contamination is found which has not been identified in the site investigation, additional measures for the remediation of this source of contamination shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The remediation of the site shall incorporate the approved additional measures.(To ensure the site is free from contamination in the interests of public health and safety and in accordance with policy PS11 of the City of Leicester Local Plan)

4. No dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until all first floor windows in the rear elevations have been fitted with obscured glazing and any part of the windows that is less than 1.7 metres above the floor of the room in which it is installed shall be non-opening. The windows shall be permanently retained in that condition thereafter.(To protect the privacy of the occupiers of the houses to the north of the site on Paget Road and in accordance with policy PS10 of the City

4

of Leicester Local plan)

5. No dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until lockable gates have been installed at the entrance to each shared rear access way in accordance with details that have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The gates shall thereafter be retained.(In the interests of the security of the dwellings and in accordance with Core Strategy policy CS03)

6. No pipes (other than rainwater pipes), vents, flues grilles or similar shall fitted in or to the front elevation of the development hereby permitted other than in accordance with details that have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.(To ensure the appearance of the development is satisfactory, in accordance with Core Strategy policy 03)

7. No dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until the rear (north) boundary of the application site and the boundaries of the gardens to the houses have been enclosed in accordance with details that have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.(To ensure reasonable levels of privacy and security are provided for the occupiers of the development and those of adjacent houses on Paget Road, and in accordance with Core Strategy policy CS03.

8. No part of the development shall be occupied until surface water drainage works have been implemented in accordance with details that have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Before these details are submitted an assessment shall be carried out of the potential for disposing of surface water by means of a sustainable drainage system and the results of the assessment provided to the local planning authority. Where a sustainable drainage scheme is to be provided, the submitted details shall: (i) provide information about the design storm period and intensity, the method employed to delay and control the surface water discharged from the site and the measures taken to prevent pollution of the receiving groundwater and/or surface waters; (ii) include a timetable for its implementation; and (iii) provide a management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development which shall include the arrangements for adoption by any public authority or statutory undertaker and any other arrangements to secure the operation of the scheme throughout its lifetime. (To reduce the risk of flooding from surface water as the site is within a critical drainage area and an identified hot spot and in accordance with policy BE20 of the City of Leicester Local Plan)

9. Within one month of the first occupation of any dwelling, the occupiers of each of the dwellings shall be provided with a 'New Residents Travel Pack', the contents of which shall have first been submitted to and

5

approved in writing by the local planning authority. The travel packs shall include walking, cycling and bus maps, and the latest relevant bus timetable information. (To encourage residents to consider the use of sustainable modes of travel and reduce the demand for on-street parking, and in accordance with the Core Strategy policy CS15)

10. No development shall take place until details showing how all dwellings will be designed, constructed and maintained to Lifetime Homes Standards (July 2010) and the Lifetime Homes Design Guide (2011) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with approved details. (To ensure the houses are adaptable enough to match lifetime's changing needs in accordance with Core Strategy policy CS6)

11. No dwelling shall be occupied until any existing footway crossings into the site on Nugent Street that would be redundant following the completion of the development and any areas of footway adjacent to the site’s frontages that are damaged as a result of the development, have been reinstated in accordance with details that have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.(In the interests of highway safety)

12. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans except as may be provided for by the conditions above: 640/01 (dated October 2013) and 640/05, 640/06 (dated October 2014)(For the avoidance of doubt.)

182. 20150361 95 AND 173 AVENUE RD EXTENSION, BAITUL IKRAM MOSQUE

Ward: CastleProposal: FIRST FLOOR EXTENSION TO PLACE OF WORSHIP; TWO MINARETS; TWO DOMES; ALTERATIONS (CLASS D1)Applicant: AHMADIYYA MUSLIM ASSOCIATION UK

Mr Mahmoud, the applicant’s representative spoke in support of the application.

My Hyde spoke in objection to the application.

Members considered the application and officers responded to the comments and queries raised.

RESOLVED: that the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions set out below:

6

CONDITIONS


2. There shall be no amplified music or voice including call to prayer which would audible in nearby properties. (In the interests of the amenities of nearby occupiers and in accordance with policy PS10 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.)

3. With the exception of acts of worship the premises shall not be used outside the hours of 0730-2300 daily. (In the interests of the amenity of nearby occupiers and in accordance with policy PS10 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.)

4. The side windows that face southwest shall be obscurely glazed and non-opening. (To maintain the privacy of the flats at number 175 Avenue Road Extension and in accordance with policy PS10 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.)

5. The development shall not be occupied until any redundant footway crossings and/or damaged or altered areas of footway or other highway have been reinstated to the satisfaction of the City Council as local planning authority. (For the safety and convenience of pedestrians and other road users.)

6. The travel plan approved under application 20132020 shall be implemented in accordance with the agreed timetable. (In the interests of sustainability and highway safety and in accordance with policy CS15 of the Core Strategy.)

7. The bin storage and cycle parking approved under application 20132020 shall be implemented prior to the commencement of use. (To encourage the use of sustainable means of transport and to avoid bins being left on the pavement and in accordance with policies PS10, AM02 and AM12 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.)

8. Prior to the commencement of use a scheme for the insulation of the building against noise breakout shall be implemented in accordance with details first submitted to and agreed in writing by the City Council as local planning authority. (In the interests of the amenities of nearby occupiers and in accordance with policy PS10 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.)

9. The materials to be used for the rear elevations and the tiling to the front elevation shall be submitted to and approved by the City Council as local planning authority prior to installation and shall be retained as such (In the interests of visual amenity, and in accordance with Core Strategy policy CS3.)

7

10. This consent shall relate solely to the submitted plans received by the City Council as local planning authority on the 23.02.15 and 04.03.15. (For the avoidance of doubt.)

NOTES FOR APPLICANT

1. With regard to condition 5 all streetworks should be carried in accordance with Leicester City Councils adopted ‘Highways, Transportation and Development Guide’.

2. With regard to condition 5 works within the highway prior to the commencement of such works, the applicant/developer will also need to contact the Team Leader for Travel Planning and Development Control (direct line (0116) 454 2846) for written approval of construction, materials, design and contractor details. The works will be subject to a section 184 agreement.

183. 20141811 GREENHITHE ROAD, RIVERSIDE DYEWORKS

Ward: FreemenProposal: TWO STOREY EXTENSION TO FACTORY (CLASS B2) (AMENDED PLANS)Applicant: COLOURS DYERS (UK) LTD



CONDITIONS


2. The doors to the building shall be kept closed at all times when machinery is being operated or processes undertaken within the building, except to allow access or egress. (In the interests of the amenities of nearby occupiers, and in accordance with policy PS11 of the City of Leicester Local plan.)

3. No vehicles shall enter or leave the premises for the purpose of delivery of raw materials or despatch of finished goods outside the hours of 0730 to 1800 daily and there shall be no movement of plant or equipment (fork lift trucks, pallet trucks, etc) along the roadway before 0730 daily. (In the interests of residential amenity and in accordance with policy PS11 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.)

8

4. No machinery shall be installed or operated nor shall any processes be undertaken which are detrimental to the amenity of the area by reason of noise, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, soot, ash, dust or grit. (In the interests of the amenities of nearby occupiers and in accordance with policy PS11 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.)

5. The proposed building shall be used as a warehouse and offices ancillary to that of the existing factory and not for any other use at any time. (To protect the amenity of neighbouring residents in accordance with policy PS11 of the City of Leicester Local Plan)

6. The use shall not commence until details of any external lighting has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. (To protect the amenity of nearby residents and to avoid harm to wildlife in accordance with policy PS10 of the City of Leicester Local Plan and policy CS17 of the Core Strategy)

7. No development shall be carried out until the site has been investigated for the presence of land contamination, and a Site Investigation Report incorporating a risk assessment and, if required, scheme of remedial works to render the site suitable and safe for the development, has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. The approved remediation scheme shall be implemented and a completion report shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before any part of the development is occupied. Any parts of the site where contamination was previously unidentified and found during the development process shall be subject to remediation works carried out and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to the occupation of the development. The report of the findings shall include: (i) a survey of the extent, scale and nature of contamination; (ii) an assessment of the potential risks to: human health, property (existing or proposed) including buildings, crops, livestock, pets, woodland and service lines and pipes, adjoining land, ground waters and surface waters, ecological systems, archaeological sites and ancient monuments; (iii) an appraisal of remedial options, and proposal of the preferred option(s). This shall be conducted in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency's `Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11`. (To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors in accordance with policy PS11 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.)

8. The use of the extension shall not commence until the Sustainable Drainage System (SuDS) shown on the plan received on the 16th of March 2015 has been implemented. It shall be retained at all times. (To

9

reduce the rate of surface water runoff in accordance with policy CS02 of the Core Strategy)

9. The development shall not commence until details of foul and surface drainage (including the SuDS) has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. The development shall not be occupied until drainage has been installed in accordance with the approved details. (To ensure drainage is acceptable and in accordance with policy CS02 of the Core Strategy)

10. The floor levels shall be no lower than 58.1 m above Ordnance Datum (AOD). (To protect the development from flooding in accordance with policy CS02 of the Core Strategy.)

11. The development shall not commence until safe route(s) into and out of the site to an appropriate safe haven have been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. The use of the extension shall not commence until they have been implemented in accordance with the approved details. They shall be maintained and kept clear at all times. (To provide an acceptable means of access and egress in the event of a flood and in accordance with policy CS02 of the Core Strategy.)

12. Development shall not commence until full design details of the proposed solar photo voltaic installations to meet the required target of 18% of renewable energy of the total predicted energy demand for the site shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. Before the development is occupied satisfactory evidence will be required demonstrating satisfactory operation of the approved scheme, including on-site installation, in accordance with the approved details. The installations shall be maintained in working order for the life of the development. (To ensure sustainable energy efficiency in accordance with saved Policy BE16 of the City of Leicester Local Plan)

13. All street works shall be constructed in accordance with the Council's standards contained in the `6Cs Design Guide` (view from www.leicester.gov.uk/6cs-design-guide). (To achieve a satisfactory form of development, and in accordance with policy AM01 of the City of Leicester Local Plan and Core Strategy policy CS3.)

14. No part of the development shall be occupied until footway crossing(s) have been provided at each vehicular access in accordance with the Council's standards contained in the `6Cs Design Guide` (view from www.leicester.gov.uk/6cs-design-guide). (To ensure a satisfactory means of access to the highway, and in accordance with policy AM01 of the City of Leicester Local Plan and Core Strategy policy CS3.)

15. No part of the development shall be occupied until any redundant footway crossings and/or damaged or altered areas of footway or other highway have been reinstated in accordance with the Council's

10

standards contained in the `6Cs Design Guide` (view from www.leicester.gov.uk/6cs-design-guide). (For the safety and convenience of pedestrians and other road users, and in accordance with policy AM01 of the City of Leicester Local Plan and Core Strategy policy CS3.)

16. Space shall be kept available within the curtilage of the site to allow for loading and unloading always to take place within the site. (In the interests in highway safety, and in accordance with policy AM01 of the City of Leicester Local Plan and Core Strategy policy CS3.)

17. The use of the extension shall not commence until a Delivery Management Plan has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. It shall be complied with at all times. (To avoid traffic and parking problems and in the interests of highway safety in accordance with policy AM11 of the City of Leicester Local Plan and policies CS14 and CS15 of the Core Strategy.)

18. No part of the development shall be occupied until a Travel Plan for the development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the City Council as local planning authority and shall be carried out in accordance with a timetable to be contained within the Travel Plan, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Council. The Plan shall: (a) assess the site in terms of transport choice for staff, users of services, visitors and deliveries; (b) consider pre-trip mode choice, measures to promote more sustainable modes of transport such as walking, cycling, car share and public transport (including providing a personal journey planner, information for bus routes, bus discounts available, cycling routes, cycle discounts available and retailers, health benefits of walking, car sharing information, information on sustainable journey plans, notice boards) over choosing to drive to and from the site as single occupancy vehicle users, so that all users have awareness of sustainable travel options; (c) identify marketing, promotion and reward schemes to promote sustainable travel and look at a parking management scheme to discourage off-site parking; (d) include provision for monitoring travel modes (including travel surveys) of all users and patterns at regular intervals, for a minimum of 5 years from the first occupation of the development brought into use. The plan shall be maintained and operated thereafter. (To promote sustainable transport and in accordance with policies AM01, AM02, and AM11 of the City of Leicester Local Plan and policies CS14 and CS15 of the Core Strategy).

19. No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a Construction Method Statement has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the City Council as local planning authority. The approved Statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period. The Statement shall provide for: (i) the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors; (ii) the loading and unloading of plant and materials; (iii) the storage of plant and materials used in constructing

11

the development; (iv) the erection and maintenance of security hoarding including decorative displays and facilities for public viewing, where appropriate; (v) wheel washing facilities; (vi) measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction; (vii) a scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition and construction works. (To ensure the satisfactory development of the site, and in accordance with policies AM01, UD06 of the City of Leicester Local Plan and Core Strategy policy CS3.)

20. This consent shall relate solely to the amended plans (ref: 14/384/001 RevD & 002 RevB) received by the local planning authority on the 8th of April 2015, unless otherwise submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. (For the avoidance of doubt.)

NOTES FOR APPLICANT

1. The site lies adjacent to the River Soar which is a statutory 'main River'. Under the provisions of the Water Resources Act 1991, and the Environment Agency's Byelaws, any works in, over, under or within 8 metres of the top of the bank of the watercourse will require the prior formal consent of the Agency in addition to the planning permission hereby granted.

2. Condition 11 assumes an estimated net total annual operational energy demand of 744,647 kWh/yr. The agreed scheme will need to operate to a satisfactory performance in terms of a renewable energy actual percentage of actual consumption, which shall be confirmed at the time of condition discharge.

3. The Highway Authority’s permission is required under the Highways Act 1980 and the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 for all works on or in the highway. For new road construction or alterations to existing highway the developer must enter into an Agreement with the Highway Authority. For more information please contact [email protected].

4. In relation to the condition on Travel Plan, the applicant is advised to contact the Travel Plan Officer on 0116 4542849 for guidance.

184. 20150167 42 VICARAGE LANE, BELGRAVE

Ward: BelgraveProposal: CHANGE OF USE FROM HOUSE (CLASS C3) TO TWO SELF CONTAINED FLATS (2 X 2 BEDS)(CLASS C3); SINGLE STOREY EXTENSION AT REAR; REPLACEMENT WINDOWS (AMENDED PLANS)Applicant: MR AMRATBHAI CHUDASAMA

Members considered the application and officers responded to the comments

12

and queries raised. It was noted that the proposal included replacement windows and a request was made that the quality of the doors and windows should be in keeping with that of a property located within a conservation area.


CONDITIONS


2. No part of the development shall be occupied until secure cycle parking has been provided and retained thereafter. (In the interests of the satisfactory development of the site and in accordance with policies AM02 and H07 of the City of Leicester Local Plan).

3. This consent shall relate solely to the amended plans received by the City Council as local planning authority on 08/04/2015, unless otherwise submitted to and approved by the City Council as local planning authority. (For the avoidance of doubt.)

NOTES FOR APPLICANT

1. The applicant is reminded that no consent is granted or implied for works or alterations to the front elevation of the property other than those agreed for the restoration of the ground floor bay window.

Planning Applications: 20150609, 19 Lancaster Place; 20150610, 21 Lancaster Place; 20150611, 23 Lancaster Place; 20150612, 25 Lancaster Place

The Chair explained that there would be a single officer presentation in respect of the above planning applications relating to Lancaster Place, however each application would be voted on separately.

185. 20150609 19 LANCASTER PLACE

Ward: CastleProposal: CHANGE OF USE FROM ONE HOUSE IN MULTIPLE OCCUPATION (CLASS C4) (5 BEDS) TO FOUR FLATS (CLASS C3); ALTERATIONS TO BUILDINGS AND SITE LAYOUT (AMENDED)Applicant: MR KULLAR


13

It was noted that the officers’ recommendation was that the decision on the application be delegated to officers. Councillor Kitterick, seconded by Councillor Unsworth, proposed that the decision be delegated to officers in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair. Upon being put to the vote, this amendment to the recommendation was CARRIED. It was agreed that this amended recommendation be applied to all four of the applications for Lancaster Place.

RESOLVED: that the decision on the application be delegated to officers, in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair, on the basis of the assessment in the joint report, subject to confirmation of commitment to landscaping and management and taking into account any further representations received.


Ward: CastleProposal: CHANGE OF USE FROM ONE HOUSE IN MULTIPLE OCCUPATION (CLASS C4) (5 BEDS) TO FOUR FLATS (CLASS C3); ALTERATIONS (AMENDED)Applicant: MR KULLAR







14





189. 20148019A 34A ROWSLEY STREET : PLANNING INSPECTORATE APPEAL DECISION

Ward: StoneygateProposal: Variation of Condition 1 Attached to Planning Permission 20131833 (For the continuation of use as a Vehicle Repair Shop (Class B2)Appellant: Mr Pradeep ChauhanAppeal Decision: Dismissed.

RESOLVED:that the decision of the Planning Inspectorate be noted.

190. 20148028A 10 BEECHCROFT ROAD : PLANNING INSPECTORATE APPEAL DECISION

WARD: KnightonProposal: Single Storey Extension at front of house (Class C3)Appellant: Mrs N HughesAppeal Decision: Allowed

Members considered the report of the Planning Inspectorate and expressed disappointment that the appeal decision had been allowed. Views were expressed that the extension would be detrimental to the appearance of the Stoneygate Conservation Area.

RESOLVED:that the decision of the Planning Inspectorate be noted.

191. VOTE OF THANKS

15

The Chair stated that this was the last meeting of the current four year civic cycle and he thanked Members and officers for their work, support and advice on the Planning and Development Control Committee during this time. He also extended his best wishes to all councillors for the forthcoming elections.

Councillor Dr Moore then thanked Councillor Kitterick and Councillor Shelton for their good work as the Committee’s Chair and the Vice Chair.

192. CLOSE OF MEETING

The meeting closed at 7.10 pm.

Planning & Development Control Committee Date 24th June 2015

Wards:See individual reports.

Planning & Development Control Committee Date: 24th June 2015

REPORTS ON APPLICATIONS, CONTRAVENTIONS AND APPEALS

Report of the Director, Planning, Transportation & Economic Development

1 Introduction1.1 This is a regulatory committee with a specific responsibility to make decisions

on planning applications that have not been delegated to officers and decide whether enforcement action should be taken against breaches of planning control. The reports include the relevant information needed for committee members to reach a decision.

1.2 There are a number of standard considerations that must be covered in reports requiring a decision. To assist committee members and to avoid duplication these are listed below, together with some general advice on planning considerations that can relate to recommendations in this report. Where specific considerations are material planning considerations they are included in the individual agenda items.

2 Planning policy and guidance2.1 Planning applications must be decided in accordance with the provision of

Development Plan, principally the Core Strategy, saved policies of the City of Leicester Local Plan and any future Development Plan Documents, unless these are outweighed by other material considerations. These include supplementary planning documents, site-specific development briefs produced by the City Council, and relevant national policy. Individual reports refer to the policies relevant to the recommendation.

3 Sustainability and environmental impact3.1 The policies of the Local Plan and the LDF Core Strategy were the subject of

a Sustainability Appraisal that contained the requirements of the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Directive 2001. Other Local Development Documents will be screened for their environmental impact at the start of preparation to determine whether an SEA is required. The sustainability implications material to each recommendation, including any Environmental Statement submitted with a planning application are examined in each report.

3.2 All applications for development falling within the remit of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 are

1

Appendix B


screened to determine whether an environmental impact assessment is required.

3.3 The sustainability and environmental implications material to each recommendation, including any Environmental Statement submitted with a planning application are examined in each report.

3.4 Core Strategy Policy 2, addressing climate change and flood risk, sets out the planning approach to dealing with climate change. Saved Local Plan policies and adopted supplementary planning documents address specific aspects of climate change. These are included in individual reports where relevant.

4 Equalities and personal circumstances 4.1 Planning application decisions are monitored by the ethnicity of the applicant.

It is established policy not to identify individual applicants by ethnic origin, as this would be against assurances of confidentiality. I am also unable to give numbers of applications in each group as in some cases these are so small that individual applicants could be identified. The results of this monitoring are included in one of the quarterly monitoring reports about performance of the service.

4.2 The City Council must also assess impact in race equality terms before approving major developments and must show that they have properly applied the principles of section 71 of the Race Relations Act whenever taking a significant planning decision. Section 71 of the Act requires that “due regard” be given to risks of unlawful discrimination and the need to promote equality of opportunity and good race relations between persons of different racial groups when public authorities exercise their functions.

4.3 Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 provides that local authorities must, in exercising their functions, have regard to the need to:a) Eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other

conduct that is prohibited by or under the Act;b) Advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant

protected characteristic and persons who do not share it;c) Foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected

characteristic and persons who do not share it.The protected characteristics are: age; disability; gender reassignment; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion or belief; sex; sexual orientation.

4.4 The identity or characteristics, or economic circumstances of an applicant or intended users of a development are not normally material considerations. Where there are relevant issues, such as the provision of specialist accommodation or employment opportunities these are addressed.

5 Crime and disorder5.1 Issues of crime prevention and personal safety are material considerations in

determining planning applications. Where relevant these are dealt with in individual reports.

2


6 Finance6.1 The cost of operating the development management service, including

processing applications and pursuing enforcement action, is met from the Planning service budget which includes the income expected to be generated by planning application fees.

6.2 Development management decisions can result in appeals to the Secretary of State or in some circumstances legal challenges that can have cost implications for the City Council. These implications can be minimised by ensuring decisions taken are always based on material and supportable planning considerations. Where there are special costs directly relevant to a recommendation these are discussed in the individual reports.

6.3 Under the Localism Act 2011 local finance considerations may be a material planning consideration. When this is relevant it will be discussed in the individual report.

7 Planning Obligations7.1 Where impacts arise from proposed development the City Council can require

developers to meet the cost of dealing with those impacts, such as increased demand for school places, through planning obligations. These must arise from the council’s adopted planning policies, fairly and reasonably relate to the development and its impact and cannot be used to remedy existing inadequacies in services or facilities. The council must be able to produce evidence to justify the need for the contribution and its plans to invest them in the relevant infrastructure or service, and must have regard to the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010. Recommendations to secure planning obligations are included in relevant individual reports.

7.2 Planning obligations cannot make an otherwise unacceptable planning application acceptable.

8 Legal8.1 The recommendations in this report are made under powers contained in the

Planning Acts. Specific legal implications, including the service of statutory notices, initiating prosecution proceedings and preparation of legal agreements are identified in individual reports. As appropriate, the City Barrister and Head of Standards has been consulted and his comments are incorporated in individual reports.

8.2 Provisions in the Human Rights Act 1998 relevant to considering planning applications are Article 8 (the right to respect for private and family life), Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) and, where relevant, Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).

8.3 The issue of Human Rights is the material consideration in the determination of planning applications and enforcement issues. Article 8 requires respect for pride in the family life and the home. Article 1 of the first protocol provides an entitlement to peaceful enjoyment of possessions. Article 14 deals with the prohibition of discrimination. It is necessary to consider whether refusing planning permission and/or taking enforcement action would interfere with the

3


human rights of the applicant/developer/recipient. These rights are ‘qualified’, so committee must decide whether any interference is in accordance with planning law, has a legitimate aim and is proportionate.

8.4 The impact on the human rights of an applicant or other interested person must be balanced against the public interest in terms of protecting the environment and the rights of other people living in the area.

8.5 Case law has confirmed that the processes for determination of planning appeals by the Secretary of State are lawful and do not breach Article 6.

9 Background PapersCopies of individual planning applications are available for inspection in the Customer Service Centre, New Walk Centre, on screen at relevant local customer service centres and on line at www.leicester.gov.uk/planning. Comments and representations on individual applications are kept on application files, which can be inspected by contacting the Planning Service on extension 37 3000 or on line in the relevant application record.

10 ConsultationsConsultations with other services and external organisations are referred to in individual reports.

11 Report AuthorSteve Brown. Group Manager (Development Management), (0116) 454 3023 (internal 37 3023).

4


INDEXAPPLICATION ORDER

Page Main

Page Supp

Application Number

Address Ward

6 20140245 46 RENDELL ROAD BE

12 20141434 GOODING AVENUE: BRAUNSTONE HALL, BRAUNSTONE PARK BF

27 20141435 GOODING AVENUE: BRAUNSTONE HALL, BRAUNSTONE PARK BF

34 20141459 69 DRUMCLIFF ROAD TC

39 20142397 15 RAVENSBRIDGE DRIVE, MAHER COMMUNITY CENTRE AB

47 20150240 4 WESTCOTES DRIVE WC52 20150365 7 TRINITY LANE, TRINITY HALL CA61 20150376 717 WELFORD ROAD, LAND AT REAR OF KN65 20150454 25 WESLEY STREET AB72 20150484 16 ROMWAY AVENUE ST77 20150616 120 COLCHESTER ROAD, LEACROFT TC82 20150645 1 ABINGDON ROAD ST86 20150706 165 QUEENS ROAD CA91 20150781 2 VICARAGE LANE, HUMBERSTONE HH95 20158001A 1 NARBOROUGH ROAD WC97 20148027A 11 ST AUGUSTINES ROAD, SITE OF FS

100 20148029A 48 LONDON ROAD CA102 20148030A 1 BRUIN STREET BE

5

Planning & Development Control Committee Date :24th June 2015Applications and Contraventions: Supplementary Report

Wards: see individual reports

Planning & Development Control Committee Date

SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT ON APPLICATIONS AND CONTRAVENTIONS:

INDEXAPPLICATION ORDER

Page Main

Page Supp

Application Number

Address Ward

6 2 20140245 46 RENDELL ROAD BE

12 3 20141434 GOODING AVENUE: BRAUNSTONE HALL, BRAUNSTONE PARK BF

27 5 20141435 GOODING AVENUE: BRAUNSTONE HALL, BRAUNSTONE PARK BF

34 9 20141459 69 DRUMCLIFF ROAD TC

39 9 20142397 15 RAVENSBRIDGE DRIVE, MAHER COMMUNITY CENTRE AB

47 - 20150240 4 WESTCOTES DRIVE WC52 10 20150365 7 TRINITY LANE, TRINITY HALL CA61 - 20150376 717 WELFORD ROAD, LAND AT REAR OF KN65 11 20150454 25 WESLEY STREET AB72 - 20150484 16 ROMWAY AVENUE ST77 11 20150616 120 COLCHESTER ROAD, LEACROFT TC82 12 20150645 1 ABINGDON ROAD ST86 - 20150706 165 QUEENS ROAD CA91 13 20150781 2 VICARAGE LANE, HUMBERSTONE HH95 - 20158001A 1 NARBOROUGH ROAD WC97 - 20148027A 11 ST AUGUSTINES ROAD, SITE OF FS

100 - 20148029A 48 LONDON ROAD CA102 - 20148030A 1 BRUIN STREET BE

1


Recommendation: Refusal20140245 46 RENDELL ROAD

Proposal: THREE STOREY BUILDING TO PROVIDE THREE DWELLINGS (1 X 1 BED; 2 X 2 BED) (CLASS C3)(AMENDED)

Applicant: MR A KANDILWALApp type: Operational development - full applicationStatus: Minor developmentExpiry Date: 14 May 2014KER WARD:

Page Number on Main Agenda: 6

Amended Description: To reflect amended plans

Amended Reason: Reason 1 and 3 amended.

Representation

Amended plans have been received which details the following changes: 1) The front canopies have been removed and the building is now sited at the back of the footway. 2) Vehicular accesses provided for the two parking spaces to the dwellings and access to the rear business unit. 3) Rear garden boundaries amended to provide a communal garden. 4) Deletion of part of the rear two storey elements to increase separation distances.5) A blue line has been added to the commercial unit owned by the landowner of the application site. 6) Reduced five first floor windows to three, replaced the rear roof light with a dormer window and altered position of ground floor window. 7) Internal alterations to first floor flat and show usable height of the rooms in the roof space. 8) Boundaries and SUDs details provided.

Further Considerations

The amended plans do not resolve the principle reason relating to flooding or the general disturbance and highway safety issues as stated in reason 2 in the main report.

Whilst some of the changes are welcomed that provide additional separation distances at the rear and a communal garden area. Previously the separation distances to the boundary from the rear windows of the dwellings was between 8 and 10m and it has been increased to approximately 11.5m, which is below the 21m as required in the Residential Amenity SPD. In addition the access to the rear communal garden is via a long alleyway so it is unlikely to be used and it is unclear if all three dwellings would have access to it. Overall, the changes do not overcome reason 3 relating to poor living environment for the future occupies of the dwellings.

2


The SUDs details are unacceptable but could have been conditioned if the scheme was acceptable.

REASONS FOR REFUSAL

1. The application site is located within Flood Zone 3a and within a Critical Drainage Area. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the site is sequentially preferable for residential development and would not result in significant levels of flooding or appropriate mitigation measures to safeguard future residents. The site is therefore not considered sequentially preferable and is contrary to National Planning Policy Framework and Policy BE20 of the City of Leicester Local Plan and Policy CS2 of the Core Strategy.

3. The layout and size of the proposal is such that inadequate separation distances to boundaries and neighbouring properties are provided which would result in unacceptable levels of overlooking from the industrial unit to the rear and would be detrimental to neighbouring properties in terms of loss of privacy, noise and general disturbance. The location of the access drive to serve the industrial unit to the rear would also result in loss of privacy and noise and disturbance to the proposed dwellings. Access to the communal garden via a long alleyway that forms part of the vehicular access that serves the business unit would result in conflict between vehicular access and pedestrian safety. The proposal would therefore provide a poor living environment contrary to Policies PS10, PS11 and H07 of the City of Leicester Local Plan and Policy CS3 of the Core Strategy.

Recommendation: Conditional approval

20141434 GOODING AVENUE: BRAUNSTONE HALL, BRAUNSTONE PARK

Proposal:

CHANGE OF USE FROM SCHOOL (CLASS D1) TO HOTEL; FUNCTION HALLS; CONFERENCE FACILITIES AND CARE TAKERS FLAT (NO USE CLASS); DEMOLITION OF EXISTING SINGLE STOREY BUILDING AND REAR SINGLE STOREY EXTENSION; SINGLE STOREY EXTENSION AT SIDE AND REAR; TWO STOREY LINK EXTENSION; ALTERATIONS TO ROOF;TEMPORARY MARQUEE; ASSOCIATED CAR PARKING; SINGLE STOREY CAFE BUILDING (CLASS A3) TO SIDE OF SITE(AMENDED) (SECTION 278 AGREEMENT)

Applicant: MR & MRS N & S PARMARApp type: Change of useStatus: Smallscale Major DevelopmentExpiry Date: 29 June 2015AS WARD: Braunstone Park & Rowley Fields


3


Amended Description: Yes, to include Section 278 Agreement for highway works.

Amended Conditions/Notes: Previous conditions 3 to 20 have been amended and re-numbered from 3 to 23 including new tree conditions and details of the basement floor.

Consultation

Consultation from The Highway Authority has considered the indicative junction improvement on Hinckley Road and state that the developer will need to enter into an agreement under Section 278 Highway Act which will require further detail design and a Stage 1 Road Safety Audit.


Correction to 3rd bullet point in summary should state that the kitchen wing and the stable block are both Grade II listed.

The agent has submitted a plan detailing an option to achieve a right hand turn into the site from Hinckley Road. The plans also detail new entrance features which comprise low level walls which will contain small signs.

The works to Hinckley Road are likely to be acceptable, however, there is a condition attached already to secure these works. The works will be subject to a Section 278 agreement which will need to include a stage 1 safety audit.

The new entrance features are also considered acceptable. The applicant is also proposing to remove a height restrictor that is at the main entrance on Hinckley Road. They would be set further along the access road behind the new entrance wall. This maybe acceptable, however, this is something that would need to be agreed by the Parks department.

The applicants have submitted a tree report. This does not include a tree protection plan and there are some concerns about how the trees within the car park area will be affected. However, conditions are attached to require the trees to be protected and further reports to be submitted. It is likely that the car parking spaces will impact on the trees and it maybe that some of the trees will be lost. However, I consider that this could be mitigated against with further planting in the park.

The applicant has agreed that the proposed glass balustrade is removed and the wall is increased in height with brick and to change the external finish of the kitchen block to that of reclaimed brick work.

The applicant has indicated on the submitted plans that the basement floor would be lowered. This is not acceptable and I have informed the applicant of that fact. I therefore suggest a condition be attached requiring further details of works to the basement floor which will need to be agreed.

4


New condition 23 regarding details of the alterations to the basement floor. Condition 24 now forms the plans condition and includes the received email.

23. Prior to the conversion details of the alterations to the basement floor shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the City Council as local planning authority and implemented in accordance with those details and timescale. (In the interests of securing the satisfactory development of the Listed Building and in accordance with Policy CS18 of the Core Strategy.)

24. This consent shall relate solely to the amended plans received on 18th and 28th May 2015 and the email received on 23rd June 2015 by the City Council as local planning authority , unless otherwise submitted to and approved by the City Council as local planning authority. (For the avoidance of doubt.)



Proposal:

DEMOLITION OF PART OF BUILDING; INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL ALTERATIONS TO GRADE II LISTED BUILDING;TWO STOREY EXTENSION AT FRONT; SINGLE STOREY EXTENSION AT FRONT;SIDE AND REAR; ALTERATIONS TO ROOF

Applicant: MR & MRS N & S PARMARApp type: Listed building consentStatus: Other developmentExpiry Date: 31 October 2014AS WARD: Braunstone Park & Rowley Fields

Page Number on Main Agenda: 27 –

Amended Conditions – Conditions 2-13 have been amended to make them precise. New condition 14 regarding details of the alterations to the basement floor. Condition 15 now forms the plans condition and includes the received email.

2. Prior to the commencement of the conversion of the listed hall, a full internal schedule of works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the City Council as local planning authority. This shall include:i) a room-by-room schedule confirming the extent of repair and alteration works to all walls, floors, ceilings and historic featuresii) floorplans confirming the location and method of installation of all new plumbing, pipework and electrical wiringiii) details of the location and methodology of any fire protection and acoustic separation works

5


iv) type of construction and method of installation of all new stud-partition wallsv) to-scale cross section of the new glazed partition to the GF meeting room (02), showing the junction with the original timber surroundvi) details confirming how existing door openings are to be closed-up. The proposal shall be implemented in accordance with the agreed details and time scale.( In the interests of securing the satisfactory development of the Listed Building and in accordance with Policy CS18 of the Core Strategy.)

3. Prior to the commencement of the conversion of the listed hall, further details confirming the extent of external repair / alteration works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the City Council as local planning authority. This shall include:i) full joinery details including horizontal and vertical cross sections of all new windows (scale 1:2 / 1:5 as appropriate) and doors (scale 1:5 / 1:10 as appropriate)ii) further details confirming the method of repair of existing decorative stoneworkiii) details of cleaning methods to brickworkiv) position and design of all new flues / vents / extracts.The proposal shall be implemented in accordance with the agreed details and time scale.(In the interests of securing the satisfactory development of the Listed Building and in accordance with Policy CS18 of the Core Strategy.)

4. Prior to the commencement of the conversion of the listed former kitchen wing, a full internal schedule of works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the City Council as local planning authority. This shall include:i) full structural engineers details, including drawings, confirming the method of installation of the steel beams into the GF western elevationii) full structural engineers details, including drawings, confirming the method of installation of all new floorsiii) a room-by-room schedule confirming the extent of repair and alteration works to all walls, floors, ceilings and historic featuresiv) floorplans confirming the location and method of installation of all new plumbing, pipework and electrical wiringv) details of the location and methodology of any fire protection and acoustic separation worksvi) type of construction and method of installation of all new stud-partition walls.The proposal shall be implemented in accordance with the agreed details and time scale.(In the interests of securing the satisfactory development of the Listed Building and in accordance with Policy CS18 of the Core Strategy.)

5. Prior to the commencement of the conversion of the listed former kitchen wing, further details confirming the extent of external repair / alteration works shall

6


be submitted to and approved in writing by the City Council as local planning authority. This shall include:i) full joinery details including horizontal and vertical cross sections of all new windows (scale 1:2 / 1:5 as appropriate) and doors (scale 1:5 / 1:10 as appropriate)ii) details of cleaning methods to brickworkiii) position and design of all new flues / vents / extractsiv) methodology for blocking up existing external openings.v) details of the external finish to the kitchen block.The proposal shall be implemented in accordance with the agreed details and time scale. (In the interests of securing the satisfactory development of the Listed Building and in accordance with Policy CS18 of the Core Strategy.)

6. Prior to the construction of any new extension, further details of all external surfaces shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the City Council as local planning authority. This shall include:i) rainscreen cladding ii) all new brickwork (including bonding & mortar)iii) vertical timber claddingiv) rainwater goodsv) flat-roof roofing materials.The proposal shall be implemented in accordance with the agreed details and time scale.(In the interests of securing the satisfactory development of the Listed Building and in accordance with Policy CS18 of the Core Strategy.)

7. Prior to the construction of any new extension, the following connection details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the City Council as local planning authority. This shall include:i) the connection between the front elevation of the 2-storey glazed link / entrance block and the grade II listed hallii) the connection between the rear elevation of the 2-storey glazed link / entrance block and the grade II listed halliii) the connection between the 2-storey glazed link / entrance block and the grade II listed former kitchen block, including the relationship between the flat roof of the new extension and the eave detail of the kitchen block roofiv) the connection between the grade II listed former kitchen block and ballroom 01.The proposal shall be implemented in accordance with the agreed details and time scale.(In the interests of securing the satisfactory development of the Listed Building and in accordance with Policy CS18 of the Core Strategy.)

8. Prior to the construction of any new extension, a cross-section (scale 1:5 / 1:10 / 1:20 as appropriate) showing the specific details of the curtain wall glazing system shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the City Council as local planning authority and implemented in accordance with those details and timescale. ( In the interests of securing the satisfactory

7


development of the Listed Building and in accordance with Policy CS18 of the Core Strategy.)

9. Prior to the construction of any new extension, scale drawings showing the fascia, verge and eave details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the City Council as local planning authority and implemented in accordance with those details and timescale. ( In the interests of securing the satisfactory development of the Listed Building and in accordance with Policy CS18 of the Core Strategy.)

10. Prior to the construction of the roof canopy within the listed former kitchen block courtyard, further details confirming its design and method of installation shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the City Council as local planning authority and implemented in accordance with those details and timescale. ( In the interests of securing the satisfactory development of the Listed Building and in accordance with Policy CS18 of the Core Strategy.)

11. Prior to the construction of the south elevation (rear) terrace perimeter wall and balustrade, further details confirming its height, materials and design shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the City Council as local planning authority and implemented in accordance with those details and timescale. ( In the interests of securing the satisfactory development of the Listed Building and in accordance with Policy CS18 of the Core Strategy.)

12. Prior to the installation of any external services, including kitchen flues, kitchen extracts and air conditioning and heating units, further details confirming their design, size and position shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the City Council as local planning authority and implemented in accordance with those details and timescale. (In the interests of securing the satisfactory development of the Listed Building and in accordance with Policy CS18 of the Core Strategy.)

13. Where possible all brickwork shall be slavaged and set aside under secure storage for reuse as part of the works. (In the interests of securing the satisfactory development of the Listed Building and in accordance with Policy CS18 of the Core Strategy.)

14. Prior to the conversion details of the alterations to the basement floor shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the City Council as local planning authority and implemented in accordance with those details and timescale. (In the interests of securing the satisfactory development of the Listed Building and in accordance with Policy CS18 of the Core Strategy.)

15. This consent shall relate solely to the amended plans received on 18th and 28th May 2015 and the email received on 23rd June 2015 by the City Council as local planning authority .

8


Recommendation: Conditional approval20141459 69 DRUMCLIFF ROAD

Proposal:CHANGE OF USE FROM ONE DWELLINGHOUSE (CLASS C3) TO FIVE FLATS (5 x 1 BED). BOUNDARY WALL. LAND LEVELS (AMENDED)

Applicant: MR CLINT JONESApp type: Change of useStatus: Change of useExpiry Date: 27 November 2014AS WARD: Thurncourt


Amended Condition 6 (plans). Date should read 27th May 2015.


Amended plans received indicating the position of the vehicular access point and the 2m x 2m site lines. The plan also shows a true reflection of what has been built on site and includes the bay windows to the front, canopy and the removal of a parking space which was parallel to the highway and would be difficult to use. The loss of the parking space brings the number down to 4 and the SPG states 1 space per bedroom. However, I consider that in this area there is adequate room for parking on street and the proposal would not lead to on street parking difficulties.

CONDITIONS

6. This consent shall relate solely to the amended plans received by the City Council as local planning authority on 27th May 2015 unless otherwise submitted to and approved by the City Council as local planning authority. (For the avoidance of doubt.)

Recommendation: Conditional approval20142397 15 RAVENSBRIDGE DRIVE, MAHER COMMUNITY CENTRE

Proposal: TWO STOREY SPORTS HALL AT REAR OF COMMUNITY CENTRE/PLACE OF WORSHIP (CLASS D2)(AMENDED)

Applicant: MR N BAPODARAApp type: Operational development - full applicationStatus: Smallscale Major DevelopmentExpiry Date: 30 June 2015SSA WARD: Fosse


Amended Condition 12 (Amended plans)

9



amended plans showing slight changes to parking layout and landscaped area.

CONDITION

12. This consent shall relate solely to the submitted and amended plans received by the City Council as local planning authority on 19/12/2014, 07/04/2015, 13/05/2015 and 23/06/2015, unless otherwise submitted to and approved by the City Council as local planning authority. (For the avoidance of doubt.)

Recommendation: Conditional approval20150365 7 TRINITY LANE, TRINITY HALL

Proposal:

DEMOLITION OF BUILDINGS; THREE STOREY EXTENSION AT NORTHERN SIDE OF COMMUNITY HALL AND FIRST FLOOR EXTENSION TO SOUTHERN SIDE OF COMMUNITY HALL (CLASS D1); ALTERATIONS TO CAR PARK (AMENDED)

Applicant: MR STEPHEN GORTONApp type: Operational development - full applicationStatus: Minor developmentExpiry Date: 3 June 2015KER WARD: Castle


New and amended conditions: conditions 13 and 14.


Correction under Consideration, sub-heading Conservation (page56), para. 5 - the last sentence should read that they have changed the appearance of the building by simplifying the windows by removing the lintels above the windows on the new build.

Additional details relating SUDs are acceptable.

CONDITIONS

13. No part of the development shall be occupied until the sustainable drainage scheme for the site has been completed in accordance with the approved details. The sustainable drainage scheme shall be retained, managed and maintained thereafter. (To reduce the risk of flooding and in accordance with policy BE20 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.)

14. This consent shall relate solely to the submitted plans dated 24/02/2015 and the amended plan received by the City Council as local planning authority on 01/06/2015 and 22/06/2015, unless otherwise submitted to and approved by the City Council as local planning authority. (For the avoidance of doubt.)

10


Recommendation: Conditional approval20150454 25 WESLEY STREET

Proposal:RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION FOR EXTERNAL RECYCLING EQUIPMENT AT REAR OF RECYCLING FACILITY (NO USE CLASS)

Applicant: WASTECYCLE LTDApp type: Operational development - full applicationStatus: Minerals and WasteExpiry Date: 13 August 2015ACB WARD: Abbey


Amended Recommendation: Defer

Representations

3 further objections and a petition containing 128 signatures have been received. The grounds of objection are already stated in the main report and the following;

Additional number of lorries using Thurcaston Road causes safety issues for children accessing St Peters Primary School.

The effect of the additional equipment on the amenity of the riverside park.Further ConsiderationsA public meeting was organised by Ms Liz Kendall MP’s office. A number of residents, officers from the planning service, Environment Agency and Cllr Bhavsar attended the meeting on 19 June 2015.

During the meeting Ms Kendall MP requested that the decision on the application be deferred to allow the applicants to address the concerns expressed by residents.The applicants are also agreeable for the decision to be deferred.

Recommendation: Conditional approval20150616 120 COLCHESTER ROAD, LEACROFT

Proposal:TWO STOREY EXTENSION TO FRONT AND FIRST FLOOR EXTENSION AT SIDE OF CARE HOME (CLASS C2) (AMENDED PLANS)

Applicant: J.D.ZENCARE LTDApp type: Operational development - full applicationStatus: Minor developmentExpiry Date: 3 June 2015ZF WARD: Thurncourt


11


Representations

This application is being reported to committee at the request of Councillor Newcombe and Councillor Aldred and due to the number of objections received.

Recommendation: Conditional approval20150645 1 ABINGDON ROAD

Proposal:WORKS TO ONE BEECH TREE STANDING IN THE REAR GARDEN OF 1 ABINGDON ROAD PROTECTED BY TPO N4.255

Applicant: JULIAN LEVYApp type: Control of works to protected treesStatus: Other developmentExpiry Date: 11 June 2015DJ1 WARD: Stoneygate


Representations

I have received a further letter from an objector stating that his views have not been taken into consideration.


All objections are summarised in the officer’s report and considered as part of the assessment of the application.

The applicant has applied (20150924) to discharge pre-commencement conditions on planning application 20140502 for the two houses at 172-174 London Road, and some of conditions deal with the maintenance of the protected trees in accordance with British Standards. This application is currently under consideration.

Whilst there is no direct development plan policies relating to protected trees, policy CS03 encourage development, amongst other things, to contribute positively to the character and appearance of the local natural environment. The proposal is compliant with this policy.

12


Recommendation: Conditional approval20150781 2 VICARAGE LANE, HUMBERSTONE

Proposal: DETACHED DOUBLE GARAGE AT REAR OF HOUSE (CLASS C3)

Applicant: HAZELTON HOMES (MIDLANDS) LTDApp type: Operational development - full applicationStatus: Householder developmentExpiry Date: 10 July 2015ACB WARD: Humberstone & Hamilton


Representations

One of the objectors has written a further letter to clarify their concerns. The grounds of objection are;

1. The application is not a householder application and was not publicised correctly

2. Increase in traffic and fumes3. The building work has already started4. Details of pre-application advice given are not provided on the application form5. The developers do not own the land6. Maintenance responsibilities for the land drain7. Changes to the construction of the land drain8. Land level issues


The responses to the objectors concerns are as follows

1. The application is a householder application as the proposed garage is to serve the owners of 2 Vicarage Lane. The only publicity requirement for the application is to notify the occupiers of neighbouring properties.

2. This has been covered in the main report.3. The building work for the garage has not commenced and there are no

foundations on the proposed site for it.4. Pre-application enquiries are encouraged by Planning Service in accordance

with advice in the NPPF. Details of these are not in the public domain.5. The developers own part of the application site and the occupiers of the

property at 2 Vicarage Lane own the rest. It is understood that the site of the

13


garage and access to it will be transferred to the owners of the house when the development is complete.

6. It is understood that the maintenance responsibilities for the land drain will be transferred to the owners of the new properties and the owners of 2 Vicarage Lane.

7. The construction of the land drain is not affected by the garage as the land drain has already been installed.

8. The land levels for the development have been monitored on a regular basis during construction. No raising of land levels has been found.

14


Recommendation: Refusal20140245 46 RENDELL ROAD

Proposal: THREE STOREY BUILDING TO PROVIDE THREE DWELLINGS (1 X 1 BED; 2 X 2 BED) (CLASS C3)

Applicant: MR A KANDILWALApp type: Operational development - full applicationStatus: Householder developmentExpiry Date: 14 May 2014KER WARD:

87

18

CareCentre

Bank

160

76

50

62

44

Wor

ks30

2448

121123 to 129

111

103

109

89 to 101

46

105to 107

20

8

3

Bank

5

©Crown Copyright Reserved. Leicester City Council Licence 100019264(2015). Ordnance

Survey mapping does not imply any ownership boundaries and does not always denote the exact ground features.

Summary Application is brought to committee at the request of the former Councillor

Patel for members to consider the design and delivery of new housing.

The Environment Agency objects to the proposal because it does not pass sequential test.

Main issues are design, impact on neighbouring amenity, flooding and highways.

The proposal would have significant adverse impact on neighbouring amenity, compromise the amenity of new occupiers and result in highway safety implications.

Application recommended for refusal.

1

Appendix B1


Introduction

The application relates to a site that fronts Rendell Road and is located in between 44 and 50 Rendell Road. The front of the site is enclosed by 3 metre high gates\fencing and is hard surfaced. There is a two storey industrial building which is set back into the site by 25 metres and uses the application site for its vehicular access, servicing and off-street parking.

Belgrave Road runs parallel to the application site which is allocated as a District Centre. The site is located primarily in a residential area with Cossington Recreation Park is on the opposite site.

The site is located in Flood Zone 3a and is also located in a Critical Drainage Area.

Background

All the planning history for the site appears to relate to the building to the front of the site.

The Proposal

The applicant proposes a three storey building to form three dwellings. The building would be set back approximately 1 metre from the back of the footway and will adjoin neighbouring properties. The building would occupy a footprint of approximately 6.5 metres (width) x 11 metres (depth) x 9 metres (height.) The building would be of an irregular shape with a section cut out to the front to allow for two parking spaces. Only two dwellings would have private amenity area at the rear.

Access to the three dwellings would be from the front and part of the site to the west would be used for vehicular access to serve the existing industrial building at the rear.

The dwellings would be constructed of brick and tile with dormer windows in the roof to provide the second floor accommodation.

Policy Considerations

National Planning Policy Framework – Paragraphs 99 - 108Development plan policies relevant to this application are listed at the end of this report.Supplementary Planning Guidance – Vehicle Parking StandardsSupplementary Planning Document – Residential Amenity

Consultations

Pollution (Noise): Raise no objections.

2


Highway Authority: Object to the application on the grounds of lack of pedestrian visibility and insufficient parking. Parking policy states that this development proposal would require 5 car parking spaces (maximum) but only two are proposed. Parking research gives a forecast demand of 3 car parking spaces with no allowance for visitors. Rendell Road does not appear to have spare roadside parking capacity; therefore it is not appropriate to relax the policy maximum standard unless evidence can be provided that spare roadside parking is available at all times. The proposed parking spaces are shown as below the minimum size required by adopted policy, the 6Cs Design Guide. In addition there is a lack of pedestrian visibility and the proposal that pedestrians be alerted by a flashing light is not acceptable.

Environment Agency: The site is located in Flood Zone 3 and no evidence has been provided to demonstrate if a sequential test has been carried out and passed. They therefore object to the application.

Representations

The former Councillor Patel requested that the application be considered by committee relating to design of the proposal, parking, flooding and delivery of additional dwellings in the area.

Consideration

Principle of developmentThe site is located primarily within a residential area and therefore the principle of residential development is acceptable subject to design, level of accommodation, amenity, highway and flooding.

DesignThe proposal is higher than the two dwellings on either side and includes a large under croft parking which is not a common element on the street with majority of the other terraced properties on the street having a continuous frontage and are not set back. There are some front dormers on the modern properties further along Rendell Road, but not in the immediate vicinity of the site. Whilst the design is not fully in accordance with the street scene I do not consider that it would have a significant visual impact to warrant a refusal.

Level of accommodation Each of the dwellings would be provided with an outlook from principal room windows to the front and rear. However, the study to the smaller one bedroom unit would only be served by a velux window. A study room is a principal room and therefore an unacceptable outlook would be provided.

The Residential Amenity SPG suggest 11m separation distances from the rear windows on the main building to its boundary and at least 15m from principal room windows to a wall containing no windows or 21m to a wall containing windows. The existing two storey industrial building to the rear of the site has windows facing the proposed dwellings. The distance to the boundary from the rear windows of the dwellings is between 8 and 10 metres and therefore not in accordance with the SPG

3


and would result in overlooking both into the dwellings and the private amenity space.

The amount of amenity space provided for the two larger houses is 53 and 50 square metres and the smaller unit would have nil. The Residential Amenity SPG would suggest 75 square metres. I accept that some of the terrace properties in the immediate area have less than what is suggested in the SPG but to have one of the unit have no private amenity space would be contrary to policy.

Overall, poor level of accommodation would be provided contrary to Policy PS10 of the Local Plan and Policy CS3 of the Core Strategy and the SPG.

Impact on neighbouring amenity The site is a vacant plot in-between existing terraced properties. The dwellings would be set back from the front by approximately 1 metre and would be set further back than the existing terraced properties at 44 and 50 Rendell Road. I therefore consider these properties would not be affected in terms of loss of light, overlooking and loss of privacy. The industrial building has no hours of use conditions and the access road to serve it will along the side of the dwelling at 44 and the new dwelling. I am concerned that the use of the access road to service the industrial building is likely to result in noise and general disturbance to nearby residents above the existing situation.

Highways

The new dwellings would require five off street parking spaces and only two are shown. The size and location of the undercroft means vehicles are likely to have to reverse out into Rendell Road, which is busy and congested road with parking laybys on the opposite site that serves not only the existing dwellings but users of the park and the nearby Belgrave Road District Centre. On-street parking is at a premium and to introducing additional housing and take away the servicing area for the industrial building is likely to result in congestion and highway safety implications contrary to policies in the 6C’s Highways Design Guide.

The width of the new access would mean that vehicles would have to enter in a forward direction and reverse out as there is no turning head or manoeuvring space. This would add to highway safety implications. The applicants state they would have flashing lights to warn pedestrians, however, this is not considered acceptable. It has been suggested by the applicant that the unit could be serviced from Belgrave Road, which I do not think is possible. If it was achievable then it is likely to lead to congestion and highway safety issues on Belgrave Road.

Flooding and SUDS

Where a site is located within Flood zone 2 and 3a then zone 3a takes precedent. It is also within a Critical Drainage Area. For the proposal to be acceptable it needs to pass a sequential test to show that there are no other sites available in the city that are more preferable of being developed. There are other sites outside of the flood zone that are likely to be more suitable and sequentially preferable for developing

4


and to allow the development would mean that future residents would be highly vulnerable if their homes have been flooded contrary to Policy BE20 of the Local Plan. Lifetime Homes

The application has not been assessed in terms of its compliance with lifetime homes but this too could be conditioned. It is likely that if the development was to be allowed to meet the flooding requirement then it may not be possible to meet the full life time requirement.

Conclusion

I consider the proposed dwellings are unacceptable as they would provide an unacceptable living environment and would result in inadequate outlook and loss of privacy. The new access road to the existing industrial building is likely to result in unacceptable levels of noise and general disturbance and potential highway conflict. In-sufficient off street parking, lack of pedestrian visibility to proposed parking spaces, servicing and manoeuvring for both the new dwellings and the industrial building will significantly exacerbate the existing parking situation in the area and compromise highway safety.

The proposal is located in Flood Zone 3 and the development has not passed the sequential test and does not incorporate any SUDS features. I therefore consider the proposal is unacceptable on flooding terms being contrary to policies BE20 of the Local Plan and Policy CS2 of the Core Strategy.

I therefore recommend REFUSAL for the following reasons: REASONS FOR REFUSAL

1. The application site is located within Flood Zone 3a and within a Critical Drainage Area. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the site is sequentially preferable for residential development and would not result in significant levels of flooding or appropriate mitigation measures to safeguard future residents. The site is therefore not considered sequentially preferable and is contrary to National Planning Policy Framework and Policy BE20 of the City of Leicester Local Plan and Policy CS2 of the Core Strategy.

The application site is located within Flood Zone 3a and within a Critical Drainage Area (CDA). The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the site is sequentially preferable for residential development. They have not demonstrated it would be safe for residents and not increase flood risk both on and off the site. The proposal is therefore contrary to paragraphs 99-104 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy CS2 of the Core Strategy.

2. The proposal due to inadequate off street parking, access width and manoeuvring space for vehicles to service the industrial building, size and design of parking spaces and lack of pedestrian visibility splays, would result in additional parking pressures in an area where on street parking is at a premium and would lead to congestion and highway safety implications

5


contrary to Policies AM11 and AM12 of the City of Leicester Local Plan and Policy CS14 of the Core Strategy.

3. The proposal would not provide any private amenity space to one of the dwellings which would result in a poor living environment. The layout and size of the proposal is such that inadequate separation distances to boundaries and neighbouring properties are provided which would result in unacceptable levels of overlooking from the industrial unit to the rear and would be detrimental to neighbouring properties in terms of loss of privacy, noise and general disturbance and would also provide an unacceptable living environment. The location of the access drive to serve the industrial unit to the rear would also result in loss of privacy and noise and disturbance to the proposed dwellings. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies PS10, PS11 and H07 of the City of Leicester Local Plan and Policy CS3 of the Core Strategy.

6



Proposal:

CHANGE OF USE FROM SCHOOL (CLASS D1) TO HOTEL; FUNCTION HALLS; CONFERENCE FACILITIES AND CARE TAKERS FLAT (NO USE CLASS); DEMOLITION OF EXISTING SINGLE STOREY BUILDING AND REAR SINGLE STOREY EXTENSION; SINGLE STOREY EXTENSION AT SIDE AND REAR; TWO STOREY LINK EXTENSION; ALTERATIONS TO ROOF;TEMPORARY MARQUEE; ASSOCIATED CAR PARKING; SINGLE STOREY CAFE (CLASS A3) TO SIDE OF SITE(AMENDED)

Applicant: MR & MRS N & S PARMARApp type: Change of useStatus: Smallscale Major DevelopmentExpiry Date: 29 May 2015KER WARD: Braunstone Park & Rowley Fields

Summary Joint report with 20121435 which is a listed building application that

can be found elsewhere on the agenda.

The application is brought to committee at the request of the former Councillors Cooke and Glover for members to consider access, traffic and fencing.

Hall is Grade II listed, located in the centre of Braunstone Park and has been vacant for many years.

Two objections received on grounds of impact on protected species, disturbance to the park, unacceptable access from Hinckley Road, access should be from Gooding Avenue only, increase noise and disturbance and impact on road safety.

Main issues to consider are impact on the listed building, design, ecology, trees and parking.

Change of use and extensions are considered acceptable, they would not have an adverse impact on the fabric and character of the listed building and will bring back the use of a vacant listed building in poor condition.

Application is recommended for approval

Introduction

The application relates to Braunstone Hall and its adjoining kitchen block which is located within the centre of Braunstone Park. The park occupies a large island site and is predominantly surrounded by housing. The main vehicular access routes into the site are from Hinckley Road and Gooding Avenue. The main Hall and its kitchen block are Grade II listed as is the adjoining stable block and walled garden. The

Appendix B2

©Crown Copyright Reserved. Leicester City Council Licence 100019264(2015). Ordnance Survey mapping does not imply any ownership boundaries and does not always denote the

exact ground features.stable block is mainly used as offices by Leicester City Council with some visitor facilities. The walled garden is open to the public at certain times during the week.

The park has dense tree coverage and there is a protected tree to the front of the hall close to where the main hall joins the kitchen block. There is a large cedar tree to the rear which is also protected. There is also a large group TPO of trees to the rear of the Hall. Part of the site is allocated as a local wildlife site. The Hall and its buildings were previously allocated as community, education and leisure, however, this policy is no longer saved. The remaining area of the site is allocated as green space.

The site has a level difference at the rear.

Planning application 20141435 is the accompanying listed building application for internal and external alterations to the building. This is a joint report for both applications.

Background

The Hall was originally built by the Winstanley family as their family home. When the Winstanley family left the building it appears it came into the ownership of the corporation of Leicester and subsequently Leicester City Council. The hall has an extensive history which dates back to the 1960’s. There have been numerous applications for alterations and extensions to it and its use from the 1960’s appears to be as a school.

The Proposal

The applicant proposes a change of use from school (Class D1) to hotel; function halls and conference facilities (no use class); demolition of existing single storey building and rear single storey extension; two storey extension at front; single storey extension at front’s; side and rear; alterations to roof; temporary marquee; associated car parking; single storey cafe (Class A3) to side of site.

The hall and the adjoining kitchen block would be used as a hotel, function halls and conference facilities. There is currently a gap between the two buildings and the proposed two storey extension would seek to link these two buildings together and provide the main reception to the venue. This extension would wrap around to the rear of the building and it would be single storey. The extension to the rear and side would form ballrooms with associated facilities. There would also be a small single storey extension to the front of the kitchen block to provide a chair store.

The main hall will contain function rooms, meeting rooms and ancillary offices. The first and second floors of the main hall will contain 13 bedrooms with ensuite facilities.

The application has been amended to include a care takers flat and to alter the appearance of the proposed extensions.

A freestanding structure is now proposed to the central courtyard instead of the previous covered roof which was attached to the building.

The applicant also wishes to place a marquee to the rear of the hall and has indicated potential locations.

A tree report has been submitted.

The single storey café building comprises a seating area, toilets and kitchen is proposed. It was previously located close to the car parking area, however, given the potential impact on surrounding trees its location has not been finalised.


Development plan policies relevant to this application are listed at the end of this report.

Supplementary Planning Guidance – Vehicle Parking Standards

Consultations

Severn TrentHave no objection subject to a drainage condition.

Pollution – LandNo objection.

Conservation Advisory Panel

In terms of the original plans the Panel were supportive of the reuse of the building, however, they considered the plans were inadequate to allow a thorough assessment of the proposal.Following the submission of amended plans, the panel fully supports the conversion of Braunstone Hall to a wedding / conference venue, as it gives the listed buildings an active use and secures their long term future. They accepted the need for the new ballrooms and reception atrium, as they allow for large-scale events without compromising the integrity of the hall.

The panel considered the revised proposals a great improvement, particularly the revised design of the new extensions, as they were of a better design and an improved relationship with the existing buildings; showing a clear distinction between new and old.

There was however some concern over the height of the lower section of the reception atrium and its relationship with the eave detailing of the existing kitchen wing. It was suggested that the flat roof should be reduced in height to address this.

The panel felt that the success of the development would be in the quality of the details and asked that special attention (through conditions) be considered to the fascia details, soffit details and materials of the new extensions.

Pollution – noise

Have concerns that there could be a detrimental impact on neighbouring amenity from amplified voice from the application site. They recommend conditions requiring an insulation scheme and that there be no detriment to residential amenity from amplified voice.

They also have concerns about vehicles leaving the site onto Gooding Avenue as there may be the potential for noise and disturbance, especially from car headlights etc. They consider the Hinckley Road entrance should be used between the hours of 2200 hours and 0730.

Highway Authority

Raise some concerns about the use of the access road into the park from Hinckley Road in terms of conflict with pedestrians and discouraging unauthorised vehicular use of the park, in which the volume of traffic using Hinckley Road, especially those turning right into the site, which may result in queuing on Hinckley Road. Historic England

Commented on the original plans and had concerns about the impact the extensions would have on the fabric of the existing buildings and the level of detail provided. They welcome the reuse of the building and appreciate the challenge to achieve proper balance between the special interest of the buildings and securing a new use. They acknowledge additional information has been submitted with examples of materials and contemporary extensions. They consider it is an improvement on the original plans in terms of details. However, they still have concerns about the proposed glazing of the courtyard, the substantial demolition of the west elevation and the sizeable extensions will have a dominating impact on the Hall and stables block. They do note that the extensions attempt to act as stand-alone elements, allowing a clear distinction between old and new, the proposals will clearly change the historic footprint compromising the architectural and historic / functional relationship with one another which forms an important part of their special interest. They consider the amount of information submitted regarding materials is insufficient and are not sure conditions would secure sufficient information. They are also concerned about the proposed marquee. They have not commented on the impact of the proposals on the park nor the setting of the grade II listed stables. They do not object to the application and recommend advice is sought from the Council’s conservation specialist.

Leicester Civic Society

I have received a letter of support from the Leicester Civic Society who detail the history of the hall and their involvement with the owner before the application had been submitted. They urge the granting of consent in order for the restoration of the building and it will be of great benefit to the city.

They have commented further that the amended scheme in that the hall will be a medium sized facility and is unlikely to generate large volumes of traffic. Traffic on Hinckley Road is less than it used to be following the construction of the ring road.

The auto bollards could be set further into the site to reduce queues on the main road.

Other than access for private cars all other access and egress will be from Gooding Avenue.

Nearby Western Park has similar arrangements and has remained traffic free despite large volumes of traffic.

The Council may wish to consider placing a footpath alongside the drive as there is at Western Park.

Representations

I have received two objections on the following grounds: Impact on protected species

Impact on peace and quiet of the park

Concern about the past – supernatural

Access from Hinckley Road unacceptable

Increase noise and disturbance to the park

Road safety issues

All access should be from Gooding AvenueI have received a letter of objection from the former Councillors Cooke and Glover, they make the following points:

Would like the application considered at planning committee.

Their comments are following a public meeting at which residents raised issues / questions.

Access to the Hall from Hinckley Road presents a number of problems; turning right off Hinckley Road close to a traffic light controlled junction at Oswin Road appears to present a hazard to other vehicles moving in the same direction, not only because of reduced traffic speed and tailing back, but also because of the delay the barriers in the park will present to vehicles.

More hazardous with vehicles crossing the park in close proximity to users of the park, including children playing. The roadway is part of the park, not part of the Hall.

Vehicles exit from the Hall is via Gooding Avenue which in our view should be the only entrance and exit. Although we concede bridal cars could use the Hinckley Road entrance.

There are concerns that the area allotted to parking is insufficient

Commercial deliveries will enter and leave via Gooding Ave using a narrow one vehicle road in the Park which will be in conflict with any vehicles entering the Park from Hinckley Road.

A further problem created by delivery vehicles is that it is proposed that deliveries be through the current car park serving The Stables and accessing the flower gardens. There is a people hazard as a consequence as the Stables are not only a Council Parks facility but also host the Braunstone History Club. The Stables provide a well used and useful community amenity,which should not be jeopardised in anyway.

No provision appears to have been made for commercial vehicle parking

Residents are concerned that high security fencing will be erected around the Hall, and whilst appreciating the need for security, would like some assurances that the fencing will not detract from the amenity of the park.

I have received two letters of support welcoming the redevelopment of the hall as it will bring a neglected building back into use.

I have received a letter of support from Restore Braunstone Hall Group who welcome the proposals and want to see the hall restored.

Consideration

Principle of development

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 19 states: “The Government is committed to ensuring that the planning system does everything it can to support sustainable economic growth. Planning should operate to encourage and not act as an impediment to sustainable growth.”

Part of the application site lies on an area which was previously designated as a Community and Leisure area in the 2006 City of Leicester Local Plan. This policy has since been deleted and so this area currently has no policy attached to it. Part of the application site (the car park) lies within an area designated as green space on the 2006 City of Leicester Local Plan.

Core Strategy Policy CS16 “Cultural Strategy” states that the council will encourage investment to improve the quality of the infrastructure for…leisure.” Core Strategy Policy CS18 “Historic Environment” states: “The Council will protect and seek opportunities to enhance the historic environment including the character and setting of designated and other heritage assets.” The listed building has not been used for several years and has fallen into disrepair as a result. Therefore bringing the building back into a viable use would be supported if it should help to secure the future of the heritage asset.

A hotel and conference facility is classed as a city centre use (Annex 2, NPPF). Core Strategy policy CS12 states that the council will develop “an economically prosperous Centre through the location of small offices and creative industries and supporting related uses including new hotels and conference venues.” Therefore a

sequential test should normally be completed demonstrating that there are no sequentially preferable sites within the city centre and why this site would be the most appropriate location for the hotel and conference facilities (paragraph 24 NPPF). However, whilst there may be sequentially preferable sites closer to the city centre, it is acknowledged that the proposed development would bring a vulnerable listed building back into use and safeguard its future. In this instance due to the proposal ensuring the future of the listed building, the need for the location of the use to be within the city centre can be discounted.

Whilst the construction of a car park on green space would be contrary to Core Strategy CS 13 “Green Network,” the car park is an essential requirement to serve the proposal. The City Council’s 2007 Open Space, Sport and Recreation Study shows this area of land as a Park and Garden. The same study shows Braunstone Park and Rowley Fields ward has having a sufficient supply of Parks and Gardens, with a surplus of 62.23ha. Therefore the loss of a small area of Braunstone Park would not result in the ward having a deficiency in open space.

The proposal is therefore considered acceptable in policy terms.

Conservation

The conversion of the building is welcomed as it will bring a derelict heritage asset back into use. The amended plans submitted aim to provide additional detail regarding the impact the proposal will have on the building for examples junctions with new and old. The amendments are slightly different but aim to use the existing floorplans with minimal intervention. This is welcomed.

There are several distinct parts to the building which will be examined individually: Kitchen wing – the revised proposal looks to utilise the central courtyard, as per the original proposal, with rooms around the courtyard following the existing floorplans. The proposal does however now propose to incorporate a stairwell with a central platform lift, formerly located within the new reception area.

The proposal to have a freestanding roof within the courtyard is welcomed, however, there is some concern over the number of column supports required in order to achieve this freestanding structure. Subject to a condition requiring details this is acceptable.

New Builds

Reception Atrium - It is intended to create a 2-storey glazed atrium between the hall and kitchen wing, with a set-back building line. The revised plans do however now propose for the atrium to step-down, allowing for the eaves to sit beneath the roof of the kitchen wing. This is welcomed, and is considered a better detail than previously proposed.

The proposal for the rear elevation to be set-back from the rear building line of the hall is also welcomed.

Ballroom 1 – the revised design for the ballroom, taking inspiration from the Barcelona Pavilion, with an overhanging flat roof and heavily glazed elevations is welcomed. It is felt that this contemporary approach, with a restrictive overall height is the correct approach, allowing for a clear distinction between new and old.

A solid wall fronting the stables is acceptable (for security reasons). It is important that this extension appears high-quality, befitting the architectural merits of the listed building.

External Areas

Rear terrace –The proposal includes a raised terrace to the rear of the hall, with access from ballroom 2 / reception atrium and the existing hall. This is acceptable in principle, but will need to be designed carefully to respect the existing rear elevation of the hall. A ‘generic’ raised timber area with timber balustrading would not be acceptable therefore conditions are attached to achieve higher quality materials. It is appreciated that a marquee may be required for some weddings and functions, however, to have the marquee standing on a permanent basis would be detrimental to the character of the listed building. I consider it appropriate to attach a condition requiring the marquee to be a temporary structure and put into storage when not required.

Careful consideration needs to be given to the boundaries of the site including the ha – ha to the rear of the site. I will attach a condition requiring details to be submitted of all boundaries.

The café building will be a single storey building located to the rear of the hall, however, the exact location is not known at present. A condition will be attached to require details of the location of the building to be provided. Impact on neighbouring amenity

The park including Braunstone Hall occupy an island site with the Hall being set within the middle of the park and almost entirely surrounded by trees. It is set at a higher level to the surrounding roads. The main neighbouring properties around the site are residential; however, there are some industrial uses on Hinckley Road and a leisure centre, two churches with one including residential accommodation to the east of the site on Gooding Avenue.

I do not consider any of the residential properties are likely to be adversely affected as a result of the proposal, given their distance away from the Hall itself.

I note the concerns from Pollution Control in terms of car headlights etc disturbing the properties on Gooding Avenue, especially the care home. I do not consider it appropriate to attach conditions restricting the hours of use given it will be a hotel, wedding/ conference venue that will need to operate 24 hours. However, a condition will be attached to ensure there is no detriment to residential amenity from amplified music or voice. I also consider it appropriate to attach a condition requiring a car park management plan which should detail how vehicles will be managed leaving the site. A sound insulation scheme has also been requested, however, this is not

appropriate given the listed nature of the building. However, the new extensions could incorporate sound insulation as this is likely to be the parts of the building that will generate the most noise. I will attach a condition to secure this.

Landscaping

Given the sites location in Braunstone Park consideration needs to be given to ensure there is no adverse impact on the park. Large areas of grassed area would be given over to the parking of vehicles. Whilst this would change the nature of this area given the amount of open green space that would remain I consider it acceptable in this case. It is not proposed to tarmac these areas. I consider it appropriate to ask for details of the materials for this area which would form part of a landscaping scheme.

Ecology and trees

Braunstone Hall grounds and areas to the north, east and west within Braunstone Park are designated as a Local Wildlife Site due to the presence of mature veteran trees, broadleaf and conifer woodland. Part of this area is shown within the red line boundary.

The hall itself is known to contain bats, however, the surrounding trees have not been assessed for their bat roost potential. There are also no proposals to indicate what mitigation measures will be secured following the redevelopment of the hall and the removal of some of the trees. I therefore consider it appropriate to attach a condition requiring mitigation to compensate for these loses and impacts. In addition there are no details proposed regarding external lighting. I will attach a condition to secure this.

There are a significant number of trees within the park and in close proximity to the hall. Some of these trees are subject to individual tree preservation orders and there is also a group preservation order. The proposal will affect a large number of the trees and the applicant has provided a tree report. This is still being looked at and I will report further comments to your committee. A number of trees are going to have to be felled to allow for the extensions. However, I consider this is an exceptional case in terms of bring an historic building back into use. Conditions will be attached to ensure appropriate mitigation is in place to compensate for the loss of the trees.

Parking and Highways

The main entrance to the Hall would be from Hinckley Road with vehicles then driving along the long access drive which intersects the main park area. This would have been the original approach to the hall. Vehicles would then park in a new parking area on grassed areas to the east of the building. This is considered to be acceptable. Cycle parking would also be provided in this area. Vehicles would then leave the site via the access on Gooding Avenue. Goods / service vehicles would use Gooding Avenue to enter and exit the site.

Concerns have been raised by the Highway Authority and objectors about vehicles travelling through the park and the potential conflict between vehicles and pedestrians. Whilst the route is not currently used by vehicles to come all the way into the site it was its original intention. Vehicles currently use the Gooding Avenue entrance predominantly but this does involve entering the park where pedestrians are also using the site. I consider the access arrangements through the park to be acceptable. There may be the opportunity for unauthorised vehicles to use the site which is something that has been eradicated from the park at the moment after a long period of anti – social activities. I consider it appropriate to attach a condition requiring details of measures to prevent unauthorised access such as a knee rail to the access road and control mechanism to the main entrance.

The use of the access on Hinckley Road could lead to vehicles queuing to turn right into the site potentially leading to queuing traffic on Hinckley Road which is a busy main route into the city. The applicant is currently working on a solution to provide a right hand turning lane to allow for vehicles to still use Hinckley Road and those using the site to not cause queuing on Hinckley Road.

Whilst there are highway concerns regarding the site I consider these can be overcome, subject to conditions. Further comments may be received from the Highway Authority which I will report to your committee.

Conclusion

I consider the proposed change of use of the Grade II listed Braunstone Hall to a wedding / hotel, function centre will result in bring a building that has been vacant for a long time back into an active use. It will also help to provide surveillance and activity to the park during the evening which may assist with anti – social behaviour.

The extensions will be a significant addition to the existing buildings, however, I consider they have been sensitively designed to minimise their impact upon the historic fabric. Careful consideration will need to be given to materials and how the junction between new and old is handled. Therefore a number of conditions have been attached to secure this.

The proposed café will provide a community facility for all park users and is welcomed. The proposal will result in a significant increase in the number of vehicular trips which could be 24 hours given the hotel use. Whilst this will result in the increased use of internal roads within the park, I consider subject to conditions securing appropriate management and boundary treatments to the road it is considered to be acceptable.

The main vehicular access to the site will be from Hinckley Road and whilst there will be a large number of vehicles turning right into the site a new right turn lane is proposed which will assist in ensuring there is no large queuing of vehicles blocking Hinckley Road. This will be secured by a condition. A number of other highway conditions will also be attached.

The site is known to contain bats and whilst this information is known for the Hall itself no details of the surrounding trees have been provided. I consider it appropriate to attach conditions requiring ecological mitigation.

The proposal will result in the loss of protected trees, whilst this is not an ideal solution the long term use of the hall is welcomed. I consider appropriate mitigation can be put in place to compensate for the loss of these trees.

The proposed use will increase vehicular trips and activity within the park with vehicles leaving potentially during the early hours of the morning. Whilst I do not consider there would be an adverse impact on residential amenity I consider it appropriate to attach conditions requiring an insulation scheme and management plan to ensure there is no adverse impact on neighbouring amenity.

Overall, despite the proposal introducing significant alterations to an important listed building I consider it will result in the long term restoration and use of the building which outweighs some of the impacts the proposal may have.

Recommendation

I therefore recommend APPROVAL of planning application 20141434 subject to the following conditions:

CONDITIONS

1. START WITHIN THREE YEARS

2. NO DETRIMENT FROM LIVE OR AMPLIFIED MUSIC OR VOICE

3. Before the development authorised by this permission is begun, a detailed landscaping scheme showing the treatment of all parts of the site which will remain unbuilt upon shall be submitted to and approved by the City Council as local planning authority. This scheme shall include details of: (i) the position and spread of all existing trees, shrubs and hedges to be retained or removed; (ii) new tree and shrub planting, including plant type, size, quantities and locations; (iii) means of planting, staking, and tying of trees, including tree guards; (iv) other surface treatments; (v) fencing and boundary treatments; (vi) any changes in levels; (vii) the position and depth of service and/or drainage runs (which may affect tree roots), (Viii) Ecological mitigation. The approved landscaping scheme shall be carried out within one year of completion of the development. For a period of not less than five years from the date of planting, the applicant or owners of the land shall maintain all planted material. This material shall be replaced if it dies, is removed or

becomes seriously diseased. The replacement planting shall be completed in the next planting season in accordance with the approved landscaping scheme. (In the interests of amenity, and in accordance with policy UD06 of the City of Leicester Local Plan and Core Strategy policy CS3.)

4. The development shall not commence until a sound insulation scheme to the new extensions only to prevent the transmission of noise to adjacent properties has been carried out in accordance with details which shall first have been submitted to and approved by the City Council as local planning authority. (In the interests of the amenities of nearby occupiers, and in accordance with policies PS10 and PS11 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.)

5. TRAVEL PLAN - DETAILS REQUIRED

6. CYCLE PARKING - DETAILS REQUIRED

7. PARKING/SERVICE AREA RETAINED (%)

8. CONSTRUCTION METHOD STATEMENT (MAJOR SCHEMES) - DETAILS TO BE AGREED

9. Before the occupation of the development details shall be provided of how the vehicular entrances will be managed, including arrangements for managing arrivals and departures of both visitors to the site and service vehicles. Details of how the internal access roads will be treated to prevent unauthorised vehicular access to the park shall also be provided. The details shall be implemented as agreed and retained as such. ( In the interests of the appropriate management of the site and in accordance with Policies AM01 and AM11 of the City of Leicester Local Plan and Policy CS14 of the Core Strategy.)

10. Before development commences details of the alterations to Hinckley Road to provide a right turn lane into the site (including timescale for delivery) shall be submitted and agreed by the City Council as local planning authority and implemented within the agreed timescale and retained as such. ( In the interests of highway safety and in accordance with Policy AM11 of the Local Plan and Policy CS14 of the Core Strategy.)

11. All trees on the site subject to a Tree Preservation Order ( that are not to be removed) shall be protected from damage during building operations, in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the City Council as local planning authority. (In the interests of amenity, and in accordance with policy UD06 of the City of Leicester Local Plan and Core Strategy policy CS3.)

12. BRITISH STANDARD FOR TREE WORK

13. TEMPORARY ARRANGEMENTS DURING BUILDING OPERATIONS

14. SURFACING AND BOUNDARY TREATMENT ETC TO BE APPROVED

15. REPLACEMENT PLANTING (DETAILS)

16. Before development commences details of any ventilation to the kitchen and cafe building shall be submitted to and agreed by the City Council as local planning authority and retained thereafter. ( In the interests of amenity and in accordance with Policies PS10 and PS11 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.)

17. Details required of marquee, location and management.

18. DETAILS OF LOCAITON REQUIRED

19. DETAILS OF MAIN ACCESS GATE TREATMENTS

20. This consent shall relate solely to the amended plans received by the City Council as local planning authority on 21 May 2015, unless otherwise submitted to and approved by the City Council as local planning authority. (For the avoidance of doubt.)

NOTES FOR APPLICANT

1. With regard to condition 4 the applicant should note that the insulation scheme shall take account of low frequency noise, and will probably need to include ventilation arrangements.

Policies relating to this recommendation

2006_AM01 Planning permission will only be granted where the needs of pedestrians and people with disabilities are incorporated into the design and routes are as direct as possible to key destinations.

2006_AM02 Planning permission will only be granted where the needs of cyclists have been incorporated into the design and new or improved cycling routes should link directly and safely to key destinations.

2006_AM11 Proposals for parking provision for non-residential development should not exceed the maximum standards specified in Appendix 01.

2006_BE16 Planning permission will be granted for the development of renewable energy installations where local impacts are not outweighed by wider benefits. Major developments must realise their potential for incorporating renewable energy technologies.

2006_PS10 Criteria will be used to assess planning applications which concern the amenity of existing or proposed residents.

2006_PS11 Control over proposals which have the potential to pollute, and over proposals which are sensitive to pollution near existing polluting uses; support for alternative fuels etc.

2006_UD06 New development should not impinge upon landscape features that have amenity value whether they are within or outside the site unless it can meet criteria.

2014_CS01 The overall objective of the Core Strategy is to ensure that Leicester develops as a sustainable city, with an improved quality of life for all its citizens. The policy includes guidelines for the location of housing and other development.

2014_CS02 Development must mitigate and adapt to climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The policy sets out principles which provide the climate change policy context for the City.

2014_CS03 The Council will require high quality, well designed developments that contribute positively to the character and appearance of the local natural and built environment. The policy sets out design objectives for urban form, connections and access, public spaces, the historic environment, and 'Building for Life'.

2014_CS08 Neighbourhoods should be sustainable places that people choose to live and work in and where everyday facilities are available to local people. The policy sets out requirements for various neighbourhood areas in the City.

2014_CS12 In recognition of the City Centre's role in the City's economy and wider regeneration, the policy sets out strategies and measures to promote its growth as a sub-regional shopping, leisure, historic and cultural destination, and the most accessible and sustainable location for main town centre uses.

2014_CS13 The Council will seek to maintain and enhance the quality of the green network so that residents and visitors have easy access to good quality green space, sport and recreation provision that meets the needs of local people.

2014_CS14 The Council will seek to ensure that new development is easily accessible to all future users including by alternative means of travel to the car; and will aim to develop and maintain a Transport Network that will maximise accessibility, manage congestion and air quality, and accommodate the impacts of new development.

2014_CS15 To meet the key aim of reducing Leicester's contribution to climate change, the policy sets out measures to help manage congestion on the City roads.

2014_CS16 The Council aims to develop culture and leisure facilities and opportunities which provide quality and choice and which increase participation among all our diverse communities. New developments should create an environment for culture and creativity to flourish.

2014_CS17 The policy sets out measures to require new development to maintain, enhance and strengthen connections for wildlife, both within and beyond the identified biodiversity network.

2014_CS18 The Council will protect and seek opportunities to enhance the historic environment including the character and setting of designated and other heritage assets.

2014_CS19 New development must be supported by the required infrastructure at the appropriate stage. Developer contributions will be sought where needs arise as a result of the development either individually or collectively.



Proposal:

DEMOLITION OF PART OF BUILDING; INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL ALTERATIONS TO GRADE II LISTED BUILDING;TWO STOREY EXTENSION AT FRONT; SINGLE STOREY EXTENSION AT FRONT;SIDE AND REAR; ALTERATIONS TO ROOF

Applicant: MR & MRS N & S PARMARApp type: Listed building consentStatus: Other developmentExpiry Date: 31 October 2014KER WARD: Braunstone Park & Rowley Fields

Summary This is a joint report with planning application 20141434 that can be

found elsewhere on the agenda.

Application is recommended for approvalIntroduction

This is a joint report with planning application 20141434 that can be found elsewhere on the agenda. That report covers the proposal and assessment of both applications.

Appendix B3


exact ground features.

Recommendation

I recommend APPROVAL of the listed building application subject to the following conditions:

CONDITIONS

1. START WITHIN THREE YEARS - LB CONSENT OR CA CONSENT

2. Prior to the commencement of the conversion of the listed hall, a full internal schedule of works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. This shall include:i) a room-by-room schedule confirming the extent of repair and alteration works to all walls, floors, ceilings and historic featuresii) floorplans confirming the location and method of installation of all new plumbing, pipework and electrical wiringiii) details of the location and methodology of any fire protection and acoustic separation worksiv) type of construction and method of installation of all new stud-partition wallsv) to-scale cross section of the new glazed partition to the GF meeting room (02), showing the junction with the original timber surroundvi) details confirming how existing door openings are to be closed-up( In the interests of securing the satisfactory development of the Listed Building and in accordance with Policy CS18 of the Core Strategy.)

3. - Prior to the commencement of the conversion of the listed hall, further details confirming the extent of external repair / alteration works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. This shall include:i) full joinery details including horizontal and vertical cross sections of all new windows (scale 1:2 / 1:5 as appropriate) and doors (scale 1:5 / 1:10 as appropriate)ii) further details confirming the method of repair of existing decorative stoneworkiii) details of cleaning methods to brickworkiv) position and design of all new flues / vents / extracts( In the interests of securing the satisfactory development of the Listed Building and in accordance with Policy CS18 of the Core Strategy.)

4. - Prior to the commencement of the conversion of the listed former kitchen wing, a full internal schedule of works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. This shall include:i) full structural engineers details, including drawings, confirming the method of installation of the steel beams into the GF western elevationii) full structural engineers details, including drawings, confirming the method of installation of all new floorsiii) a room-by-room schedule confirming the extent of repair and alteration works to all walls, floors, ceilings and historic features

iv) floorplans confirming the location and method of installation of all new plumbing, pipework and electrical wiringv) details of the location and methodology of any fire protection and acoustic separation worksvi) type of construction and method of installation of all new stud-partition walls( In the interests of securing the satisfactory development of the Listed Building and in accordance with Policy CS18 of the Core Strategy.)

5. - Prior to the commencement of the conversion of the listed former kitchen wing, further details confirming the extent of external repair / alteration works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. This shall include:i) full joinery details including horizontal and vertical cross sections of all new windows (scale 1:2 / 1:5 as appropriate) and doors (scale 1:5 / 1:10 as appropriate)ii) details of cleaning methods to brickworkiii) position and design of all new flues / vents / extractsiv) methodology for blocking up existing external openings( In the interests of securing the satisfactory development of the Listed Building and in accordance with Policy CS18 of the Core Strategy.)

6. Prior to the construction of any new extension, further details of all external surfaces shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. This shall include:i) rainscreen cladding ii) all new brickwork (including bonding & mortar)iii) vertical timber claddingiv) rainwater goodsv) flat-roof roofing materials( In the interests of securing the satisfactory development of the Listed Building and in accordance with Policy CS18 of the Core Strategy.)

7. - Prior to the construction of any new extension, the following connection details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. This shall include:i) the connection between the front elevation of the 2-storey glazed link / entrance block and the grade II listed hallii) the connection between the rear elevation of the 2-storey glazed link / entrance block and the grade II listed halliii) the connection between the 2-storey glazed link / entrance block and the grade II listed former kitchen block, including the relationship between the flat roof of the new extension and the eave detail of the kitchen block roofiv) the connection between the grade II listed former kitchen block and ballroom 01( In the interests of securing the satisfactory development of the Listed Building and in accordance with Policy CS18 of the Core Strategy.)

8. Prior to the construction of any new extension, a cross-section (scale 1:5 / 1:10 / 1:20 as appropriate) showing the specific details of the curtain wall glazing system shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the City Council as local planning authority. ( In the interests of securing the satisfactory development of the Listed Building and in accordance with Policy CS18 of the Core Strategy.)

9. Prior to the construction of any new extension, to-scale drawings showing the fascia, verge and eave details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the City Council as local planning authority. ( In the interests of securing the satisfactory development of the Listed Building and in accordance with Policy CS18 of the Core Strategy.)

10. - Prior to the construction of the roof canopy within the listed former kitchen block courtyard, further details confirming its design and method of installation shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the City Council as local planning authority. ( In the interests of securing the satisfactory development of the Listed Building and in accordance with Policy CS18 of the Core Strategy.)

11. Prior to the construction of the south elevation (rear) terrace perimeter wall, further details confirming its height, materials and design shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the City Council as local planning authority. ( In the interests of securing the satisfactory development of the Listed Building and in accordance with Policy CS18 of the Core Strategy.)

12. Prior to the installation of any external services, including kitchen flues, kitchen extracts and air conditioning and heating units, further details confirming their design, size and position shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the City Council as local planning authority. ( In the interests of securing the satisfactory development of the Listed Building and in accordance with Policy CS18 of the Core Strategy.)

13. Where possible all brickwork shall be salvaged and set aside under secure storage for reuse as part of the works. ( In the interests of securing the satisfactory development of the Listed Building and in accordance with Policy CS18 of the Core Strategy.)

14. This consent shall relate solely to the amended plans received by the City Council as local planning authority on 21st May, unless otherwise submitted to and approved by the City Council as local planning authority. (For the avoidance of doubt.)

Policies relating to this recommendation2006_AM01 Planning permission will only be granted where the needs of pedestrians and

people with disabilities are incorporated into the design and routes are as direct as possible to key destinations.



2006_BE16 Planning permission will be granted for the development of renewable energy installations where local impacts are not outweighed by wider benefits. Major developments must realise their potential for incorporating renewable energy technologies.




2014_CS01 The overall objective of the Core Strategy is to ensure that Leicester develops as a sustainable city, with an improved quality of life for all its citizens. The policy includes guidelines for the location of housing and other development.




2014_CS12 In recognition of the City Centre's role in the City's economy and wider regeneration, the policy sets out strategies and measures to promote its growth as a sub-regional shopping, leisure, historic and cultural destination, and the most accessible and sustainable location for main town centre uses.





2014_CS17 The policy sets out measures to require new development to maintain, enhance and strengthen connections for wildlife, both within and beyond the identified biodiversity network.


2014_CS19 New development must be supported by the required infrastructure at the appropriate stage. Developer contributions will be sought where needs arise as a result of the development either individually or collectively.


Recommendation: Conditional approval20141459 69 DRUMCLIFF ROAD

Proposal:CHANGE OF USE FROM ONE DWELLINGHOUSE (CLASS C3) TO FIVE FLATS (5 x 1 BED). BOUNDARY WALL. LAND LEVELS (AMENDED)

Applicant: MR CLINT JONESApp type: Change of useStatus: Change of useExpiry Date: 27 November 2014AS WARD: Thurncourt

60

239

227

219

2

54

59

205

TCB

65

16

221

280

266

223

61

71

71



Summary

The application is being reported to committee due to the number of objections received with a recommendation of an approval.

A total of 5 objections and a petition containing 11 signatures have been received regarding: the principle of the development; parking and highway safety; noise and disturbance; loss of privacy; loss of light; flooding.

The main issues are residential amenity, parking and flooding.

1

Appendix B4


Introduction

This application relates to a semi-detached house located in a residential area and adjacent to Thurnby Brook.

Background

In 2007 a detached house was refused for flooding and design reasons (20071361).In 2010 a three storey building for two flats, with car parking was refused for flooding, design and amenity reasons (20101985).

In 2013 a two storey extension at side; single storey extension at side and rear; dormer extension at rear of house was approved (20131068). This proposal has been implemented but not built in accordance with the approved plan.

In addition land levels have been increased and a boundary wall installed towards the top of the river bank with a finished height of over two metres had been undertaken. The applicant was advised that planning permission would be required for the raising of the land levels as it was engineering works.

In 2014 permission was given for retention of canopy to the front; two storey extension to the side and rear; single storey extension at rear and a dormer extension at front and rear. This was implemented (20140149).

The Proposal

The proposal is to change the use of the house to five self-contained, one-bedroom flats with parking, amenity space and bin storage.

The application has been amended to include larger parking spaces and improved provision for bin storage. The retention of a 1.8 metre high brick wall and raising the level of the land to the side has also been included in this application.

The boundary wall is located along-side the culvert and along part of the rear boundary. It is positioned behind the bridge wall for the culvert.


Development plan policies relevant to this application are listed at the end of this report.Supplementary Planning Document (SPD): ‘Residential Amenity’Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG): ‘Vehicle Parking Standards’Environment Agency - Flood Risk Vulnerability ClassificationThe 6C’s Design Guide

Consultations

Highways: concerns that the parking layout not in accordance with the 6 C’s Design Guide and intensification of use of the access.

2


Private Sector Housing: No objections, subject to provisions made for bin storageEnvironment Agency (EA): in terms of the intensification / change of use no objection as the dwelling, is outside of flood risk and residents would be afforded safe access and egress. However, original objection to the proposal as the raising of the land levels and the brick wall would likely to impede flood storage potential. The amended plans indicating the levels and the brick wall are now acceptable, with gaps in the wall to allow water flow, the objection to the proposal is now withdrawn.

Representations

Five letters of objection and a petition containing 11 signatures have been received raising the following concerns:

Principle of the development

Increased traffic generation

Loss of parking

Noise and disturbance

Loss of privacy

Loss of light

Risk of flooding.

Car park and wall will increase flooding elsewhere.Consideration

Principle

The application site is located within a residential area and therefore the principle of flatted accommodation within this area is acceptable.Amenity

All principal rooms for the proposed flats will be served by windows, providing reasonable outlook and daylight. Rear windows will overlook gardens and the rear of properties on Thurncourt Road and would be the same as the existing house. I therefore consider there to be no additional overlooking and loss of privacy caused as a result of the change of use.

No additional alterations are proposed to the building and therefore I do not consider the proposal to cause any loss of light to the surrounding neighbouring properties. The Residential Amenity SPD recommends a private amenity area of 1.5m2 for a one bedroom flat. The proposal includes a rear amenity area of 30m2, which equates to 6m2 for each flat, and therefore exceeding the recommendation amount.

A designated bin storage area is located to the rear of the site to avoid bins being left at the front of the property.

I consider level of occupancy within a six-bedroom house compared to that of five one-bedroom flat is likely to be similar. I therefore consider levels of noise and general disturbance to be similar.

3


Highways/parking

The Vehicle Parking Standards SPG recommends one parking space for each flat and therefore levels of parking are in accordance with this guidance. The proposal has been amended to reconfigure the layout of the parking spaces and increase the sizes of the bays. The layout of the parking is broadly in accordance with the 6 C’s Design Guide, with only space number 1 conflicting with this. However, I consider the provision of an extra off-road parking space outweighs concerns over intensification of the access.

Access across the pavement is required. The potential access could have a width of 6 metres and could be positioned away from the 1.8 metres high boundary wall, thereby allowing sufficient site lines.

Flooding

Details of the boundary wall now include gaps at ground level to allow water to flow through from the brook to the side parking area of the property, which is a gravelled surface. The amended plan indicates the new ground levels adjacent to the culvert which are now acceptable.

I recommend APPROVAL subject to the following conditions:

CONDITIONS


2. Before the occupation of the development the parking spaces shown on the approved plans shall be provided and shall be retained for vehicle parking. (To secure adequate off-street parking provision, and in accordance with policy AM12 of the City of Leicester Local Plan and Core Strategy policy CS3.)

3. TURNING SPACE WITHIN SITE

4. No part of the development shall be occupied until the 2 metre by 2 metre sight lines on each side of each vehicular access have been provided, and they shall be retained thereafter. (In the interests of the safety of pedestrians and other road users, and in accordance with policy AM01 of the City of Leicester Local Plan and Core Strategy policy CS3.)

5. No part of the development shall be occupied until footway crossing(s) have been provided at each vehicular access in accordance with the Council's standards contained in the `6Cs Design Guide` (view from www.leicester.gov.uk/6cs-design-guide). (To ensure a satisfactory means of access to the highway, and in accordance with policy AM01 of the City of Leicester Local Plan and Core Strategy policy CS3.)

6. This consent shall relate solely to the amended plans received by the City Council as local planning authority on 27TH JUNE 2015, unless otherwise

4


submitted to and approved by the City Council as local planning authority. (For the avoidance of doubt.)

NOTES FOR APPLICANT

1. NO PARKING ON ACCESS/VERGE

2. The applicant will need to enter into a S184 Agreement with Leicester City Council as Highway Authority to construct a dropped kerb for the new vehicular access; and will be liable for all costs including moving any street equipment. To avoid debris being pulled onto the highway, the parking spaces should be surfaced with a bound material.



2006_AM12 Levels of car parking for residential development will be determined in accordance with the standards in Appendix 01.

2006_BE20 Developments that are likely to create flood risk onsite or elsewhere will only be permitted if adequate mitigation measures can be implemented.




2006_H07 Criteria for the development of new flats and the conversion of existing buildings to self-contained flats.

2006_PS10 Criteria will be used to assess planning applications which concern the amenity of existing or proposed resid

5


Recommendation: Conditional approval20142397 15 RAVENSBRIDGE DRIVE, MAHER COMMUNITY CENTRE

Proposal: TWO STOREY SPORTS HALL AT REAR OF COMMUNITY CENTRE/PLACE OF WORSHIP (CLASS D2)(AMENDED)

Applicant: MR N BAPODARAApp type: Operational development - full applicationStatus: Smallscale Major DevelopmentExpiry Date: 30 June 2015SSA WARD: Fosse

The A

bbey

(PH)

106

PC

PC

104

Pav i l ion

80

El Sub Sta

Work s

15

44

Sub Sta

29

El

33

14

7

32

24

19

Warehouse

2

6

4

189

191

13

193

183

2

LB

Fac tory

10

TCB

179

184

75



Summary a petition containing 10 signatures have been received objecting on grounds

of noise, disturbance, insufficient car parking and highway safety;

The main issues are the design of the building, access and parking provision/ highway safety and whether the development would impact on the amenity of nearby occupiers;

A similar but slightly smaller sports hall was approved in 2011.

Recommendation is for a conditional approval.Introduction

The site is to the rear of a place of worship and community centre and majority of the space at the rear, currently used for car parking. It is bounded by an electricity sub-

1

Appendix B5


station to the west, commercial premises to the east, some workshops to the north and residential properties on the northwest side. The nearest residential properties are on Blackbird Avenue, approximately 100 metres. The site lies within a primarily employment area, as designated in the City of Leicester Local Plan. It also lies within Flood Risk Zone 2 and a Biodiversity Enhancement Site runs through the rear area of the site.

Background

The site has varied consents; most recent relevant planning history is as below: Planning permission (20110622) for a two storey sports hall was granted in 2011 but expired in October 2014.

The Proposal

A two storey sports hall building is proposed that would be sited behind the existing building. The existing community centre provides a floor area of approx. 2000 sqm and the proposal would provide an additional 1,200 sqm of comprising a dedicated sports hall, changing rooms and facilities. The building would be partly cladded and rendered with solar panels on sides of the pitched roof.

The sport hall will be used in conjunction with the existing community hall, which can accommodate up to 1000 persons.

A car park for 118 spaces including 6 marked disabled spaces, 12 Powered Two Wheeler and 52 cycle parking spaces would be provided.



Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) – Vehicle Parking Standards and 6C Design guide.

Consultations

Local Highways Authority (LHA): No objections, subject to planning conditions requiring control access from Ravensbridge Drive, provision of car, cycle and motor cycle parking and a revised Travel Plan.

Pollution Team (Noise): No objection subject to conditions; hours of use and measures to ensure that amplified music and voice from the new proposed development does not harm the amenity of the nearby occupiers.

Pollution Team (Land contamination): No objectionsEnvironment Agency (EA): No objections.Severn Trent Water: No objections, subject to condition.

2


Representations

A petition containing 10 signatures has been received from Blackbird Avenue Resident’s Association raising the following concerns:

Detrimental effect of certain aspects of the proposal and refute the sporting provisions are for the local community;

Information relating to users and additional gross floor area put forward is unreliable;

Have breached opening hours conditions relating to noise control and hours of use repeatedly by the users, loud music being played by the visitors on various occasions;

Excessive potential noise from the premises;

Future development should restrict over 1000 persons limit;

Proposed car parking spaces are close to dwellings;

Inadequate parking: car parking is a major issues, cars overflow causing serious traffic hazard onto Ravensbridge Drive;

Conditions are not being complied with.Consideration


The proposal is located within a primarily employment area, and the Employment Land Study (2006) graded the applications site as C. Such sites are classed as important and in normal circumstances other uses should be resisted. However the principle of the use on this site has already been accepted as the existing building provides worship, religious education and social/cultural activities for the community. In addition, in 2011, planning permission was granted for a similar but slightly smaller sports hall. The proposed development would be used for sporting events mainly for the members of the community centre.

Design and Impact on the visual amenity

The detached sport hall will be sited away from the main road, behind the main community building and close to the boundary to the car showroom. The design of the building is modest and is similar in scale and size and compliments the existing building. The proposed design and materials will be in keeping with the existing building and sit comfortably within the site and surrounding area. I do not consider that the proposal will have an adverse visual impact on the character or appearance of the surrounding area.

Landscaping

The applicant has submitted a revised landscaping plan showing some landscaping details with shallow pond and complimentary planting. Further information will be necessary in terms of surface materials and drainage.

3


It is unlikely that the Biodiversity Enhancement Site that runs through the rear area of the site will be adversely affected by the development.

Amenity

The sport hall will be used to host indoor sporting events by their members and in conjunction with the community hall. The applicant confirmed that the proposed use will not result in an increase in the maximum number of people (1000) allowed on the site at any one time as previously conditioned. The hall is 100m away from the nearest houses at Blackbird Road. The extension is designed to enhance the existing facilities in order to produce a better quality of service to those holding events/functions. I consider that hours of use conditions and noise mitigation measures would be necessary to ensure that amplified music and voice from the new proposed development does not adversely affect the amenity of the nearby occupiers. Given the extent of the development, location and its relationship with neighbouring properties, particularly with the residential area, I consider that the proposal would have minimal effect on the amenity of the nearby occupiers and the attached conditions/ measures would help to address their concerns.

Energy efficiency The revised renewable energy statement demonstrates that some of development’s energy demands can be met from a renewable source through solar panels which would be mounted on the roof slopes. The district heating scheme was agreed to be too far away to merit consideration on this project.

In addition to the above the design of the building, by fabric insulation levels beyond minimum requirements and adopting a practical energy strategy will increase energy efficiency.

I consider the revised proposal is acceptable from a sustainability view point.

Flood risks

The site lies within Flood Risk Zone 2, having a medium probability of river flooding. The Environment Agency has withdrawn their objection relating to the sequential test and raises no objections on flood risk grounds. Initially they raised concerns about ground pollution and risks associated with contamination of the site, however sufficient information is submitted in respect of contaminated land as such there is no need to attach a condition again.

Highway safety/parking provisions

In accordance with the current Parking Standards SPG, the proposal plus the existing facilities on the site would require 144 car parking spaces.

The proposed development is unlikely to result in any increase in the maximum number of people on the site at one time. The level of on-site car parking would remain at 118 car parking spaces. 4 Coach parking spaces together with covered 52

4


cycle and 13 powered two wheeler (PTW) parking spaces will also be provided on-site.

Special events are a concern in relation to additional traffic on the highway network and overspill parking. If the limit on maximum numbers is maintained this would not cause a problem provided conditions are imposed.

Conclusion

I consider that the proposed additional sports facility within the existing site would not have significant detrimental implications in terms of design, scale, appearance, access, parking, highways, amenity and character of the area. I recommend APPROVAL subject the following conditions:

CONDITIONS


2. No more than 1000 persons, excluding staff, shall be on the site at any time. (To ensure the development does not impact upon the adjoining area in terms of overspill parking in accordance with policies PS10 and AM11 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.)

3. Before the development is occupied a landscaping and lighting scheme shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the local planning authority. This scheme shall include details of: (i) the position and spread of all trees, shrubs and hedges to be retained or removed (ii) other surface treatments; (iii) fencing, gates and boundary treatments; (iv) any changes in levels; (v) the position and depth of service and sustainable drainage system. The agreed scheme shall be implemented within one year from the occupation of any part of the proposed development and shall be maintained for a period of five years. (In the interests of amenity, and in accordance with policies PS10, BE22 and UD06 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.)

4. The use including deliveries shall not be carried on outside the hours of 0800 to 2300 daily. (In the interests of the amenities of nearby occupiers, and in accordance with policy PS10 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.)

5. There shall be no live or amplified music or voice played which would be detrimental to the amenities of occupiers of nearby properties. (In the interests of the amenities of nearby occupiers, and in accordance with policy PS10 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.)

6. Before the development is occupied, all parking areas shall be surfaced and marked out as shown on the approved plans and shall be retained and not used for any other purpose. (To ensure that parking can take place in a satisfactory manner and in the interests of road safety and in accordance with policies AM01 and AM11 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.)

5


7. A turning space to enable vehicles always to enter and leave the site in a forward direction, shall be kept available within the site. (In the interests of highway safety, and in accordance with policy AM01 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.)

8. Space shall be kept available within the curtilage of the site to allow for loading and unloading always to take place within the site. (In the interests in highway safety, and in accordance with policy AM01 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.)

9. All traffic entering and leaving the site shall use the existing Ravensbridge Drive main entrance and this shall remain in operation. Access/egress shall not be achieved via Wolsey Street except in emergency. (In the interests in highway safety, and the amenities of nearby occupiers, and in accordance with policies AM01, AM11 and PS10 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.)

10. If any new vehicular access gates or barriers are to be erected they shall be set back to a minimum distance of 15 metres behind the Highway boundary and shall be hung so as to open inwards only. (In the interests in highway safety and in accordance with policy AM01, of the City of Leicester Local Plan.)

11. An updated Travel Plan for the site shall be agreed in writing with the City Council as Local Planning Authority before the development is occupied and shall be carried out in accordance with agreed details. The Travel Plan shall:

a) Identify modal splits, proposals including marketing and promotion, targets, objectives, time scales and monitoring techniques to encourage the use of non-single private car means of travel to and from the centre, encourage and promote sustainable travel awareness and discouraging irresponsible off-site parking.

b) Include provision for monitoring travel modes (including travel surveys) of all users and patterns at regular intervals, for a minimum of 5 years from the first occupation of the development brought into use.

c) Identify a person as coordinator and a point of contact for the purpose of the Travel Plan.

d) Include a traffic/parking management strategy including a car park management plan for all users and an events management plan for persons using the centre.

(In the interests of traffic and pedestrian safety, sustainability and general amenity in accordance with policies AM01, AM02, and AM11 of the City of Leicester Local Plan and policies CS14 and CS15 of the Core Strategy.)

12. This consent shall relate solely to the submitted and amended plans received by the City Council as local planning authority on 19/12/2014, 25/03/2015,

6


07/04/2015 and 13/05/2015, unless otherwise submitted to and approved by the City Council as local planning authority. (For the avoidance of doubt.)

NOTES FOR APPLICANT

1. With regard to condition 3, the landscaping scheme should incorporate a Sustainable Drainage Systems scheme, including designs to retain water, reduce flow rates and also incorporate biodiversity through appropriate planting of native species of wetland/aquatic vegetation. Newly created or existing habitats should be enhanced and include native species of trees and plants and five years aftercare proposals, including construction, seeding, planting and establishment. For further information, please contact Helen O’Brien (Nature Conservation Officer) on Tel. no.0116 2527268 or Chryse Tinsley (Landscape Planner) on 0116 2527288.

2. The applicant is advised to contact Leicester City Council's Travel Plan Officer Bal Minhas (0116 2526523) to help with undertaking a revised Travel Plan and Parking Management Plan for the development.





2006_E03 Planning permission granted for the development of appropriate B1, B2 and B8 uses in Primarily Employment Areas and not for changes to other uses unless it meets criteria.







7


2014_CS10 The Council will seek to ensure that Leicester has a thriving and diverse business community that attracts jobs and investment to the City. The policy sets out proposals to achieve this objective.





8

Recommendation: Conditional approval20150240 4 WESTCOTES DRIVE

Proposal:

CHANGE OF USE FROM RESIDENTIAL CARE HOME (CLASS C2) TO 7 SELF CONTAINED FLATS (5 x 1 BED) (2 x 2 BED) (CLASS C3); SINGLE STOREY EXTENSION TO REAR; ALTERATIONS

Applicant: MR VIRESH POPATApp type: Change of useStatus: Change of useExpiry Date: 5 June 2015TEI WARD: Westcotes

75b

77

1

90a90

2

Com

mun

ity C

entre

14

3

15

24

8

3

15

1

2

74

7072

86

100

24

Sur

gery

Hall

87

Pentecostal

2

1

489

The Elim

Church26

37

29

16

27

11

19

36

29

58 to 60

PW

6

4

85

1

Church

14

15

of the Martyrs17

16



Summary The application is reported to committee at Councillor Russell’s request.

The application relates to a former care home.

The main issues are the principle of the change of use, and the proposals impact on residential amenity and parking.

The application is recommended for approval.IntroductionThe application relates to a three storey property in a residential part of the city. The property is vacant but was previously in use as a care home.

Appendix B6

Background

There is no planning application history.

The Proposal

The proposal as amended is for the change of use of the property to 7 flats (submitted as 8 flats). There will be four flats to the ground floor, two flats to the first floor and one flat to the second floor. Flats 1, 2 and 3 on the ground floor will have one bedroom with a shower room and a kitchen while flat 4 on the ground floor will have two ensuite bedrooms and a kitchen/lounge. Flat 5 on the first floor will have a bedroom, shower room and kitchen/lounge while flat 6 on the first floor will have two bedrooms, a shower room and a kitchen/lounge. Flat 7 on the second floor will have two ensuite bedrooms, a kitchen and a lounge.

The access to all flats will be via the main entrance on Westcotes Drive. Bin storage will be to the front of the property screened by a hedge along the front boundary. There is no onsite parking.

External alterations will include a pitched roof single storey extension to the rear of flat 3 that will measure 2.3 metres in depth and 4 metres in width. It will be 3.6 metres to its highest point and 2.4 to the eaves. There will be two windows to the rear elevation facing the garden. There will be a new rear window to one of the bedrooms of flat 4 and a rooflight to the lounge of flat 7. Other alterations include the removal of the existing garage and replacement with a flat roof single storey extension on a similar footprint to allow for the creation of flat 2 with two windows. The existing alley to the left of the building will be built over to create additional room for flat 2.

External alterations include a new roof to the existing two storey part of the building. The roof will have a steep pitch with a height of approximately five metres from the existing flat roof and will have a gable end to the west. Two new windows will be added to the gable end. There will also be a new window to the Ashleigh Road elevation of the single storey extension and a single rooflight to the same elevation.



Residential Amenity (Supplementary Planning Document)Vehicle Parking Standards (Supplementary Planning Guidance)

Consultations

Highways: - The parking standards SPG recommends 3 parking spaces for the property’s former use as a care home. However, it is acknowledged that the former use would have generated additional visitors parking demand from professionals and relatives. The SPG recommends 9 parking spaces for the proposed change of use which will have a longer stay parking demand than that of care home visitors

parking. The site is eligible for residential permits parking. The acceptability of the development proposal will be dependent on roadside parking availability.

Representations

Two objections have been received to the proposal, one Councillor Russell who considers the proposal to be overdevelopment and that it would exacerbate parking in the area. The councillor noted that proximity to the university does not necessarily result in a reduction of car usage. The councillor also raised concerns that the application did not demonstrate a need for student housing, did not recognise the cumulative impact in the area and did not include any open space and that the bin store to the front of the property would have a detrimental visual impact on the area. The other objector felt that the change of use was inappropriate given its position adjacent to a sheltered housing scheme. Concerns related to noise from assumed family occupancy. The objection also expressed concerns that the proposal would have a detrimental impact on parking in the area and an adverse effect on drainage and sewerage.

Consideration

Principle of the use

Saved policy H07 states that planning permission will be granted for new flats provided that the proposal is satisfactory in a number of factors including the nature of nearby uses, the creation of a satisfactory living environment, arrangements for bin storage and cycle parking, the provision of communal open space and the effect of the development on the general character of the surrounding area.

Core Strategy policy CS06 states that careful consideration will be given to conversions to flats to ensure there is no adverse impact on the character of the area or the maintenance of mixed communities. The conversion of large houses will be resisted where they would still be appropriate for family use and meet an identified demand for this type of accommodation with specific consideration given to property size and location, the amount of private amenity space and parking provision.

Most neighbouring properties are in residential use. The property is close to Narborough Road, a key arterial route into the city. However, it is set back 30 metres from this road lessening the effect of noise from the road. It is in one of the three areas in the city covered by the Article 4 Direction that requires express planning permission for the change of use from C3 to C4 residential uses. Though the rationale behind the direction is to control the concentration of houses in multiple occupancy and retain family housing but given the size of the property it is unlikely that it will come forward for single family use. The property is on the edge of a residential part of the city adjacent to a commercial part of the city. I consider this is a suitable location for flatted accommodation of 1 and 2 bedrooms and I do not consider that the proposal will have an unreasonable adverse impact on the character of the area or the maintenance of mixed communities.

Residential amenity

The bedrooms of flats 1 and 2 have good outlook to Westcotes Drive and the bedroom of flat 3 has good outlook to the garden of the host property. The rooms of flat 4 have more limited outlook to the wall between numbers 4 and 6 Westcotes Drive. Although the outlook from these windows is not ideal the rooms were previously in residential use and it would be unreasonable to refuse an application on these grounds.

The rooms of flat 5 and the kitchen of flat 7 have good outlook to Westcotes Drive. The rooms of flat 6 and one of the bedrooms of flat 7 have good outlook to the garden at the host property.

Given the pitch of the roof, the outlook from the lounge of flat 7 is acceptable. The second bedroom of flat 7 has more limited outlook to the community centre at 2 Westcotes Drive; however, again, this is an existing situation.

There will be no new windows facing any adjacent properties and the proposal will not have an impact on the privacy of adjacent properties. The rear extension to flat 3 is only just over 2 metres deep and will not have an overbearing impact on adjacent properties and will it result in the loss of much rear amenity space.

The size of the rooms for each flat allow for a satisfactory living environment for future occupiers and will not have a detrimental impact on the amenity of occupiers of neighbouring residential properties.

The extension to the front will be a similar scale to the existing garage and materials for the extensions to the front and rear will be to match the existing. The bins will be screened by a hedge to the front of the property. I do not consider that the proposal will have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the area.

Parking

The SPG recommends 9 parking spaces for the proposal. The SPG recommended 3 spaces for the former use and there would have been additional needs for visitor and staff parking. Given previous visitor and staff parking the impact on the local parking capacity is likely to be comparable. The Westcotes Residents Parking Scheme is due to be confirmed and the property will be eligible to apply for permits under this scheme. I consider that there is sufficient on street capacity. Cycle storage for eight cycles has been marked on the plans. Access to this will be via the main entrance to the rear yard and through the main lobby.

I recommend APPROVAL subject to the following conditions:

CONDITIONS


2. No part of the development shall be occupied until secure and covered cycle parking for seven cycles has been provided and retained thereafter. (In the

interests of the satisfactory development of the site and in accordance with policies AM02 and H07 of the City of Leicester Local Plan).

3. The property shall not be occupied until any existing dropped kerb/footway crossing on Westcotes Drive that becomes redundant as a result of the development has been reinstated. (For the safety and convenience of pedestrians and other road users, and in accordance with Core Strategy policy CS3.)

4. Before the development is occupied, boundary treatment including a hedge shall be provided along the front elevation, with the exception of along the entrance to the property. The boundary treatment shall be at a sufficient height to conceal bins from public view and shall be retained for the lifetime of the development (in the interests of the visual amenity of the area and in accordance with Core Strategy policy CS03).

5. This consent shall relate solely to the amended plans received by the City Council as local planning authority on 17.04.15, unless otherwise submitted to and approved by the City Council as local planning authority. (For the avoidance of doubt.)


2006_H07 Criteria for the development of new flats and the conversion of existing buildings to self-contained flats.

2014_CS06 The policy sets out measures to ensure that the overall housing requirements for the City can be met; and to ensure that new housing meets the needs of City residents.





Recommendation: Conditional approval20150365 7 TRINITY LANE, TRINITY HALL

Proposal:

DEMOLITION OF BUILDINGS; THREE STOREY EXTENSION AT NORTHERN SIDE OF COMMUNITY HALL AND FIRST FLOOR EXTENSION TO SOUTHERN SIDE OF COMMUNITY HALL (CLASS D1); ALTERATIONS TO CAR PARK (AMENDED)

Applicant: MR STEPHEN GORTONApp type: Operational development - full applicationStatus: Minor developmentExpiry Date: 3 June 2015KER WARD: Castle

Trinity

38

Church

Holy

40

14

1

6

The Crescent

98

71

Works

79

Works

28

81

LB

1

Lancelot House

2

2

9

8

19

5

8

6

29

Garage

7

22

24

90

2

Belvoir House

1 to 15

102

16 to 32

112

82

1

9294



Summary Application brought to committee as objection received from the Conservation

Advisory Panel

CAP objected to the scheme on grounds of design being pastiche and the height of middle section of extension. Stepping down too insignificant. Extension should be contemporary but use traditional materials.

Applicant has amended scheme to try and address CAP’s comments.

Main issues to consider are design, amenity, highways and impact on conservation area

Appendix B7

Proposal would not have adverse impact on neighbouring amenity, design considered acceptable, there would be no adverse highway impact and no adverse impact on conservation area.

Proposal considered acceptable, recommended for approval. Introduction

The application relates to a two storey office building at the end of a small row of buildings on Trinity Lane. The site is located within the New Walk Conservation area. The site is located in the central commercial zone and the office core.

Background

The site has an extensive history which dates back to the mid 60’s, however, the building has been there for a long time prior to this date. The building was originally constructed as the community hall for Holy Trinity Church. It has been increased in height from single to two storey before planning records began.

There have been a number of temporary uses to the building including using it for storage and manufacturing.

In the 1970’s there were applications to provide a single storey extension and change the use of a garage building in connection with a photographic studio.

In 2013 planning permission (20131165) was granted for change of use from offices (Class B1) to church and community hall (Class D1) (amended)

The Proposal

The applicant proposes demolition of buildings; three storey extension at side of community hall (Class D1); alterations to car park.

The proposed extension would replace an existing single storey garage which adjoins the site and replace it with a three storey extension which will provide additional facilities for the existing Class D1 use. There would be a drive through measuring 6.2 metres wide which will reduce to 3 metres in width. The extension would measure 20 metres in depth and 7.6 metres in width. There would be an entrance lobby to both parts of the building as they are separated by the access drive. The extension would step down slightly in terms of its height and would have roof lights to the front and rear. The existing building will also be altered internally from the first floor upwards and would include an extension to fill a small corner at first floor level to provide office accommodation. The existing mezzanine space would be made into a separate floor. The proposal also includes alterations to the existing car park. The number of spaces would be reduced from 6 to 4. One would be a disabled space and would be to the rear of the proposed three storey extension.

The car park area would also contain bin storage and a cycle store.

The application has been amended to increase slightly the step down to the front elevation. Policy Considerations


Supplementary Planning Guidance – Vehicle Parking Standards

Consultations

Conservation Advisory PanelThe panel accepted the proposed demolition and agreed with the principle of the redevelopment. They did however raise objections to the proposed design of the replacement buildings, noting that the new extensions appeared as pastiches of the original building; harming its architectural quality.

Particular concerns were raised over the middle extension and how the ground floor and upper floors didn’t relate to one another, due to the highways compliant vehicular access to the ground floor, with the traditional arrangement of replica hood-moulded timber windows to the upper floors. Concerns were also raised over the stepping down roofline, as the variation in roof heights was too insignificant.

The panel suggested that a contemporary extension, showing a clear distinction between new and old, but by using a traditional palette of materials i.e. brick, render & slates, could complement the original building.

Pollution – Noise

Are concerned that the building could be used for large functions which may have an adverse impact in terms of noise and disturbance. However, they recommend conditions restricting the hours of use to 0730 – 2300 hours daily and that there shall be no live or amplified voice played that would be detrimental to neighbouring amenity.

Highway Authority

Have no objections to the proposal. Trinity Lane serves numerous highway accesses including one for the application site. The existing access is on a sharp bend on Trinity Lane and is just wide enough for a small vehicle. The car park appears to have previously been used for approximately 8 cars with limited turning space. The development proposal shows marked out car parking spaces for 4 cars including 1 reserved disability space and improved turning space. The existing highway access is improved by widening at the highway and within the site. Alterations to the highway will require a separate licence under S184 Highways Act. The under croft passage for cars will not allow opposing vehicles to pass each other but the increased width behind the highway will improve visibility. On the understanding that the car park will operate a priority system for incoming vehicles and that parking spaces will be allocated to staff members only, the under croft width is acceptable. A

Parking Management condition is recommended to ensure that the use of the car park and access is regulated.

The level of car parking falls below the policy standard for new development of: 1 car parking space per 70m² for Class D1 use in this area. However the site is very close to the city centre where a nil parking standard applies. Public car parking is available nearby. Trinity Lane is narrow and road side parking is not available due to Traffic Regulation Order restrictions. A Travel Plan is recommended to cater for all use of the community hall including events, to avoid large numbers of vehicles causing congestion in Trinity Lane.

Representations

I have received one objection on the following grounds: Concern about disruption during construction

Concern about where construction vehicles will park

Concern about damage to vehicles during construction

Loss of light to neighbouring commercial premises

Concern that users of the car park will use neighbouring commercial car park as they have started to do recently

I have received six letters of support on the following grounds: The facilities will support people with disabilities and be a great benefit.

Additional facilities will be great benefit to the community

Application will allow the church to extend the services it offers

Will be an improvement on existing building

Building will fit within the conservation area and uses sympathetic design and materials

At a time of budget cuts, the facilities provided by the church are needed to serve the local community

Building will be environmentally friendly

Provide support for international students

Consideration


The use of the building as a community use has already been established through the previous application. I therefore consider the proposal to extend the building acceptable in principle subject to amenity, design, conservation and highway requirements.

Impact on neighbouring amenity

The application site is located close to the corner of Trinity Lane and Towers Street / Welford Road. It is surrounded by office and residential properties to the rear. The properties are set at an obscure angle but their garden / yard areas do back up to the rear wall of the application site. The main extension proposed whilst it would be higher than the existing single storey building would not result in loss of light or overlooking to the neighbouring properties on Welford Road. There would be some small windows at first and second floor facing the rear of some of these properties. The first floor windows serve circulation space, and there is an open space to the second floor. I consider it appropriate to attach a condition requiring these windows to be obscure glazed.

Overall I do not consider there would be an adverse impact on neighbouring amenity. Conservation

The building is within the New Walk Conservation Area. It is a fine building predating the 1886 Ordnance survey map which describes it as an infant school. It has a distinctive Swithland roof and attractive timber windows with stone hood mouldings. The building appears to have originally all been single storey and the bulk was raised to its current height in the later 19th century.

There are no objections in conservation terms to the demolition of the adjacent workshop buildings. The proposal also includes the demolition of an existing single storey part of Trinity Hall in order for the larger extension to be attached to the main building as trying to match bricks to ensure a seamless extension upwards would be difficult.

The adjacent buildings do have some vernacular architectural and historic interest but add very little to the overall character of the conservation area. I therefore consider the proposal will not have an adverse impact on these buildings and it will enhance the overall appearance of Trinity Lane.

The Conservation Advisory panel object to the proposal as they consider the stepping down is not enough and the design is pastiche. A more contemporary design should be used.

I appreciate the comments made by CAP. The applicants have tried to increase the step, however, due to head heights they are unable to increase it significantly. They have not changed the appearance of the building.

I appreciate CAP’s comments and consider that a contemporary extension could work. However, I consider that the applicants have tried to replicate the existing building in terms of materials and design to try and ensure its fits in with the existing building.

I therefore consider in this case the design to be acceptable.

Parking

Trinity Lane serves numerous highway accesses including one for the application site. The existing access is on a sharp bend on Trinity Lane and is just wide enough for a small vehicle. The car park appears to have previously been used for approximately 8 cars with limited turning space. The development proposal shows marked out car parking spaces for 4 cars including 1 reserved disability space and improved turning space. The existing highway access is improved by widening at the highway and within the site.

The under croft passage for cars will not allow two opposing vehicles to pass each other but the increased width behind the highway will improve visibility. On the understanding that the car park will operate a priority system for incoming vehicles and that parking spaces will be allocated to staff members only, the under croft width is acceptable. A Parking Management condition will be attached to ensure that the use of the car park and access is regulated.

The level of car parking proposed falls below the policy standard for new development of: 1 car parking space per 70m² for Class D1 use in this area. However the site is very close to the city centre where a nil parking standard applies. Public car parking is available nearby. Trinity Lane is narrow and road side parking is not available due to Traffic Regulation Order restrictions. A Travel Plan is therefore required and will be secured by condition to cater for all use of the community hall including events, to avoid large numbers of vehicles causing congestion in Trinity Lane.

I therefore consider the proposal is acceptable on highway grounds. SUDS/Flooding

The applicant has not submitted details of how surface water will be dealt with. The site is located in a critical drainage area. Whilst the proposal will not be increasing the amount of impermeable surface as the car park and existing buildings already occupy the same position as the proposed extensions and alterations to the car park. I have asked the applicant to see if there are any SUDS solutions that could be applied and I will report my findings to your committee.

Conclusion

I consider the proposed demolition of the existing garage building to be acceptable as it is of little architectural merit.

The proposed extensions whilst not of a contemporary design do match that of the existing building. I consider they would not have an adverse visual impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area. I consider it appropriate to attach conditions requiring details of materials and the reuse of the existing swithland slate tiles.

The proposal will result in the loss of some parking spaces, however, the car park will be managed and a travel plan condition will be attached to secure this. The

access arrangements to the site are also considered to be acceptable as the existing entrance will be widened to provide improved visibility.

The applicant has not provided details of any SUDS scheme, however, details should be submitted before the meeting.

I therefore recommend APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE RECEIPT OF SATISFACTORY DETAILS REGARDING SUDS.

CONDITIONS


2. MATERIALS (WALLS AND ROOF) TO BE APPROVED

3. Before development commences 1:20 scale drawings showing the proposed window details to Trinity Lane shall be submitted and agreed with the City Council as local planning authority and implemented in accordance with the agreed details. ( In the interests of the visual appearance of the building and in accordance with Policy CS18 of the Core Strategy.)

4. SIGHT LINES TO ACCESS

5. ALTERATIONS TO FOOTWAY CROSSING(S)

6. CYCLE PARKING - DETAILS REQUIRED

7. No part of the development shall be occupied until a Travel Plan for the development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the City Council as local planning authority and shall be carried out in accordance with a timetable to be contained within the Travel Plan, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Council. The Plan shall: (a) assess the site in terms of transport choice for staff, users of services, visitors and deliveries; (b) consider pre-trip mode choice, measures to promote more sustainable modes of transport such as walking, cycling, car share and public transport (including providing a personal journey planner, information for bus routes, bus discounts available, cycling routes, cycle discounts available and retailers, health benefits of walking, car sharing information, information on sustainable journey plans, notice boards) over choosing to drive to and from the site as single occupancy vehicle users, so that all users have awareness of sustainable travel options; (c) identify marketing, promotion and reward schemes to promote sustainable travel and look at a parking management scheme to discourage off-site parking; (d) include provision for monitoring travel modes (including travel surveys) of all users and patterns at regular intervals, for a minimum of 5 years from the first occupation of the development brought into use, and e) car parking management plan. The plan shall be maintained and operated thereafter. (To promote sustainable transport and in accordance with policies AM01, AM02, and AM11 of the City of Leicester Local Plan and policies CS14 and CS15 of the Core Strategy).

8. Before the occupation of any part of the development, all parking areas shall be surfaced and marked out in accordance with the approved plans and shall be retained for parking and not used for any other purpose. (To ensure that parking can take place in a satisfactory manner, and in accordance with policy AM11 of the City of Leicester Local Plan and Core Strategy policy CS3.)

9. LOADING AND UNLOADING WITHIN SITE


11. The use of the extension shall not be carried on outside the hours of 0730 to 2300 daily. (In the interests of the amenities of nearby occupiers, and in accordance with policy PS10 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.)

12. NO DETRIMENT FROM LIVE OR AMPLIFIED MUSIC OR VOICE

13. This consent shall relate solely to the submitted plans dated 24/02/2015 and the amended plan received by the City Council as local planning authority on 01/08/2015, unless otherwise submitted to and approved by the City Council as local planning authority. (For the avoidance of doubt.)

NOTES FOR APPLICANT

1. Highway

2. The applicant is advised that wherever possible the existing Swithland slate roof tiles shale be reused on the extension.

3. With regard to condition 3 the windows should be set back with a good reveal to match the main building.

4. NO CONSENT FOR ADVERTISEMENTS











Recommendation: Conditional approval20150376 717 WELFORD ROAD, LAND AT REAR OF

Proposal:RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FOR TWO DWELLINGS (CLASS C3) (OUTLINE APPLICATION WITH ALL MATTERS RESERVED)

Applicant: MYATT PROPERTIES LIMITEDApp type: Outline applicationStatus: Minor developmentExpiry Date: 5 June 2015OPP WARD: Knighton

25

614

713

717

721

LB

14

23

18

14

9

3



Summary The site relates to land at the rear of a large detached property located

in a mainly residential area;

Application is being reported to the planning committee as more than 5 objection letters have been received;

Objections on the grounds of parking problems, visual amenity, residential amenity and loss of trees;

As this is an outline application with all matters reserved the main issue relates to the principle of the development and whether two dwellings could reasonably be accommodated on the site.

Appendix B8

Introduction

The application relates to land at the rear of a large detached dwelling on the western side of Welford Road located at its junction with Hillcrest Road. The site is surrounded predominantly by other residential properties. Unprotected trees within the site have already been removed.

Background

An outline application for two dwellings with matters reserved on scale, appearance and landscaping (app no 20121847) was granted conditional approval on an identical site as the current application. This consent can still be implemented.

An application for one house (app no 20150270) is a currently been considered for a site adjacent to 717 Welford Road.

Consent has been granted for extensions at front, side and rear of the host property at 717 Welford Road (app no 20150267).

The Proposal

The proposal is for an outline application for a residential development comprising two dwellings (Class C3) with all matters reserved.

A Tree and an Ecology report have been submitted to support applications.


Development plan policies relevant to this application are listed at the end of this report.Further guidance is available from:- Supplementary Planning Document – Residential Amenity- Supplementary Planning Guidance – Vehicle Parking Standards

Consultations

The Trees and Woodlands team has no objection to the proposal as trees within the site boundary have already been felled.

The Local Highway Authority has no objections to the proposal subject to conditions.

Representations

Six objections have been received on the following grounds: Parking problems and highway safety

Noise, disruption and inconvenience

Visual amenity

Loss of light and privacy

Loss of trees and shrubsConsideration


There is extant outline consent (20121847) for two dwellings on the application site. Therefore the principle of two dwellings on the site has already been established.

Amenity

I am satisfied that the sizes of the plots are adequate to accommodate a dwelling on each without having an adverse impact on residential amenity subject to no principal side windows. I consider that they can provide suitable amenity space whilst the host property will retain suitable rear amenity space in accordance with SPG Residential Amenity.

Trees and ecology

All the trees within the site boundary have been felled prior to the application being submitted. These trees were not protected trees so they could be removed at any time. There is a small, largely pollarded lime tree just outside the site boundary closer to the main dwelling at 717 Welford Road. However given it is just outside the application boundary and is not protected I do not consider a condition for its retention is reasonable.

Highways

The access to the properties will be off Hillcrest Road. Further details on the access and on-site parking would need to be submitted at the reserved matters but two parking spaces for each dwelling is conditioned. Life Time Homes and Drainage

Full details for the proposed dwellings to comply with Lifetime Homes Standards as well as Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) can be conditioned to be required at the reserved matters stage.

Conclusion

I consider the proposal to be acceptable in principle for two houses and it is not contrary to policies or guidelines and is an acceptable form of infill development.I therefore recommend APPROVAL subject to the following conditions:

CONDITIONS

1. START BY - OUTLINE (3 +2 YEARS)

2. Detailed plans and particulars of the layout, scale, external appearance and means of access to the development and the landscaping of the site (referred to in Condition 1 as reserved matters) together with a Design and Access

Statement dealing with these matters shall be submitted to and approved by the City Council as local planning authority before the development is begun and shall have regard to: (a) the size and height of the development including details of the materials to be used on all external elevations and roofs; (b) the provision of necessary footway crossings and car parking arrangements; (c) a landscaping scheme showing the treatment of all parts of the site to remain unbuilt upon, and including: (i) details of the position and spread of any existing trees, shrubs and hedges to be retained or removed; (ii) any new tree and shrub planting, including plant type, size, quantities and locations; (iii) means of planting, staking and tying of any new trees, including tree guards; (iv) other surface treatments; (v) fencing and boundary treatments; (vi) any changes in levels; (vii) the position and depth of service and/or drainage runs; and shall be carried out as approved. (To secure the satisfactory development of the site and in accordance with PS10 and AM12 of the City of Leicester Local Plan and SPD Residential Amenity.)

3. LIFETIME HOMES (NEW DWELLINGS) SCHEME TO BE AGREED

4. SUDS DETAILS TO BE AGREED AND CARRIED OUT - MINOR DEVELOPMENTS

5. No windows to habitable rooms shall be inserted in the eastern and western elevations of the dwellings. (To protect the amenity of nearby dwellings in accordance with policy PS10 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.)

6. This consent shall relate solely to the submitted plans ref. no. 2402-02-A3 received by the City Council as local planning authority on 24/02/2015, unless otherwise submitted to and approved by the City Council as local planning authority. (For the avoidance of doubt.)




2006_BE20 Developments that are likely to create flood risk onsite or elsewhere will only be permitted if adequate mitigation measures can be implemented.


2014_CS06 The policy sets out measures to ensure that the overall housing requirements for the City can be met; and to ensure that new housing meets the needs of City residents.


Recommendation: Conditional approval20150454 25 WESLEY STREET

Proposal:RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION FOR EXTERNAL RECYCLING EQUIPMENT AT REAR OF RECYCLING FACILITY (NO USE CLASS)

Applicant: WASTECYCLE LTDApp type: Operational development - full applicationStatus: Minerals and WasteExpiry Date: 15 July 2015ACB WARD: Abbey

52

El Sub Sta

Hostel

Wor

ks

Wor

ks

Fact

oryWor

ks

3

Beau

man

or 214

2

177

216

221

191

181

4 1

198

211

Cour

t

56

201

Beaumanor Brewery



Summary Application reported to committee due to the number of objections received.

Issues are noise, residential amenity and impact on highways

Application is recommended for approval.Introduction

The site is an existing waste recycling facility. It is located within an area allocated for employment uses. The site is also within a flood risk area.

Appendix B9

To the north of the site are factory units with residential properties beyond. To the east of the site is an area of open space with the River Soar beyond this.

To the south and west of the site are residential properties. There is an area of allotments between the site and the houses to the west.

Background

The site was previously in use as a number of individual scrapyards and the majority of the planning history refers to these uses. The background relating to this application is as follows.

20072327 Household, commercial and industrial waste transfer and material recycling facility and end of vehicle life centre. Approved and implemented.

20100138 Change of use from highway land to part of recycling centre. Approved and implemented.

The Proposal

The application is for retrospective permission for additional recycling equipment that has been located to the east elevation of the building closest to the River Soar. The equipment has been in operation on site since December 2014. The additional equipment consists of two conveyor belts which take small material outside the building. The material is then graded and cleaned through air knives and a small picking station. The equipment is permanently installed and fixed and therefore has been treated as development.



Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework Core Strategy.

Consultations

Highway Authority – No objections subject to conditions

Environment Agency – No objections subject to a condition requiring provision of surface water drainage.

Service Director Environmental Services (Noise Team) – No objection subject to conditions requiring the operation of the external plant and machinery to not be detrimental to amenity.

Pollution Control – No objections in terms of land contamination issues.

Representations

The application was advertised by letters to neighbours and a site notice.

23 objections and a petition containing 16 signatures have been received. The majority of these objections are on a standard letter which repeats the grounds in the petition. The grounds of objection are;

Increase in traffic on Thurcaston Road and Wesley Street

Material awaiting processing is piled outside the building causing problems with rats.

Increase in noise and dust since the new equipment was installed.

Vehicles delivering to the site use Beaumanor Road.

The building is higher than approved and the access doors are not closed.Councillor Riyait has also objected to the application on the same ground as above.The applicants have submitted a report answering the concerns raised in the objections. The report is summarised as follows.

In relation to traffic, the main concern relates to the use of Beaumanor Road by HGVs. Wastecycle has imposed a routing arrangement for all HGV’s visiting the site. This includes Wastecycle’s own fleet of vehicles and third party. The routing arrangement requires HGVs to avoid Beaumanor Road and use the A6 Abbey Lane together with the loopback arrangement on Thurcaston Road. Drivers who breach this prohibition or drive discourteously are subject to disciplinary action; vehicle telematics are used to control and enforce this policy. A recent traffic survey on Beaumanor Road confirms the use of HGVs, but none were using it for access to the recycling facility.

Objections also refer to excessive noise from the facility, particularly from external operations. However, these operations are already consented and the application would not change this. To demonstrate the acceptability of the ancillary plant a noise study has been undertaken which shows that the addition of the ancillary plant does not increase noise levels at nearby properties compared to previous predictions. Wastecycle has sought to mitigate noise impacts from both the approved operations and the ancillary plant.

Dust has been referred to, but again seem to relate to existing operations. Automated dust suppression equipment has been installed at the facility. The ancillary plant, being located to the rear of the building (away from properties) would not therefore affect nearby properties.

The final grounds relate to odour and vermin. The nature of the waste imported limits the likelihood of experiencing such impacts. Moreover measures are in place within the environmental permit to control the impacts (should they arise).

The facility was inspected by the Environment Agency in May 2015 who found no evidence of excessive noise, dust leaving the site, odour or vermin and concluded that the site is in compliance with the authorisations.

National planning policy confers a presumption in favour of sustainable development. The ancillary plant fully accords with this as it allows for a greater segregation of the imported waste into a greater range of products that have beneficial uses; this reduces the amount of residual waste that is ultimately sent to landfill and enhances recycling rates within the City.

The addition of the ancillary plant has also resulted in an increase in employment atthe facility; in this respect ten new posts have been created.

The addition of the plant does not lead to any significant negative impact on the environment or amenity of local residents; it does not lead to an intensification of use, increase in HGV movements or increase in noise levels.

Local planning policy contains a number of policies aimed at protecting amenity and the environment. As the ancillary plant would not give rise to any significant impact, then none of the policies would be conflicted. As such the application is in accordance with the Development Plan.

Accordingly, it follows that planning permission should be granted for the application.

Consideration

The issues under consideration are the impact on residential amenity, impact on highways, noise, land contamination, flooding and representations.

Principle of the use

As the site is located within an area allocated for industrial purposes and has a long history of uses relating to scrapyards and the application is for an extension of a waste recycling facility which is an industrial use the principle has already been established. The proposal also helps to meet the identified shortfall of processing commercial and industrial waste identified in the Waste Core Strategy and the proposal is therefore in accordance with policy WCS1.

Residential Amenity/Noise

Whilst the additional equipment is located outside the building it is located to the east of the building away from the nearest residential properties on Beaumanor Road. The presence of the main building reduces the impact on these properties and I consider that the equipment does not have a significant impact on the residential amenity of local residents and I therefore consider that the proposal is not contrary to the provisions of policy PS10 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.

As the equipment is located outside the building it does generate some noise which can be heard on this side of the building and in the open space beyond this. The nearest residential properties to this side are approximately 220 metres away and the noise from the equipment is not much audible from these properties or from the side of the building closest to the residential properties on Beaumanor Road.

Land Contamination

The site is located on a former scrapyard and measures were introduced as part of the consent for the building to deal with the contamination of the site. These measures have been carried out and I consider that the impact on terms of land contamination is acceptable.

Flooding

The Environment Agency have not raised any objections to the proposal subject to a condition requiring the provision of surface water drainage works to be submitted. The original consent included a scheme for surface water drainage which has been implemented. The proposed equipment should not have an impact on surface water drainage. Therefore I consider an additional condition is not necessary.

Other considerations

The majority of the objections to the application are based on the impact of the waste recycling facility and not the additional equipment that is the subject of this application. Some of the objections claim that lorries visiting the site use Beaumanor Road instead of Thurcaston Road. The applicants have advised that the lorries are fitted with tracking devices and all drivers are aware that Beaumanor Road cannot be used. The recent surveys by the applicant have shown that commercial vehicles to the application site are not using Beaumanor Road. The proposed facility is for further processing of commercial waste to separate different contents such as wood, plastic, metals so it would not result additional vehicular trips. This is not a matter that could be controlled by a planning condition as it is outside of the application site.

Further concerns have been raised about materials being processed outside the building. However, the application only relates to the new equipment at the rear. The applicants are already using automatic water sprinklers to deal with dust. A recent visit from the Environment Agency has not found any issues relating to management of the site.

Objections have also been raised alleging a recent rat and fly infestation. I have referred this to the Service Director for Environmental Health.

The area of open space to the east of the application site is due to have a number of environmental improvements carried out later this year. This will include the creation of wetlands, meadows and board walk areas. A bund will also be created between this area and the application site. The work will also involve creating an alternative cycle and pedestrian route to be used in the event of flooding on the current route. In order to reduce the impact on this area in terms of noise and dust, I consider trees can be planted along the eastern boundary and this can be secured as a condition.

Conclusion

I consider that the additional equipment is acceptable and I recommend APPROVAL subject to the following conditions.

CONDITIONS

1. The equipment shall not be operated outside the hours of 0600 to 2000 daily. (In the interests of the amenity of nearby occupiers, and in accordance with policy PS10 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.)

2. The operation of the equipment shall not be detrimental to residential amenity by reason of noise, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, soot, ash, dust or grit. (In the interests of the amenities of nearby occupiers, and in accordance with policy PS10of the City of Leicester Local Plan.)

3. A tree planting scheme shall be implemented within the application site along the eastern boundary during the first planting season following the grant of this permission. The details of the scheme shall be approved in writing with the City Council as local planning authority within 3 months of the date of this permission. The approved scheme shall be implemented and retained. (To mitigate the impact of the proposal on the amenity of the users of the open space to the east of the site and in accordance with policy PS10 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.)

4. This consent shall relate solely to the submitted plans ref. no. 7130 P 103 A received by the City Council as local planning authority on 10 March 2015, unless otherwise submitted to and approved by the City Council as local planning authority. (For the avoidance of doubt.)

Policies relating to this recommendation2006_PS10 Criteria will be used to assess planning applications which concern the

amenity of existing or proposed residents.2006_PS11 Control over proposals which have the potential to pollute, and over proposals

which are sensitive to pollution near existing polluting uses; support for alternative fuels etc.

2009_WCS01 The strategy for waste management capacity is to provide sufficient waste management capacity to manage the equivalent of the waste arising in the framework area.

2009_WCS05 The strategy for reuse, recycling, waste transfer and composting facilities is to allow new waste management development, provided the proposal does not cause unacceptable harm to the environment or communities.

2009_WDC08 Planning permission will not be granted for waste management development which is likely to generate unacceptable adverse effects.

2009_WDC09 Planning permission will not be granted for waste management development which would result in an unacceptable cumulative impact on the environment.

2009_WDC10 Planning permission will not be granted for waste management facilities involving the transport of waste by road, subject to criteria.

2009_WDC12 Planning permission will not be granted for waste management development which would have an adverse effect on surface or ground water and areas prone to flooding.

Recommendation: Conditional approval20150484 16 ROMWAY AVENUE

Proposal:

HIP TO GABLE ROOF ENLARGEMENT; SINGLE STOREY EXTENSION AT THE FRONT AND REAR; TWO STOREY EXTENSION AT SIDE AND REAR; DORMER AT REAR; SINGLE STOREY DETACHED OUTBUILDING AT REAR OF HOUSE (CLASS C3) (AMENDED PLANS)

Applicant: MR & MRS ISSAApp type: Operational development - full applicationStatus: Householder developmentExpiry Date: 11 May 2015OPP WARD: Stoneygate

18

19

23

26

123

7

2

11

19

26

15

30

8

14

27

16

18

9

87

33

19

17

78

12

42



Summary Application being reported to the committee as there are more than 5

objection letters.

9 objection letters have been receive on the grounds of parking congestion, loss of light and out of character with the area.

Main issues relate to residential amenity, visual amenity, overdevelopment of the site and parking.

Amended plans have been received reducing the size of the two storey extension and the design.

Appendix B10

Introduction

The site relates to a semi detached house surrounded by other residential properties.

Background

Permission for a single storey rear extension measuring 4 metres in depth (app no 20150496) was granted but not implemented.

An application for certificate of proposed lawful development for roof lights at the front, hip to gable roof extension and dormer extension at the rear of the house (app no 20141113) was granted lawful development but not implemented.

The Proposal

The original plans were for a hip to gable roof enlargement, single storey extension at the front, two storey extension at the side and the rear, single storey extension at the rear, single storey detached building at the rear of the house (Class C3).

Amended plans have been received showing a reduction in depth of the two storey extension at the side and the rear, the reduction in height to the eaves of the two storey extension at the rear and a pitched roof replacing the gable end roof to the two storey extension.


Development plan policies relevant to this application are listed at the end of this report.Further guidance is available from:

- The Supplementary Planning Document- Residential Amenity guide- The Supplementary Planning Guidance- Vehicle Parking Standards

Representations

A total of 9 objection letters have been received making the following points both on the original and the amended scheme:

Out of character with the area

Increased parking congestion

Loss of parking

6 bedrooms is excessive

Loss of light and privacy

Garden drastically reduced in size

Amended plans do not overcome their concerns

One of the objection letters refers to the proposal being in breach of human rights and impacting the enjoyment of their home and the right to private and family life

Consideration

Impact on neighbours

The two storey extension is located close to the boundary with the neighbouring property at number 14 Romway Avenue. The original plans showed that the two storey extension projected 4 metres to the rear of this neighbouring property. The depth and proximity would have had an overbearing and overshadowing impact on part of the rear garden area to this neighbour. The reduction in depth of the two storey extension by 1 metre will reduce this impact.

The change from a gable end to a pitched roof will reduce the height of the proposal at the eaves on the boundary. This neighbour has a garage closest to the boundary. The principal rear window to this neighbour is set away from the boundary. The proposal does not intersect a 45° line taken from the edge of the principal ground floor rear windows and the centre of the principal first floor rear windows to this neighbour. I therefore consider that the proposal will have a minimal impact on the residential amenity to the neighbouring property at number 14 Romway Avenue.

The two storey extension is located away from the boundary with the other neighbouring property at number 18 Romway Avenue and avoids intersect a 45° line taken from the edge of the principal ground floor rear windows and the centre of the principal first floor rear windows to this neighbour. There is a single storey rear extension close to the boundary with this neighbour and the proposal is 3 metres in depth which is the permitted development limit for a single storey rear extension. I therefore consider that the proposal will not have an adverse impact on the residential amenity to the neighbouring property at number 18 Romway Avenue.

Although the rear dormer is large scale, this taken together with the hip to gable enlargement to the original house can be built as permitted development and have already been granted a lawful development certificate. The porch is small scale and located away from the principal front windows to the neighbouring properties. Whilst this is a large development, I do not consider it will have an unreasonable impact on residential amenity.

Visual amenity

Romway Avenue comprises predominantly semi detached houses with hipped roofs located along a formal building line. The original plans showed a hip to gable enlargement to the existing part of the house and a matching gable end to the two storey extension. This was out of character with the other properties on the street. The amended plans show a hipped roof to the two storey side extension, which is an improvement. Although the existing roof remains a gable end, this alteration can be carried out as permitted development.

The extension has a setback at first floor level of 1 metre and a corresponding drop in the ridge line to make it look subordinate to the existing house and avoiding any potential ‘terracing effect’. The proposed front extension will project in front of the formal building line however it is small scale and just bigger than the permitted development limit for porches. The remainder of the development is located to the

rear. Overall I consider that the proposal will not have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the existing house and the street scene.

Detached outbuilding

The height of the outbuilding is 3 metres which is just 0.5 metres higher than the permitted development limit. In addition the properties along Romway Avenue and at the rear on Highway Road have relatively long rear gardens so the building is located away from the principal rear windows to the neighbouring properties. Given the size of the building it has the potential to be used for living accommodation or a business, I therefore suggest attach a condition that it remains incidental to the enjoyment of the main house.

Parking

The proposal will result in the number of bedrooms being increased from 3 to 6. The SPG- Vehicle Parking Standards recommends two spaces shall be provided for three bedrooms upwards so a six bedroom property will still require two off street parking spaces. I am satisfied even with the addition of the porch that the property will be able to retain two off street parking spaces, which is acceptable and in accordance with policy.

Garden size

The site will still retain the recommended 100 square metres of rear amenity space, which is acceptable and therefore I do not consider that the proposal represents overdevelopment of the site.

Recommendation

Overall whilst this is a large development, it has been reduced through amendments and I am satisfied that it will not have an adverse impact on residential or visual amenity and is compliant with policy.

I therefore recommend APPROVAL subject to the following conditions:

CONDITIONS


2. WALLS AND ROOF TO MATCH

3. The proposed detached building shall only be used in conjunction with the main house and shall not be occupied, let, sold or otherwise disposed of as a separate dwelling. (In the interests of residential amenity of the host property and nearby occupiers including adequate private amenity space and parking provision for the annex in accordance with Policies PS10 and AM12 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.)

4. This consent shall relate to the submitted plans WH001/007 and WH1/008 received by the City Council as local planning authority on 13/03/2015 as amended by plan ref. no. WH001/003 REV B, WH001/004 REV B, WH001/005 REV B, WH001/006 REV B and WH001/010 REV B received by the City Council as local planning authority on 18/05/2015, unless otherwise submitted to and approved by the City Council as local planning authority. (For the avoidance of doubt.)

Policies relating to this recommendation2006_AM12 Levels of car parking for residential development will be determined in

accordance with the standards in Appendix 01.2014_CS03 The Council will require high quality, well designed developments that

contribute positively to the character and appearance of the local natural and built environment. The policy sets out design objectives for urban form, connections and access, public spaces, the historic environment, and 'Building for Life'.


Recommendation: Conditional approval20150616 120 COLCHESTER ROAD, LEACROFT

Proposal:TWO STOREY EXTENSION TO FRONT AND FIRST FLOOR EXTENSION AT SIDE OF CARE HOME (CLASS C2) (AMENDED PLANS)

Applicant: J.D.ZENCARE LTDApp type: Operational development - full applicationStatus: Minor developmentExpiry Date: 3 June 2015ZF WARD: Thurncourt

63149a

149b

151

147

137

139

Surgery

Tank

127

174

140119

11

4

109

111

12

8

109

123

11

6

97

99

121

149

108

133

129

122

124

118

FB

Colc hes ter Court

92

120

80

115

90

96

89

108

87

75

103101

89

97

110

108a

101

87

30

126

96

24

6

14

16



Summary

Reported to committee as more than 5 objections have been received;

14 objections have been received on grounds of traffic, flooding, sewer capacity, out of character, noise, privacy and loss of light;

The main issues are the impact of the extensions on neighbouring properties, impact on highways and impact on residential amenity;

The application is recommended for APPROVAL.

Appendix B11

Introduction

120 Colchester Road is a single storey building in use as a care home, within an area that is largely residential in character. To the north and east of the site are residential properties fronting Scraptoft Lane and Colchester Road respectively. To the south of the site are allotment gardens whilst to the west is open land.

Background

19900646 – 20 bed nursing home for disabled people – Conditionally approved.

19901438 – 20 bed nursing home for disabled people being reserved matter on planning consent 90/0646/5 – Conditionally approved.

19910320 – Single storey building to form hydro-therapy pool – Conditionally approved.

20141336 – Single storey extension to rear of care home and alterations – conditionally approved.

The Proposal

The proposal involves the construction of a first floor extension to the northern section of the care home. The extension will be constructed from materials that are similar in appearance to the main property and be used to provide 10 additional bedrooms with ancillary facilities including bathrooms, a kitchen, dining room and offices.

The site currently provides 13 car parking spaces. No new spaces are proposed. Amended plans have now been received showing a removal of the external staircase, obscure glazing of the laundry room in the extension and the repositioning of the bedroom windows in the western elevation at first floor.


Development plan policies relevant to this application are listed at the end of this report.The SPG Vehicle Parking Standards applies.

Consultations

The Director of Environmental Services (Noise Team) has raised no objections to the proposal.

The Local Highway Authority states that details of existing parking on site have not been provided and are unable to assess parking demand. Conditions are recommended to ensure that satisfactory car parking arrangements are available and turning space within the site.

The Local Flood Authority have commented that no information has been provided as to the attenuation of increased run off if there is an increase in the impermeable surface.

Representations

The application was publicised by letters to neighbours and site notices and 14 objections have been received. The concerns raised are as follows:

The existing sewer system at the site is not sufficient to cope with current demand. Things will get worse if the extension is allowed;

Greater risk of flooding;

The development will lead to increased traffic at the site which will result in traffic using the driveway to the site and spilling onto Colchester Road. This will have implications on highway safety including cyclists using the cycle land along Colchester Road adjacent to the site;

Increased amounts of deliveries and waste disposal vehicles visiting the site;

The care home will need to provide additional parking for the increased number of staff and patients;

The extension will lead to an impact on privacy through overlooking of houses and gardens;

The extension will lead to a loss of light to properties in the area,

The extension will be out of keeping with the surrounding area;

The existing building is unlikely to be able to support the construction of a first floor extension structurally;

The existing residents of the care home are likely to face disruption during construction work thus affecting their health;

There are problems relating to noise from the care home as a result of the medical issues faced by current residents. These are likely to be exacerbated if the extension is constructed;

Decrease in property values;

It was promised when the care home was originally built that it would be single storey only;

A large amount of construction noise will result and;

Contaminated waste at present is not being removed by specialist contractors.Consideration

Design

The extensions will be constructed from materials to match the main property and have doors and windows that are similar in appearance to the main house. I consider that the extensions will be in keeping with the main property. Impact on Amenity

To the north of the site are houses along Scraptoft Lane. These properties have generous gardens and there are a number of trees along the northern boundary in the ownership of these houses. There would be 6 metres between the northern elevation of the proposed extension and boundary.

There would be 31 metres is between the proposed extension and the rear elevation of the houses. The SPD Residential Amenity recommends a separation distance between principal room windows of 21 metres. I consider that the extension will not lead to unreasonable overlooking and loss of privacy.

To the east of the site are houses along Colchester Road. There would be 22 metres present between the extensions and the rear garden boundaries. There would be 38 metres to the rear elevations of the houses. I consider that the extensions will not lead to an unreasonable loss of light, outlook or privacy.

To the south of the site are allotment gardens. A distance of 12 metres will still be retained to this boundary. I consider that this distance is sufficient to avoid compromising any development of this land in the future.

To the west of the site is open land. A distance of 10 metres will be retained between the extension and the common boundary. Amended plans have now been received that show the repositioning of the bedroom windows to the north and south elevations, obscure glazing of the laundry room window and removal of the external staircase. I consider that this will not impact the ability of the land to be developed in the future.

Highways

The adopted SPG Vehicle Parking Standards requires 4 parking spaces for every 10 bedrooms and there are 21 bedrooms at the present as existing. Following the construction of the extension, there will be 31 bedrooms at the site. The total parking requirement on the site will therefore be 12 spaces and as 13 have already been provided, I consider that parking provision is sufficient.

Flooding

The overwhelming majority of the proposed extensions will be constructed over the footprint of the original building at first floor level. The two storey extension will be constructed in an L shape and measure 6 metres x 8.5 metres. I consider that the floor area increase is not significant enough to warrant provision of SUDs nor will it result in significant additional flooding.

Other Objections

Whilst disruption is likely where residential properties back on to a development site, these would be short term and confined to the construction period only. The feasibility of the construction of the extension on the first floor of the building is a matter for Building Control.

The day to day running of the care home, including disposal of contaminated waste, would be governed by other legislation.

Conclusion

Whilst the extensions proposed are substantial, I consider that the development will not adversely affect residential amenity of nearby occupiers, the character of the surrounding area or highway safety.


CONDITIONS


2. WALLS AND ROOF TO MATCH

3. LOADING AND UNLOADING WITHIN SITE


5. All existing parking facilities shall be retained. (In the interests of ensuring satisfactory parking facilities and highway safety and in accordance with policies AM01, AM02 and AM11 of the City of Leicester Local Plan and policies CS14 and CS15 of the Core Strategy.)

6. This consent shall relate solely to the amended plans received by the City Council as local planning authority on 4th June 2015, unless otherwise submitted to and approved by the City Council as local planning authority. (For the avoidance of doubt.)






Recommendation: Conditional approval20150645 1 ABINGDON ROAD

Proposal:WORKS TO ONE BEECH TREE STANDING IN THE REAR GARDEN OF 1 ABINGDON ROAD PROTECTED BY TPO N4.255

Applicant: JULIAN LEVYApp type: Control of works to protected treesStatus: Other developmentExpiry Date: 11 June 2015DJ1 WARD: Stoneygate


exact ground features.Summary

Reported to the Committee at the request of Councillor Chaplin

Works are related to the development of two houses in the garden to 172-174 London Road approved in 2014

Three objections including from the owner of the site where the tree is growingIntroduction

This application is for works to a Beech tree standing in the rear garden of 1 Abingdon Road.

Background

Tree Preservation Order (TPO) N4.255 was confirmed in 1996 and covers 1 individual tree.

1

Appendix B12


Application 20021234 was approved in 2002 to crown lift Beech over 172-174 London Road’s car parking area to 2.5m.

Application 20131656 was approved on In October 2013 for the felling of a Yew tree within rear car park of 172-174 London Road. This tree was not covered by a TPO but notification through the application was needed as the site is within a conservation area.

Planning permission was granted at the Planning and Development Control Committee on 11th June 2014 for two houses at the rear of 172-174 London Road (20140502). The relationship to this beech tree and the need for some works to accommodate the new houses was covered in the assessment, report and recommendation.

The Proposal

The application has been submitted by a qualified arboriculturalist and proposes:Crown raise canopy above rear of Victoria House, 172/174 London Road to accommodate proposed structure by selectively removing approx. 9 no branches by use of target pruning techniques to the main stem. Also to prune remainder of overhanging branches by approx. 2-3m by pruning secondary branches only to suitable pruning points.

Reason given is to accommodate approved development at 172-174 London Road.The applicant could lawfully undertake works to the tree so far as such work is necessary to implement the planning permission; however he has formally submitted the application detailing the works.

Representations

Letter received from owner of 1 Abingdon Road dated 10th May 2015 objecting to the proposed works to the tree and saying that he would not allow access to his tree. He and two other nearby residents refer to the permission for the two houses at 172- affecting the tree and object on following grounds:

Beech trees are sensitive to change particularly as they age – this is an old tree.

These works together with works for the development affecting the roots will irreversibly damage the tree and lead to its loss.

Unlawful works have already been carried out

The planning permission for the houses should not have been given and the effect on the tree was not properly assessed

Application gives impression that the applicant owns the tree

The tree is protected and within a conservation areaCouncillor Chaplin has requested that the application be considered by the planning committee given the concerns of local residents and that the context for this issue is a development that has been approved by the planning committee.

2


A letter has been received from Jon Ashworth MP on 6th May 2015 requesting that attention be given to the complaint/objection regarding the tree and the development.

Consideration

The tree is a mature beech located within the rear garden of 1 Abingdon Road close to the boundary with Evington Footway. It has an estimated height of 17 metres and a large crown spread of 19 metres. The tree is a prominent feature within the Evington Footpath conservation area and has high amenity value.

A large diameter limb of the Beech overhangs the rear garden of 172-174 London Road by approximately 9.5m with the lowest branch tips 1.9m above ground level.The planning permission for the two houses within the rear gardens of 172-174 London Road locates them beneath the large overhanging limb of the Beech tree. To accommodate the construction of these two properties the pruning of the Beech trees lower branches will be required to at least 9m. The proposal to raise the canopy overhanging 172-174 London Road by the removal of the secondary branches from the main limb would have a minimal effect on the health of the tree if the work is undertaken to British Standards.

The work will alter the lower canopy aesthetics of the Beech tree as the canopy height will be significantly higher on the southern aspect over land belonging to 172-174 London Road, compared with the canopy heights over the gardens of Abingdon Road and car park leading from Evington footway. This will affect the tree aesthetically; however the pruning will not be significant enough to affect the overall structural integrity of the tree.

Consent has been granted for construction of two dwellings at 172-174 London Road and that carries with it consent to remove the branches in question. This separate TPO application for works to the tree allows the Council to control the quality of that pruning work so that physical and aesthetic damage is limited to that which is necessary.

I recommend APPROVAL subject to the following conditions.

CONDITIONS

1. The works shall be completed within two years from the date of this consent. (To enable the City Council to review the situation if the trees grow and develop.)

2. All works shall be carried out in accordance with British Standard for Tree Work BS 3998:2010. (In the interests of the health and amenity value of the tree.)

3. Works shall be strictly limited to the removal of x9 low branches directly overhanging the boundary to 172-174 London Road and the pruning of the higher secondary branches back by a maximum of 3m to achieve a clear height from ground level of 9m. (In the interests of the health and amenity value of the tree.)

3


NOTES FOR APPLICANT

1. Please note that consent for the works does not give you permission to enter land (including airspace) belonging to 1 Abingdon Road. The tree owner has refused any access to his land to undertake the works.

2. Consent has only been given for the removal of branches that overhanging the boundary line to 172-174 London Road.

3. The pruned branches from the Beech belong to the owner of 1 Abingdon Road and must be offered back in an unconverted state prior to chipping/removal from site.

Policies relating to this recommendationNone

4


Recommendation: Conditional approval20150706 165 QUEENS ROAD

Proposal: SINGLE STOREY EXTENSION AT REAR OF HOUSE IN MULTIPLE OCCUPATION (CLASS C4)

Applicant: MR & MRS D ABELApp type: Operational development - full applicationStatus: Householder developmentExpiry Date: 10 June 2015TEI WARD: Castle

50

46

Ronald C

ourt

157

173

181

6860

56

7

168166

182172

25

151

27

1594142

173

153 136a

152

140a138a

163

134a

158

9

155a

51

39

106

1

216 10

118

32

71

61

134

122

83

2

18

619

423

10

11

8



Summary The application is reported to committee at Councillor Kitterick’s request.

The main issues are impact on the amenity of adjacent properties, living conditions in the property and the context of the application within the Clarendon Park Article 4 area.

The recommendation is for approval.Introduction

The application relates to a semi-detached property in a residential part of the city. The property is in a part of the city covered by an Article 4 direction requiring that the change of use from a dwelling house (Use Class C3) to a House in Multiple

1

Appendix B13


Occupation with an occupancy of between 3-6 (Use Class C4) requires full planning permission.

Background

A prior approval application (20150152) for a single storey extension 6 metres deep at the rear was refused on 27.02.15. Grounds for refusal included the loss of outlook from and light to the neighbouring property at 163 Queens Road.

The Proposal

The proposal is for a flat roof single storey extension at the rear of the property. It will measure 4.9 metres across (the width of the plot) and 4.4 metres deep along the boundary with 167 and 3 metres deep along the boundary with 163. It will be 2.97 metres high. There will be two doors and two small windows to the rear elevation facing the garden at the host property. Materials will be to match the existing.



Residential Amenity (Supplementary Planning Document)

On 20.08.14 an Article 4 Direction came into effect that required planning permission for changes of use from Class C3 to Class C4 uses.

Consultations

None

Representations

An email was received objecting to the application. The objection raised concerns that the application would intensify the level of student accommodation in the immediate vicinity, that the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the integrity of the Edwardian properties and would cause potential damage to the shared wall between 165 and 167 and that the proposal will result in a loss of light to 167. Reference was made to work above the alleyway gate that exceeded the 2 metres allowed as permitted development but did not have planning permission.

The councillor Kitterick wishes the committee to consider the application in terms of intensification of student housing in the area, impact of living conditions in the ‘parent’ house and impact on traditional sheds at the rear of the property.

2


Consideration


Being a residential area the proposal is acceptable in principle provided it does not have a detrimental impact on the amenity of occupiers of the host property or the amenity of neighbouring properties and does not have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the neighbouring area.

Amenity

There are no windows to the side elevations. The only doors and windows will face the garden at the host property. The proposal would not have an adverse impact on the privacy of adjoining properties.

The proposal will extend no deeper than 3 metres at the boundary with 163 to the north. Though this depth would intersect a 45° line from the ground floor window of this property but it is a depth that would be acceptable under permitted development rights and the Residential Amenity SPD allows for 3 metre deep extensions at the rear. Therefore the depth of the extension is acceptable. There is an existing shared outbuilding against the boundary with 167. Outlook from the ground floor of 167 is already intersected by this outbuilding and the proposal will not have a significant additional impact on the outlook from this property. I do not consider that the proposal will have an overbearing impact on houses on either side.

Though there will be only 43 metres² of private amenity space left over at the property, the existing private amenity space is 56 metres². As no more than 50% of the ground area of the curtilage of the property (not including the original dwelling house) will be covered by buildings this area of private amenity space would be acceptable whilst below the requirement set in the SPD residential amenity guide.

The extension will create an open plan dining and living area. The open plan design means there will be no loss of outlook to principal rooms in the property.

Design

The materials for the wall will remain the same. The materials for the doors and windows differ and the design does not complement that of the original house. However, as most of the proposed extension is not visible from the public realm and given that the property is not in a conservation area I consider it unreasonable to refuse the application on design grounds.

Use

The existing C4 use of the property means the Article 4 Direction does not relate directly to this application. The plans do not imply that there will be an increase in occupancy. Nevertheless, the additional room at the property could be converted to

3


an additional bedroom in the future and proposals for student housing in the area should have regard to the Article 4 context.

The purpose of the Article 4 direction is to allow new proposals for shared housing in this area to be subject to assessment against Core Strategy policies, in particular CS08. Policy CS08 states that houses in multiple occupation will not be permitted where they would result in a local overconcentration and the evidence base for the Article 4 direction showed that there was a concentration of properties in student occupancy in this area during the academic year 2013-14. The Student Housing SPD acknowledges that issues can arise from an overconcentration of shared housing within a particular area. The lack of management arrangements, potential increased levels of burglary and crime, increased demand and pressure on some services (e.g. open space, parking), decreased demand in other services (e.g. schools) and potential late night noise and environmental nuisance are described as particular issues.

The issues above relate primarily to the potential environmental impact and impact on existing services due to the loss of family dwellings to shared housing. Only the impact on open space and parking relate to an increase in occupancy within existing shared housing. The property is an existing house in multiple occupation and much of the potential harm noted above is not relevant to the proposal. There are no parking spaces available on site and there is restricted parking along this part of Queens Road. Given the unavailability of parking at or near the property any additional occupancy would not have an impact.

The proposed extension would be acceptable for a family dwelling house (Class C3) and the proposal does not compromise the ability for the property to revert back to a family dwelling.

In any case the change of occupancy from 3-6 occupiers (Class C4) to seven or more occupiers (no use class) would require planning permission and I consider it appropriate to attach a note to applicant for clarity.

Recommendation


CONDITIONS


2. This consent shall relate solely to the submitted plans received by the City Council as local planning authority on 14.04.15, unless otherwise submitted to and approved by the City Council as local planning authority. (For the avoidance of doubt.)

4


NOTES FOR APPLICANT

1. Any change in occupancy levels from between 3-6 to 7 or more occupiers will require planning permission for a change of use from House in Multiple Occupation (Class C4) to a House in Multiple Occupation (no use class)

Policies relating to this recommendation2014_CS08 Neighbourhoods should be sustainable places that people choose to live and

work in and where everyday facilities are available to local people. The policy sets out requirements for various neighbourhood areas in the City.



5


Recommendation: Conditional approval20150781 2 VICARAGE LANE, HUMBERSTONE

Proposal: DETACHED DOUBLE GARAGE AT REAR OF HOUSE (CLASS C3)

Applicant: HAZELTON HOMES (MIDLANDS) LTDApp type: Operational development - full applicationStatus: Householder developmentExpiry Date: 10 July 2015ACB WARD: Humberstone & Hamilton



Summary Reported to committee at the request of Cllr Dempster because of the history

of the overall development which has previously been the subject of committee decisions.

1

Appendix B14


Issue is impact on residential amenity, access, impact on flooding and drainage.

Recommended for approvalIntroduction

The property is a detached two storey house located within a residential area.

Background

There have been no previous planning applications relating to the property. However the following planning history for the site to the rear is relevant.

20080388 Outline application for residential development at the rear of 6 Vicarage Lane. Refused at committee but allowed on appeal.

20121075 Reserved matters application for details of 11 houses. Approved and implemented. The application included a single garage for the owners of the application site.

The Proposal

The application is for a detached double garage to the rear of the house. The garage would be accessed from the road serving the new development to the rear of the site. The garage would be 6 metres wide and 6 metres long. It would be 4.6 metres high. A set of inward opening gates are also proposed.



SPD Residential Amenity

Representations

Two objections have been received. The grounds of objection are the impact on drainage and flood risk in the area.

Consideration

The principle of the proposal was established by the previous planning permission. The issues under consideration in this application are the impact of the garage on residential amenity, the increase in traffic and the impact on flooding and drainage.

Residential Amenity

The garage would be located in the same position as previously approved but would be closer to the host property by 2.8 metres. It would not have any additional impact on any of the neighbouring properties or the properties currently under construction.

2


It may have potential to be used as separate living accommodation and recommend a condition to restrict this. Subject to this I consider that the proposal has an acceptable impact on residential amenity.

Traffic

The garage would be accessed from the road connected with the development to the rear known as Vicarage Gardens. As there is a previous approval for a garage in this position with the same access point I do not consider that the use of road by one additional car will not have a significant impact on the flow of traffic in the area. A turning area has also been proposed in front of the garage to allow vehicles to enter and leave the proposed garage in forward gear and I recommend that a condition be attached to retain this. The proposed gates would be 11 metres from the road which would leave sufficient space for a vehicle to wait off the road while the gates are opened.

Flooding and Drainage

The permission for the development to the rear included a condition requiring a surface water drainage system to be installed including measure for sustainable urban drainage. This has been installed. Objections have been raised over the impact of the proposed garage on the drainage for the site.

As a single garage has already been approved on the site and the drainage system accounts for this I consider that the additional footprint required for a double garage will not have a significant impact on drainage and flooding in the area. It is also worth noting that the 11 houses under construction on the site at the rear could also be further extended to the rear by up to 4 metres without further planning permission and the drainage system that has been installed has been designed to deal with the impacts of this as well.

In conclusion I consider that the proposal is acceptable and I recommend APPROVAL subject to the following conditions:

CONDITIONS


2. GARAGE USED ONLY IN CONJUNCTION WITH HOUSE


4. This consent shall relate solely to the submitted plans ref. no. 1044-65 rev B received by the City Council as local planning authority on 15 May 2015, unless otherwise submitted to and approved by the City Council as local planning authority. (For the avoidance of doubt.)

3


Policies relating to this recommendation2006_AM12 Levels of car parking for residential development will be determined in

accordance with the standards in Appendix 01.2006_PS10 Criteria will be used to assess planning applications which concern the

amenity of existing or proposed residents.2014_CS03 The Council will require high quality, well designed developments that

contribute positively to the character and appearance of the local natural and built environment. The policy sets out design objectives for urban form, connections and access, public spaces, the historic environment, and 'Building for Life'.

4


PLANNING INSPECTORATE APPEAL DECISIONS20158001A 1 NARBOROUGH ROADProposal: CHANGE OF USE OF LAND TO CAR SALES, VALETING,

WASHING OR PARKING (NO USE CLASS)Appellant: MR I NOORMAHOMEDAppeal type: Planning AppealAppeal received: 9 January 2015Appeal decision: Allowed for Limited PeriodAppeal dec date: 7 May 2015TEI AREA: W WARD: Westcotes

23 to 8922

24

26

808254

14

Buildings

El Sub Sta

The River

30

28

12

42c

10

42b

1

2

26 to 34

19 to 2

1

3 to

5

13

1a

47 to

49

51 to

31 to

33

51a

53

50

48

51c

60b2

35

PH

33Factory

52

Sta

ElSub

47

65

Factory

8

6157

67 6359

62

PH

2

8

Fact

ory

70

5860

10

64

79

36

17

Works

31

15

1

RudingTerrace

3

4

22a17

4

22

14

45

431

724

TCBs

911

17

Library

1

2

4044

Westcotes

38

23

6 to 1216

Bank

Bank

4

1820

14

76

37

63

64

53

44

9

54

20

21

43

33

32

8

5

11

2527

28

17

42

1

40.5

8

75

40

60

49

70

50

39

6163

82

55

Shaf

tesb

ury

Juni

or S

choo

lan

d Co

mm

unity

Cen

t re

18

27

4

21

12

2a

11

26

34

44

2a

St P

eter

sC

hurc

h

PH

4

24

1 2

21

Presbytery

40

11

1

LB

50a

2

57

107

52

TCB

73

109

60



Summary An application for the change of use of vacant land for car sales, valeting,

washing or parking (no use class) was refused on highway safety grounds and because the proposal conflicted with policy.

The appeal was allowed and permission granted for a two year period.

1

Appendix B15


Location and Site DescriptionThe appeal related to a vacant piece of land at the north of Narborough Road. The site previously accommodated a building that had been used for a hot food takeaway. However, this building was destroyed in an explosion in 2011. The site is in the Narborough Road district centre.The AppealThe appeal reflected a reduced proposal from that which was proposed in the initial application, namely a car sales use only with up to two cars parked at any time and with an anticipated sale of between 3 to 4 cars a month. The appellant also expressed a willingness to accept an initial one year limited period approval and a condition restricting access and egress at peak hours.The appellant claimed that the Council’s concerns that the proposal would result in a detrimental impact on highway safety were misplaced.The Appeal DecisionThe appeal was allowed and permission granted for a two year period.CommentaryThe inspector identified that the main issues were the effect of the proposals on the vitality and viability of the Narborough Road District Centre and on highway and pedestrian safety. The inspector made reference to the commercial building that previously stood on the site but added that he had not been made aware of any current redevelopment proposals for the site. He concluded that the viability of erecting a single building upon it appears questionable. Therefore in the absence of any compelling evidence that the use would directly affect the vitality and viability of the District Centre he concluded that, subject to a condition limiting the period of the use, the proposal would have no material impact on its long term vitality and viability.The inspector understood the basis for the Council’s highway safety concerns, but concluded that the use would generate a very low level of traffic and the effect on highway and pedestrian safety would be minimal, and acceptable.

2


PLANNING INSPECTORATE APPEAL DECISIONS20148027A 11 ST AUGUSTINES ROAD, SITE OFProposal: USE OF SITE FOR VEHICLE PARKINGAppellant: BRITTANIA PARKING LTDAppeal type: Enforcement Notice AppealAppeal received: 7 November 2014Appeal decision: Enforcement Notice QuashedAppeal dec date: 7 May 2015ACB AREA: W WARD: Fosse

Bakery

Warehouse

El Sub Sta

LBWestbridge

Wharf

Dyersgate

Roman Wall

Sta

El Sub

Depot

Lifesaving Box

BowBridge

Factory

57

69

81

El Sub Sta

4944

41

1

5

35

17

25

3836

3745

39

56

210 4 68

65

13

1224

2



Summary The purpose of this report is to advise of an appeal decision.

The appeal was against an enforcement notice relating to the use of a former factory site as a surface car park.

The enforcement notice was quashed and planning permission was granted for the use of the site as a car park for a limited period of 12 months from 7 May 2015.

Location and Site DescriptionThe site is a former industrial building that was demolished a number of years ago.

1

Appendix B16


The site is located on the A47 which is a main route into Leicester City Centre. The site is within the Waterside Intervention Area of the Strategic Regeneration Area. The Leicester Core Strategy defines the site as being within the City Centre.To the east of the entrance to the site are a group of trees protected by a tree preservation area.

Further to the east of the site is the Grade II listed Bow Bridge.

A bus lane serving the Park and Ride runs outside the site.

To the immediate east of the site is a cleared site that was previously in use as a petrol station.

To the west of the site is Rally Park with housing beyond this. To the north of the site is the Kirby and West dairy.

The City Council DecisionPlanning application (20141024) for the continued use of the site as a 313 space surface car park was refused in August 2014 for the following reasons

1. The proposal, by reason of the continued use of the site as a car park not associated with new development, is contrary to policy CS15 of the Leicester Core Strategy and City Centre Car Parking Strategy SPD

2. The proposal is unacceptable due to adverse impact on the pedestrian and highway users’ safety and that is resulted from unsatisfactory access that lacks pedestrian visibility splay to the east of the entrance and have conflict between the vehicles entering the site from the uncontrolled junction opposite and the inbound traffic in front of the site. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy CS03 of the Core Strategy and saved policy AM01 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.

Following the refusal of planning permission and enforcement notice was issued in October 2014. The enforcement notice required to cease the use of the site for vehicle parkingThe AppealThe appeal was made against the enforcement notice under grounds (a) that planning permission should be granted and (g) the time given to comply with the notice is too short.The Appeal DecisionThe appeal was allowed, the enforcement notice was quashed and planning permission was granted subject to the following condition;

1. The use hereby permitted shall be discontinued and the land restored to its former condition within twelve months of the date of the decision.

CommentaryIn reaching his decision the inspector took the following into consideration;

2


Planning permission had been granted for the redevelopment of the site including a 464 space multi storey car park; it could be reasonably argued that the continued use of the site for vehicle parking must also be in accordance with the development plan. The inspector did note that the redevelopment scheme would have been assessed as a whole, whereas vehicle parking on its own would not be in accordance with the development plan.As the appellants only sought consent for a 12 month period the degree of harm to the aims of policy CS15 and the City Centre Car Parking SPD would be minimal.The impact on highway and pedestrian safety and noted that the junction of St Augustine Road and Narborough Road North created gaps in the traffic to allow vehicles to enter the site from the one-way gyratory. The visibility is good and that pedestrians on the footpath are aware of vehicles entering the site and stop if needed.Although vehicles have to use the bus lane to enter the site they do so without causing delay to buses or any other traffic.As the area where fees are collected is set back from the road this does not cause delays to traffic.When vehicles exit the site they are unlikely to be near to the east boundary and that as the footpath is wide there is a natural 2m x 2m visibility splay on this side and much greater visibility to the west therefore there is unlikely to be any conflict between vehicles exiting the car park and pedestrians walking away from the city centre.In conclusion the inspector therefore considered that the use of the access does not cause any significant harm to highway or pedestrian safety.The inspector’s decision is disappointing however it should not detract from further enforcement action against new surface car parks on cleared sites as the inspector considered this site to be an existing car park. The use of the site will be reviewed again in May 2016.

3


PLANNING INSPECTORATE APPEAL DECISIONS20148029A 48 LONDON ROADProposal: CONTINUATION OF USE OF TAXI BOOKING OFFICE (NO

USE CLASS)Appellant: HANSOM TAXIS LTDAppeal type: Planning AppealAppeal received: 25 November 2014Appeal decision: AllowedAppeal dec date: 19 March 2015JMM AREA: C WARD: Castle

48

LB

TCBs

1

7

179

3

1

2

173 17

5

169



Summary This is an update to an appeal that was reported to your committee on 1st April

2015.

When the appeal was allowed the application for costs awarded had not been decided by the Inspectorate.

Costs have been awarded to the appellant.

1

Appendix B17


Location and Site DescriptionThe appeal related to an existing taxi booking office adjacent to Leicester Train Station, situated on the corner of London Road and Station Street.The ProposalThe proposal was to seek permanent approval for the use which had been granted a limited period consent for 18 months in April 2013.The AppealThe appeal was allowed and reported to committee on 1st April 2015 outlining the inspector’s findings. This report is to update members on the outcome of the application for costs.The applicant applied for costs on the following grounds:

1) The council delayed development that should have been permitted.2) Failed to substantiate its reasons for refusal.3) Relied on vague, generalised and inaccurate assertions that were

unsupported by objective analysisCommentaryThe inspector found that the first ground was unjustified as development had not been delayed or prevented. In terms of the second and third grounds the inspector found that the council had failed to substantiate its reasons for refusal and failed to establish any link between the highway problems on London Road and the applicants business despite officer observations. The inspector therefore concluded that costs should be awarded to the appellant. The costs award amounts to £5059.

2


PLANNING INSPECTORATE APPEAL DECISIONS20148030A 1 BRUIN STREET

Proposal: CHANGE OF USE OF PART OF GROUND FLOOR FROM HOUSE (CLASS C3) TO LAUNDRETTE (NO USE CLASS); SHOPFRONT; FLUE

Appellant: MR & MRS MONKERAppeal type: Planning AppealAppeal received: 30 December 2014Appeal decision: AllowedAppeal dec date: 6 May 2015JMM AREA: E WARD:

8

3

2

6

4

Bank

24

18

15Surgery

24a

37

2325

48Factory

27

2

4442

b 42a

6

1

2.5

28

4a

24

17 Garage

1a

24

28.5 28

16

27

14

37

15

37

15

49

50

38

47

27

14

11

53 51

12

52

30

40

51

16

34



Summary The application was refused under delegated powers on the grounds that the

site was outside the Melton Road/Belgrave Road District Centre and highway safety.

The appeal was allowed.

1

Appendix B18


Location and Site DescriptionThe appeal related to a terraced property located off Loughborough Road in a residential area as defined by the City of Leicester Local Plan (CLLP).The ProposalThe proposal was to change the use of part of the property from residential to a coin-operated launderette and install a new shop front.The AppealThe applicant appealed on the grounds that on street parking is controlled by permits and most people using the proposal would walk therefore the proposal would not lead to highway safety issues.Furthermore the applicant argued that the proposed use did not conflict with the CLLP, the Core Strategy, the NPPF or any supplementary planning guidance therefore the refusal was unjustified. The applicant stated that policy R03 of the CLLP was not relevant to the determination of the appeal as the policy is only concerned with retail uses and launderettes do not fall into this use class.The applicant stated that the City Council did not provide evidence demonstrating the harm from the proposal would outweigh the benefits of the proposed use. CommentaryThe inspector concluded that the proposal did not conflict with CLLP policies PS10 and PS11 in terms of the impact of the proposed use on the amenity of nearby residents with regards to noise pollution and additional parking. The inspector stated that whilst he agreed with the City Council that the area was heavily parked there were sufficient spaces remaining on Bruin Street to park.The inspector accepted that the proposed use of the premises was not in strict conformity with policy R03 of the CLLP and CS11 of the Core Strategy, which are designed to ensure shopping and service provisions are located in local and district centres; however he concluded that as no evidence was submitted stating how the proposal could impact on the vitality and viability of nearby local and district centres, and since the proposed use was modest in size, there was no conflict with the referenced policies.The inspector agreed with the conditions suggested by the City Council limiting hours of use and the submission of a noise insulation scheme.

2

K:\DC Committee

WARDS AFFECTED

Abbey, Belgrave, Castle, Humberstone and Hamilton, Rushey Mead, Troon , Wycliffe

Planning and Development Control Committee 24th June 2015__________________________________________________________________________

North East of Leicester Sustainable Urban Extension (SUE) - Section 106 Agreement to Secure Off-Site Highway Works and other Transport

Improvements within the City__________________________________________________________________________

Report of the Director of Planning, Transportation and Economic Development

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To seek authority for the City Council as Highway Authority to be a party to a Section 106 agreement to secure highway works within the City required to support the proposed development of the SUE.

2. Recommendation

2.1 That authority be given to Director of Planning Transportation and Economic Development to conclude the terms of the Section 106 agreement and enter in to the agreement to secure the obligations benefitting its administrative area.

.3. Report

3.1 The committee resolved on 24th September 2014 that permission be granted for development of a road link through Hamilton Park as part of overall development proposals for the SUE.

3.2 The substantive part of the SUE lies outside the City within Charnwood BC and is subject to a planning application submitted to Charnwood BC, but on which the City Council is a consultee.

3.3 Alongside the report on the City Council’s application for the road link it was reported that under officer’s delegated powers observations on the Charnwood application would be made to Charnwood BC.

3.4 These observations included that arrangements should be made to secure off-site provision relating to highway mitigation of the development including, amongst other highway and transport provisions, highway junction

1

Appendix C

K:\DC Committee

improvements and contributions to strengthening pedestrian and cycle links into the surrounding areas within the City and towards the city centre.

3.5 In the interests of securing these obligations the two authorities and the developer/applicant have agreed that the City Council should be party to the overall S106 agreement required as a precondition to the issue of the permission by Charnwood BC approving the SUE application.

3.6 Due to the unique nature of this proposed development, there is no specific delegated authority for the City Council to enter into Section 106 agreements as it is not connected to the issue of permission by the City Council and falls outside its administrative area.

5. FINANCIAL, LEGAL AND OTHER IMPLICATIONS

5.1 Financial Implications

The S106 agreement will ensure that necessary highway improvements are secured without additional costs to the City Council.

Paresh Radia – Principal Accountant.

5.2 Legal Implications

The delegation to officers will provide authority for the City Council to enter in to a planning obligation agreement where there is currently no express delegation to do so. It will secure contributions towards infrastructure to mitigate the impact of the development upon the Council’s administrative area, as deemed necessary by Charnwood BC in consultation with the City Council. Though these contributions could be secured via a section 106 agreement without the City Council being party to it, officers believe it will be beneficial and more effective if the City Council entered the agreement and were able to directly secure delivery of the obligations.

Emma Horton – Principal Solicitor

5.3 Climate Change Implications

None

6. Other Implications

OTHER IMPLICATIONS YES/NO Paragraph ReferencesWithin Supporting information

Equal Opportunities NoPolicy No

2

K:\DC Committee

Sustainable and Environmental NoCrime and Disorder No Human Rights Act No Elderly/People on Low Income No

7. Background Papers – Local Government Act 1972

Planning and Development Control Committee 24th September 2014

8. Consultations

None

9. Report Author

Steve BrownTeam Leader Major Developments0116 454 3023

3

Date post:	29-Oct-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times