Wards: See individual reports. Development Control Sub ... A.pdf1...

$Page 1: Wards: See individual reports. Development Control Sub ... A.pdf1 I:\dcs\planning\wp\outputs\plclist.doc Wards: See individual reports. Development Control Sub-Committee 18 September$
I:\dcs\planning\wp\outputs\plclist.doc 1

Wards: See individual reports.

Development Control Sub-Committee 18 September 2001

REPORTS ON APPLICATIONS AND CONTRAVENTIONS Report of the Director of Environment, Development and Commercial Services 1. Introduction The City Council has resolved that reports to any committee must address the implications of the action recommended in relation to finance, equal opportunities, policy, legal issues, sustainability and the environment and crime and disorder. This report deals with development control matters on which the recommendations must be based on material planning considerations as set out in the Planning Acts and associated regulations, circulars and central government guidance. The following implications paragraphs relate to all the recommendations in this report. 2. Financial Implications The cost of operating the development control service, including processing applications and pursuing enforcement action, is met from the Development Control Group budget which takes account of the income expected to be generated by planning application fees. Development Control decisions can result in appeals to the Secretary of State or in some circumstances legal challenges which can have cost implications for the City Council. Where there are special costs directly relevant to a recommendation these are discussed in the individual reports. 3. Equal Opportunities Implications To assist the City Council to identify the impact of planning application decisions, these are monitored by the ethnic group 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. Regular reports are sent to Members giving the results of this monitoring. The following reports on this agenda were identified as having a particular impact on one or more disadvantaged group, or relate to the provision or improvement of facilities to the benefit of particular groups. APPLICATIONS WITH SPECIFIC EQUAL OPPORTUNITY IMPLICATIONS

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SUB-COMMITTEE 18 September 2001

2

App No Page Ward Address Ethnic

Minority Groups

Religious Groups

People with Disabilities

Res. Care inc.

Children and

Elderly

Non-Res. Care inc. Children and the Elderly

Children Women's Issues

20010563 5 WK 467 WELFORD ROAD √

20010911 7 CO 2 AMBASSADOR ROAD √

4. Policy Implications Planning applications must be decided in accordance with the provision of Development Plan, principally the City of Leicester Local Plan and the Leicestershire Structure Plan, unless these are outweighed by other material considerations. The latter include supplementary planning guidance, site specific development briefs produced by the City Council, and emerging/ updated versions of the Development Plan. Individual reports refer to the policies relevant to the recommendation. 5. Legal Implications 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 Head of Legal Services has been consulted and his comments are incorporated in individual reports. 6. Human Rights Act Members will be aware that the Human Rights Act 1998 is now in force. Provisions in the Act 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). In terms of reports on enforcement action, preparatory information, including details of ownership, has been sought in the light of current case law. The Head of Legal Services takes the view that obtaining such information does not relate to a trial process and so does not breach Article 6 (the right to a fair trial). The uncertainty over whether the Secretary of State can �call in� planning appeals because of potential incompatibility with the Human Rights Act has been clarified by a decision of the House of Lords. They decided that the Secretary of State�s powers to call in planning applications, or to recover planning appeals for decision by him, are lawful and do not breach Article 6. This clarification lessens the possibility of any challenge, under human rights legislation, to enforcement action 7. Sustainability and Environmental Implications The City of Leicester Local Plan has been subjected to a full sustainability appraisal. The sustainability implications material to each recommendation, including any Environmental Statement, submitted with a planning application, are examined in each report.


3

The following applications in this report are accompanied by an Environmental Statement:

Page

App. No. Address Ward Report Section

8. Crime and Disorder Implications Issues of crime prevention and personal safety are material considerations in development control recommendations. Where relevant these are dealt with in individual reports. 9. Consultations Consultations with other departments and external organisations are referred to in individual reports. 10. Background Papers Copies of individual planning applications are available for inspection in the Customer Service Centre, New Walk Centre. Representations and consultation responses on individual applications are kept on application files which can be inspected by contacting the Development Control Group, extension 7249. 11. Officer to Contact Authors of individual contravention and application reports, via Extension 7249 or Mike Richardson, Head of Development Control, Extension 7244.

CONTENTS PAGE NOS. CONTRAVENTION MATTERS - APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR REFUSAL 5 - 14


4

LISTED BUILDING CONSENTS AND CONSERVATION AREA CONSENTS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL

14 - 18

OTHER APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL 19 - 56 DEVELOPMENT BY THE CITY COUNCIL - OBSERVATIONS ON CONSULTATIONS FROM GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS

-

OTHER ITEMS 57 - 65 PLANNING INSPECTORATE APPEAL DECISIONS - PETITIONS -

INDEX Page Appn

Number Address Area Ward Report

Section7 20010911 2 AMBASSADOR ROAD E CO REF

19 20010861 6 BEEBY ROAD E CW APP 57 20010814 35-45 BLACKBIRD ROAD W SA OTH 47 20011198 35 BRAUNSTONE GATE W WC APP 23 20011006 6 COPLOW AVENUE E ST APP 36 20011106 DE MONTFORT STREET/LANCASTER

ROAD C CA APP

66 20010980 270 GWENDOLEN ROAD E CH REF 54 20011273 36 OXFORD ROAD C CA APP 44 20011161 22 PLOVER CRESCENT W BL APP 14 20011209 QUEEN STREET, COURTAULD

BUILDING C WY LBC

33 20011083 143 SHANKLIN DRIVE E EK APP 11 20011354 1A STAMFORD STREET C CA REF 51 20011262 ULVERSCROFT ROAD, BOSTIK E LA APP 26 20011035 371 UPPINGHAM ROAD E CO APP 5 20010563 467 WELFORD ROAD, KNIGHTON E WK REF

30 20011072 8 WHITEHALL ROAD E EV APP


5

APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR REFUSAL 20010563 467 WELFORD ROAD 05/04/2001 AREA: E WARD: West Knighton COU CHANGE OF USE FROM SHOP (CLASS A1) TO MADRASSA &

ISLAMIC CULTURE CENTRE (CLASS D1) AND SINGLE STOREY EXTENSION TO REAR.

SJM MR FAZLUL HAQUE CHOUDAURY

Introduction This mid terraced property is located within a local shopping area as defined by the Local Plan. Its� current authorised use is as a retail shop Class A1 on the ground floor with residential accommodation above. Background Complaints were received in March this year that the premises was no longer being used for retail purposes and was instead being used as a prayer hall. This was found to be the case and the occupier was decorating and furnishing the property for this purpose. He was advised that planning consent had not been obtained for this use and was advised that the use and work should be ceased until a formal planning application had been determined. The Proposal This application was subsequently submitted. Consent is sought for the change of use of the property to a madrassa and Islamic culture centre with a new single storey, pitched roof extension to the rear, which would replace existing out buildings. The applicant states that two members of staff would be employed at the centre,


6

but has not indicated the potential number of people who would attend at any one time. The hours of use are stated as Monday to Friday 1700-1900 hours only. Any parking would be on the street since there is no on site parking provision. Development Plan Policies S14 Permission normally granted for new community, health care and social

facilities within or next to shopping centres. C20 Permission for places of worship or extensions, normally granted subject to

criteria on amenity, design, traffic, access, etc. Representations I have received 18 individual letters of objection to the proposal, including one from Councillor Hunt, and a petition containing approximately 607 signatures. The reason given for objection on the petition is that �the proposal is not appropriate within a local shopping parade, due to the limited parking facilities and further that the unit could be put to better use as a legitimate retail outlet.� The grounds of objection stated by individuals are as follows: • detrimental affect on the character of the shopping area and would not

encourage business to other retail premises. Loss of a retail unit affecting viability of area.

• On street parking problems would be exacerbated. Residents already have difficulty in parking.

• Congestion on the highway would increase. This is a busy section of road with a bus lane and restricted parking.

• Danger that other businesses may close. • Inappropriate location for this type of use putting children�s lives at risk on this

busy road. • Concern that the proposed hours of use would be extended. • Noise and disturbance to nearby residents. Consideration The proposed single storey rear extension, which would provide additional toilet facilities, is acceptable in design and would not, I consider, adversely affect the amenities of neighbouring residents in terms of a loss of light or outlook. Policy S14 allows for new community and social facilities within existing shopping centres where they are more accessible and convenient for the public and in this respect the principle of such a change of use could be acceptable. However, in this case I am very concerned over the location of this premises on a very busy arterial road and in close proximity to residential units. The proposed change of use is likely to generate a much higher and more concentrated demand for on street parking than its current use as a retail shop. There is a bus lane in front of the premises both in bound and out bound and hence any parking, even to drop off or pick up children is likely to impede and affect the functioning of the bus lane. Any longer term parking in the side streets is likely to add to congestion and to reduce the availability of parking for residents, particularly since the proposed hours of opening extend into the evening.


7

Adjacent to the premises are shops with residential accommodation above. Residential properties are also located close to the rear. Noise disturbance is likely to occur from the development itself and from an increase in vehicle movements and parking. It would be impossible to enforce restrictions on the numbers of people attending the premises at any one time. I find this proposal unacceptable and recommend that the application be REFUSED for the following reason: REASON 1. The proposed use of the building is likely to have a detrimental affect on the

amenity of local residents due to additional noise disturbance, and on highway and pedestrian safety due to an increased demand for on street parking and is therefore contrary to policy C20 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.

APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR REFUSAL 20010911 2 AMBASSADOR ROAD 16/07/2001 AREA: E WARD: Coleman DEV SINGLE STOREY EXTENSION AT REAR OF DAY NURSERY;

RELAXATION OF CONDITION 4 ON PLANNING PERMISSION 19941489 TO ALLOW INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF CHILDREN FROM 20 TO 28.

AS MR & MRS KHAN

Introduction This application relates to a detached bungalow which is located within a primarily residential area. The property is used as a day nursery (Class D1).


8

Background Planning permission was granted in January 1994 (93/1560) for change of use of dwelling house (Class C3) to day nursery (Class D1) and a single storey extension baby room and w.c. extension to side. Conditions were attached to the approval including 1. �the premises shall not be used to cater for more than 15 children at any one time�. 2. �No more than 5 children shall play in the rear garden at any one time�. Further planning permission was granted in May 1994 (94/0394) for a single storey extension to the side. The above two conditions were added to this proposal. In January 1995 (94/1489) planning permission was granted to increase the number of children from 15 to 20 and no more than 6 children to play outside at any one time. Hours of use conditions were also attached to the above approvals. The Proposal The applicant proposes to extend the property to the rear at single storey level to form a new activity room. The extension would have a depth of 6 metres and a width of 5.2 metres. The extension would be adjacent to an existing activity room to one side, approximately 4 metres from the side boundary with 4 Ambassador Road to the other side. The depth of the play area would be 7 metres up to the rear boundary. The applicant also proposes to increase the number of children attending the day nursery from 20 to 28. Development Plan Policies C8 Permission normally granted for the establishment of day care facilities for

children under 8 subject to criteria. Policy Considerations There are further guidelines contained within appendix 5 of the local plan which states: for detached houses, single storey rear extensions deeper than 2.4 metres may be acceptable but should not intersect a 45° line taken from the centre of the window of the adjacent house closest to the boundary. There are further guidelines contained in appendix 5 which states a minimum of 11 metres will normally be required between any elevation containing principal room windows and any site boundary. Shorter distances may be acceptable in the case of bungalows, depending on the arrangement of windows, orientation and massing of the proposed buildings. Appendix 9 of the Local Plan suggests the provision of off street parking as 1 space for every employee, or for every five children whichever is the higher, although these


9

are currently being treated as maximum rather than minimum standards pending adoption of the Local Plan review. The approved �Planning Policies for Day Nurseries� (1995) sets out in detail criteria by which to consider an application. Consultations Social Services Department were consulted and they consider that the outdoor play area is not ideal but acceptable. Representations Five letters of objection have been received from the occupiers of neighbouring properties. The two immediate neighbours have written expressing no objection to the proposal. The reasons for objection are as follows: • The proposed extension would reduce the amount of outdoor play area available • Increase in traffic • Increase in on-street parking close to a blind bend in the road • Ambassador Road is used as a �rat run� • More traffic would increase danger at already existing dangerous junction of

Ambassador Road and Wicklow Drive • There is to be a new development opposite and the entrance is directly opposite

the day nursery. Consideration The day nursery is located within a reasonably quiet residential area with no other commercial activities in the immediate area. Opposite the day nursery there recently has been an approval for four detached dwellings and the demolition of a pair of semi-detached houses with the entrance to the development being directly opposite. To the rear of the nursery is the long garden of a property off Uppingham Road (approximately 80 metres). To either side are bungalows with houses opposite. The applicant has written a letter stating that the children and staff are dropped off and picked up at various times during the day. I consider that to increase the commercial activity by enlarging the building and increasing the numbers would seriously affect the character of the residential area. The increase in the number of children using the nursery would also cause a further loss of amenity to the people living nearby, by reason of noise and general disturbance. The original consent granted permission for 15 children which was the maximum number considered appropriate for a property within a residential area (Planning Policies for Private Day Nurseries). Whilst this number was extended by a previous application, the additional children were to be accommodated within the existing premises. This latest application seeks to accommodate nearly double the amount of children that were originally allowed.


10

The amount of traffic going to and from the building would increase and could therefore cause a nuisance or danger to other people using the streets nearby. The applicant shows four off street parking spaces but only three of them are workable. It is proposed to employ seven staff (an increase of two) therefore seven parking spaces are required. Whilst I appreciate that the applicant is anxious to expand the business, I do not consider that the proposed extension or that the further intensification of the nursery is appropriate in this location. The majority of the rear play area would have a depth of 7 metres. There would be a further play area to the side of the proposed extension which would have a width of approximately 4 metres. If the property were to convert back to a single family dwelling house then I would consider the size of rear garden to be unacceptable. I therefore consider the proposed extension to be overdevelopment and that it would leave insufficient usable space to the rear of the property. I therefore consider the proposal to be unacceptable and I recommend REFUSAL for the following reasons: REASONS 1. The proposal is contrary to Policy C8 of the City of Leicester Local Plan and

guidance contained in the approved "Planning Policies for Day Nurseries" in that potential intensification of the use of the nursery would adversly affect the residential character of the area and the amenities of nearby residents by increased noise and disturbance.

2. The intensification of the use would lead to an increase in traffic and on-

street parking to the detriment of residential amenity and highway and pedestrian safety. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy C8 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.

3. The single storey extension because of it size would represent

overdevelopment of the site, in that it leaves insufficient usable garden space to the rear.


11

APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR REFUSAL 20011354 1A STAMFORD STREET 10/08/2001 AREA: C WARD: Castle COU CHANGE OF USE OF BASEMENT AND GROUND FLOOR

FROM OFFICES (CLASS B1) TO CAFE/BAR (CLASS A3); FLUE AND EXTERNAL ALTERATIONS

AW MR M BACKUS

Introduction The application site is a 3 storey building with a basement. It is on the edge of but outside the Central Shopping Core, and in the Albion Hill Potential Development Area. It is presently used as studios for photography and dance. The south elevation, which has no ground floor windows, overlooks a service yard to an industrial building. The north elevation contains windows and doors on all floors and overlooks a service yard a number of properties facing Belvoir Street, including a gym, clinic, offices, bar and shop. To the west is the small yard of an industrial building now converted to flats. Opposite on Stamford street is the car park of the Granby Hotel, and a former industrial building to the corner with Belvoir Street � the upper floors are empty and a new bar/restaurant has just opened on the ground floor. Background On 31 January 2000 a near identical proposal to convert the ground floor and basement to a café bar was refused (19991521). The reasons for refusal were: • Proposal outside Central Shopping Core and contrary to Policy S13 • Continued use of upper floors prejudiced • Noise and activity likely to prevent regeneration and residential provision in PDA • Full impact of proposal not assessable due to inaccurate and incomplete details


12

The Proposal The proposal is to change the ground floor and basement to a cafe-bar, open 11.00 to 24.00. The main changes are: • a kitchen flue inside the building at the rear, exiting near the ridge • ground floor access off street through window altered to form double-doors • new stair to basement; existing stairs and entrance on left would serve upper floors • side door into northern yard filled with glass blocks; adjacent to this a new fire exit

door for escape from the basement would be formed, by altering a window • new windows to ground floor of southern yard Development Plan Policies EN40 Prominent ventilation and mechanical plant not normally approved. Also a

material consideration in applications for change of use. E14 Permission normally given for development providing improved employment

opportunities in the Potential Development Areas. S12 Outside the Central Core, restrict opening hours for A3 (Food and Drink)

except where no detriment to residents. S13 Use for class A1, A2 and A3 for local facilities outside defined centres

considered on merit against criteria. 1996 Guidelines for Hot Food Shops, restaurants and Other Class A3 Uses Outside the Central Shopping Core. Representations The owner of the yard to the north of the site has objected on the following grounds: - adverse traffic impact, particularly from on-street servicing - no right to use service yard for fire exit route, which is congested and

unsuitable for evacuating a cafe-bar The owner of flats to the rear is concerned that the proposal, and the flue in particular, would adversely impact on the amenity of flat occupants. Consideration Existing and proposed details with this application do allow a proper assessment of its impact. The physical changes would relate well to the building and location. The new windows to the south yard could be fixed and obscure-glazed to prevent any adverse impact on the adjoining use. I consider the alterations to be acceptable. The refused scheme showed a shared single stairwell for access to the basement and upper floors. Customers movement between floors would adversely affect the use of the upper floors for other purposes. The new proposal creates a separate stairwell so that the problem would not arise. I consider that the flue would be acceptable subject to conditions requiring it to be colour coated, and maintained and operated so as to cause no noise nuisance.


13

No bin storage is shown. The use would be likely to generate a significant amount of waste but there is ample space within the building for bin storage provision, so that there would not be an adverse impact on neighbours. The site presently has no off-street servicing space so any use would incur on-street servicing at times. I do not consider that the proposed use would exacerbate this situation or create any other adverse traffic impact. The building has internal access to a third party=s shared fire escape stairwell, which exits into the north yard. The new basement exit would be immediately adjacent to this. Gates across the entrance to the yard are locked after normal working hours and this is not in the control of the applicant. However, this is a situation which already affects several other businesses and is subject to other regulatory control. It remains that the fire escape route through the yard is pre-existing and a matter requiring private agreement. The proposal is outside the Central Shopping Core, which contains suitable available premises for such a use. The proposal would be contrary to the presumption in favour of locating such a use inside the Central Shopping Core, as stated in the Local Plan and the 1996 Guidelines for Class A3 uses. The site is also in a Potential Development Area which has an emphasis on the provision of residential accommodation. People entering and leaving the premises would create noise and activity likely to prejudice the further provision of residential accommodation in this Area, particularly on Stamford Street and on upper floors of the building itself. This would be exacerbated by the proposed opening hours of 11.00 to 24.00, which would also be contrary to the Local Plan and 1996 Guidelines and are longer than those previously proposed. I recommend REFUSAL for the following reasons: REASONS 1. There are suitable premises available for this type of use in adjacent

shopping streets inside the Central Shopping Core (as designated in the City of Leicester Local Plan). The proposal is therefore contrary to Local Plan Policy S13, and is contrary to Supplementary Planning Guidance: 1996 Guidelines on Class A3 Uses outside the Central Shopping Core, which has a presumption in favour of locating such uses inside the Central Shopping Core.

2. Noise and general activity likely to be generated by customers in the street

would adversely affect: i) the future provision of residential accommodation in, and ii) the continued regeneration of the York Street/Albion Hill Potential Development Area (as identified in the

City of Leicester Local Plan, contrary to Local Plan Policy E14. This would be exacerbated by the proposed hours of use, which would be contrary to Policy S12 of the City of Leicester Local Plan, and Supplementary Planning Guidance: 1996 Guidelines on Class A3 Uses outside the Central Shopping Core.


14

LISTED BUILDING CONSENTS AND CONSERVATION AREA CONSENTS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL 20011209 QUEEN STREET, COURTAULD BUILDING 19/07/2001 AREA: C WARD: Wycliffe CAC PARTIAL DEMOLITION OF MEWS WORKSHOP KMB QUEEN STREET APARTMENT CO LTD

Introduction The Site forms part of the Courtauld�s former factory complex situated on the south side of Queen Street. Part of the complex faces onto St. George Street and adjoins the Grade II listed St. George�s Church and Churchyard to the south. The west part of the site is adjoined by a mixed use building comprising a hairdressing salon, night-club and snooker club and opposite this is the vacant Odeon Cinema, which are both Grade II listed. The site is within a primarily employment area as identified in the City of Leicester Local Plan and is within St. George�s Conservation Area. The application relates to the partial demolition of the rear section of a mews two-storey workshop. Background Last year permissions were granted enabling through a mixture of demolition, new build and conversion the realisation of 251 flats for rent. Development is phased and presently the main �U� shaped building (Block A) on Queen Street is being completed as phase 1, which comprises of 131 flats.


15

Phase 2 is to be the erection of new Block C located on the corner of Queen Street and St. George Street. The approved scheme is for a 9-storey building incorporating a curved glazed tower on the junction of the two streets. Phase 3 relates to Block B comprising of an �L� shaped 7 storey section fronting Queen Street with a 4 storey wing at right angles. This section of the overall site has a close relationship to the Church and its environs and the Odeon Cinema. Block B is currently subject to a revised application ref.no.20010919. This scheme introduces modification to the external design and proposes to increase the height of the rear wing to 7 storeys. Amended plans are awaited and, subject to receipt and acceptability, should be reported to an October meeting. A proposal to lower a section of the boundary wall adjacent the churchyard by 700mm was approved at the last meeting. The Proposal The proposal relates to the removal of approximately the rear 20 metre section of the two-storey mews workshop. In light of the pending proposals under application 20010919 there are no replacement plans and the applicant intends to utilise the space to act as an entrance courtyard to the complex. The proposal would, therefore, introduce an enclosed courtyard between the Courtauld�s building and Block B. The front 10m section of the building is to be retained and converted to management offices and post room. The offices are displaced from the ground floor of the Courtauld�s building, which enables an increase in the residents health club facility. The courtyard introduces a formal mixture of hard and soft landscaping and also accommodates a refuse store. I have requested that the latter element be enclosed in the retained or extended mews workshop building. The retained section of building and adjacent entrance gates are to function as the main entrance and administration focus for these buildings. The rectangular shaped space created by demolition would function as a window between the new and existing buildings (Blocks A & B). The proposal is supported by a structural survey and economic justification why the building should not be retained or reinstated. Presently the majority of the building is unsafe and liable to collapse. Due to lack of occupation and investment in the fabric of the building the effects of the weather have eroded the main structural framework. Repair and/or reinstatement of this building is not considered justified in terms of the intrinsic quality of the building�s fabric, internal or external. The main features of the building are the front elevation and wavy eaves line; the former is to be retained. I consider the benefits of the scheme are: - • Greater exposure of the adjacent elevation of the Courtauld�s building. • Creation of greater feeling of space which better reflects the scale of the adjacent

buildings. • Majority of building to be removed has no redeeming characteristics or qualities,

which render it worthy of retention, replacement, or listing.


16

Development Plan Policies EN1 In areas of character, development should reinforce established pattern of

built form, spaces and movement routes. EN2 In areas of little character, development should give stronger identity

through the layout of buildings and new spaces. EN3 Development adjoining public spaces or thoroughfares must provide

positive and attractive built frontages. EN4 No permission for poor quality or inappropriate designs. High quality design

expected in City Centre and Conservation Areas. EN9 Alterations which impair the architectural or historic interest of listed

buildings will not normally be approved. EN10 Development affecting the setting of listed buildings will not normally be

approved if it would have a detrimental effect. EN11 Development or demolition in Conservation Areas only approved if it

preserves or enhances the area's character. Policy Considerations Under PPG15 �Planning and the Historic Environment� there is a need to consider the economic dimension and the aim should be to seek the optimum viable use, which is compatible with the special interest and setting of the historic building. Moreover, the viability test should be applied to the development as a whole, not just to any historic building element in isolation. Special attention should be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the area. In the case of unlisted buildings in conservation areas, the courts have held that consent for the demolition of a building may involve consideration of what is to take its place. The general presumption should be in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the conservation area. In instances where a building makes little or no such contribution, the local planning authority will need to have full information about what is proposed for the site after demolition. It has been held that the decision maker is entitled to consider the merits of the proposed development in determining whether consent should be given for the demolition of an unlisted building in a conservation area. Consultations The application was reported to the Conservation Advisory Panel who objected on the grounds that the existing building is attractive, thoughtfully designed, well proportioned and make a positive contribution to the conservation area. The proposal lacks justification and details of what is to replace it. The special character of the area would be eroded. Suggested use as artist�s workshops as part of the �Cultural Village� should be discussed with the applicant.


17

English Heritage object and draws attention to PPG15 which states, demolition is not to be allowed �simply because redevelopment is economically more attractive to the developer than repair and re-use of a historic building�. Representations The application was advertised in the Leicester Mercury and site notices posted. No representations have been received. Consideration The prime consideration should be the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area. In particular account should be taken of the wider effects of demolition on the building�s surroundings and on the conservation area as a whole. Within the context of its surroundings the mews workshop contributes little to the character and appearance of the built environment and its partial removal would not damage the intrinsic qualities of the conservation area. Full details of the building to be retained are awaited; however, it should be noted that the important front elevation of the building is to be retained. This ensures the Queen Street corridor is not affected. In addition, during consideration of the original applications for the development of this site this particular building was not considered worthy of added protection through listed building status. The removal of the greater proportion of the building does benefit both the adjacent Courtauld�s building and Block B by the creation of space between the two buildings, which will function as their main entrance and service facility. Demolition of the building will also expose more of the return (west) elevation of the Courtauld�s building to view, particularly from St George�s Churchyard. The characteristic of this north side of the churchyard is of predominantly tall buildings, which offer a strong sense of enclosure with the occasional void interrupting their scale and mass. The proposal should be judged in terms of the extent to which it preserves or enhances the character and appearance of the conservation area. In addition does its loss outweigh the benefits mentioned above? Subject to receipt of satisfactory plans showing the section of building to be retained I recommend as follows. HOWEVER, SHOULD ACCEPTABLE PLANS NOT BE RECEIVED BEFORE THE MEETING THEN IT IS SUGGESTED THAT CONSIDERATION OF THIS ITEM BE DEFERRED UNTIL THE 2ND OCTOBER MEETING. I therefore recommend APPROVAL subject to the following conditions: CONDITIONS 1. (0103) START WITHIN FIVE YEARS - LB CONSENT OR CA CONSENT 2. Within six months of commencement of 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 agreed in writing with the City Council as local planning authority. This scheme shall include details of:


18

(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). The approved landscaping scheme shall be carried out within one year of

completion of the development. For a period of not less than 10 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 ##EN55 ## of the City of Leicester Local Plan.)

3. No demolition shall begin until works to secure the safety and stability of

that part of the building which is to be retained have been completed, in accordance with details previously agreed in writing by the local planning authority. (To protect that part of the building to be retained.)

4. (0904) PLANS AS AMENDED (RECEIVED ON; PLAN NO) NOTE FOR APPLICANT 1. No permission is granted or implied for alterations to the section of the

Mews Workshop building to be retained inculding its external appearance, for which a separate planning permission is required. However, the general form and design should generally comply with the details submitted as part of this application.


19

OTHER APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL 20010861 6 BEEBY ROAD 29/05/2001 AREA: E WARD: Charnwood DEV ONE DETACHED HOUSE (AMENDED PLANS) RJM ASTARLISPE LTD

Introduction The majority of this plot is currently occupied by a warehouse building that is set back by 4.7m from the edge of the pavement and which extends to the rear of the site. The site lies within a Primarily Residential Allocation in the Local Plan. There is a pocket park to the north adjacent to the site and residential development on the other 3 sides, at the rear to the west on Bridge Street, to the south adjacent to the site and on the opposite side of Beeby Road to the east. There is a mature Lombard Poplar tree in the park, close to the application site. Background The existing building was originally used to store vehicles, with ancillary offices. It was subsequently purchased by the City Council to remove a nuisance that was being created by this use. Consent was granted in 1989 for the change of use to an advice centre and meeting place for the Pakistan Women�s Association and the British Pakistan and Muslim welfare Association (ref 89/2414). It was called the Jinnah Advice Centre. The property has been vacant for some time and the site has recently been sold to the applicant. A recent application to demolish the warehouse (20010541) was withdrawn as planning permission would not be required for the demolition of the existing building.


20

The Proposal This application proposes one detached dwelling on the site. The original plans showed a dwelling set 5m back from the edge of the pavement and having an integral garage. However, there was only 6m to the rear boundary. The proposal was also 2.5m behind the adjacent property at 4 Beeby Road. Revised plans were submitted on 25th June 2001, showing a property that is in line with the adjacent properties at 2 & 4 Beeby Road, with a 0.1m gap between the properties. Development Plan Policies H6 Within the Primarily Residential Areas, permission normally granted for

residential development, subject to criteria. Policy Considerations The relevant criteria contained in Policy H6 of the Local Plan are :-

- A plot is too small to accommodate a dwelling satisfactorily; - It would be likely to prove detrimental to the amenities of occupiers of nearby properties by reason of substantial loss of privacy or light; - The proposed access to the site and car parking arrangements are unsatisfactory; - The proposed design of the development is unsatisfactory; - It would result in the loss of trees or land of high amenity or ecological value; - Infill development or extensions would prevent proper maintenance of a

building or the adjoining properties. Appendix 5 of the Local Plan contains the following development control criteria. A new extension should not result in any substantial loss of privacy to adjoining dwellings. Where a window to a principal room faces a similar window, the distance between them should be no less than 21m. Where direct overlooking can be avoided, by the positioning of windows, the distance of 18m is acceptable. Where a window to a principal room faces a blank wall, there should be a distance of 15m between them.

Representations Two letters of representation have been received, objecting to the proposal for the following reasons:-

-The revised plans only show a 10cm gap between the properties, which would result in maintenance problems; -The poplar tree in the park has been cited as the reason for subsidence at 4 Beeby Road. Remedial work was programmed for August, including steel lateral constraint straps in the roof of the gable wall. Who would be responsible for further damage caused by the building of the proposal ?


21

-The effect of the tree needs to be taken into account in providing the foundations to the new house; -The Party Wall Act is relevant, since the proposal is within 3m of the adjacent property; -The appearance of the house is not in character with the rest of the houses in the street; -Additional traffic will be generated; -Noise and disturbance to shift workers, while building work is taking place; -There are bats feeding in the park and surrounding gardens, although it is not known where they are nesting.

Consideration The issue of noise and disturbance caused by construction is not a material planning consideration. The revised plans now show 10m to the rear boundary, 17m to the nearest point of the rear of 78 Bridge Road & 21m to the furthest point at the rear of 78 Bridge Road. Further plans are required, showing the location of the windows at the rear of 78 & 80 Bridge Road, to confirm that there will be no loss of privacy or outlook from these properties, although it appears that the recommended distances can be met. Building Control advise me that it should be possible to flash over the gap between 4 Beeby Road and the proposal site and to seal in the sides adequately to prevent any future maintenance problems. I have therefore recommended a condition requiring a scheme to be submitted, showing further details of how this can be achieved. The poplar tree is not protected by a tree preservation order. However the expected life span is between 80 � 90 years for this tree type. It is estimated to be around 40 years old and is in good condition for its age and tree type. It is likely that some of the roots could be damaged by the proposal, since roots often extend beyond distances in excess of the height of the tree. The minimum distance that British Standard 5837 recommends for construction work close to trees would be around 5.3m for this type of tree. There is slightly more than this distance within the park. Potential damage would however, barely be within the accepted levels. The proposal should therefore be built as far away from the tree as is possible. Its close proximity to 4 Beeby Road is therefore beneficial in terms of minimising the effect on the tree. In order to prevent any future damage to the foundations of the proposed house, the proposal would need to be built to take into account the close proximity of the tree. This is a matter for Building Regulation approval. The potential impact of the tree on the amenity of the occupants of the proposed dwelling also needs to be assessed. However, since it is on the north of the property and is also at the side of the proposed house, it should have little impact on light to the property and should not result in loss of residential amenity to the occupants of the proposed property. Design Guidance that has been prepared for the site referred to improvements being made to the park, which were to be required by section 106 agreement. However, I have recommended a condition that requires a scheme of improvements to be submitted. A note to applicant indicates the type of requirements that are envisaged. The Design Guidance also required side windows to provide surveillance of the park.


22

These have been required to be provided in the further amended plans that have been requested. Recommendation I therefore recommend that SUBJECT TO THE RECEIPT OF SATISFACTORY REVISED PLANS, this application be APPROVED, subject to the following conditions:- CONDITIONS 1. (0101) START WITHIN FIVE YEARS 2. (0301) MATERIALS (WALLS AND ROOF) TO BE AGREED (%) (H6) 3. Before the development is begun, a scheme shall be submitted and agreed

in writing by the City Council as Local Planning Authoriy, showing proposed improvements to the adjacent pocket park. The scheme shall be implemented in the next available planting season and within 1 year of being agreed.

(In the interest of visual amenity and in accordance with Policy H6 of the City of Leicester Local Plan).

4. The parking area shall be provided at the same time as the remainder of

the development and shall be retained and kept available for use. (To ensure that parking can take place in a satisfactory manner; and in

accordance with policy T12 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.) 5. (0205) PROVISION OF FOOTWAY CROSSING(S) (%) (T29) 6. (0207) REINSTATE REDUNDANT FOOTWAY CROSSINGS 7. Before the development commences, a scheme shall be submitted,

showing a scheme to prevent any future maintenance problems in the gap between the proposal and 4 Beeby Road.

(In the interest of residential amenity and in accordance with Policy H6 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.)

NOTES FOR APPLICANT 1. The scheme refered to in condition no.3 should include general

improvements such as additional planting along the new boundary wall and for example of spring bulbs and the replacement or improvement of the seating and any other similar scale general improvements.

2. The Beeby Road nature area is used by foraging by bats. It is therefore

likely that they are roosting in adjoining buildings. All bat species are protected under International as well as National legislation. To knowingly harm or disturb a bat is a serious offence which can carry a heavy fine or prison senteance.

It is therefore advised that before demolition takes place, a survey for bats is carried out. If bats are present, a licence from English nature will be


23

required, before any work is carried out that could harm or disturb the bats or their roosts.

The survey should be carried out as soon as possible, as they are usually only done in the summer months. It is recommended that a professional survey is commissioned .

English Nature should be able to supply a list of ecological consultants. Further advice is available from Helen Powell at English Nature, tel 01475 84800; The Leicestershire Bat Group c/o Jenny Harris tel 0116 2702999; New Walk Museum - contact Jan Dawson, tel 0116 2473030.

OTHER APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL 20011006 6 COPLOW AVENUE 18/06/2001 AREA: E WARD: Stoneygate DEV ONE DWELLING(AMENDED PLANS) FJD MR S PATEL

Introduction The existing bungalow is situated on the eastern side of Coplow Avenue close to the junction with Evington Lane, in a predominantly residential area. The adjoining dwellings are detached. At the rear of the proposed development is 14 Southview Drive, a semi-detached dwelling. The Proposal It is proposed to demolish the existing bungalow at no.6 and to construct a two �storey, five-bedroom detached dwelling measuring 17.5m in depth and 9.5m in width. The existing garage to the side will also be demolished and a new garage built at the rear of the garden. The existing access will remain.


24

The original proposal has been amended to reduce the depth of the house, reduce the height of the garage and to remove first floor windows to the side which would have overlooked the adjoining property no.4. Development Plan Policies H6 Within the Primarily Residential Areas, permission normally granted for

residential development, subject to criteria. EN18 Extensions to houses should normally match the existing house in

materials, roof form, scale and proportion of openings. Policy Considerations Policy H6 of the City of Leicester Local Plan states that within primarily residential areas planning permission will normally be granted for development for residential purposes except where, amongst other considerations, a plot is too small to accommodate a dwelling satisfactorily; it would be likely to prove detrimental to the amenities of occupiers of nearby properties by reason of substantial loss of privacy or light; the proposed access to the site or car parking arrangements are unsatisfactory; or its design is unsatisfactory. Appendix 5 of the local plan contains criteria to be used in determining applications for new residential development. Consultations None Representations Occupiers of adjoining properties were notified of the application. One letter has been received from the occupier of no.4 who objects to the proposal on the grounds that the first floor windows to the side would overlook into her amenity space, and that the construction of the new garage should not leave any gaps in the boundary fence. Consideration As the site is within a primarily residential area, a two-storey dwelling is acceptable in principle. Apart from a handful of bungalows the street consists of primarily semi-detached properties with a scattering of detached houses. The original proposal would have had a significant detrimental impact upon the quality and quantity of light received by no 4, and the first floor side windows would have resulted in an unacceptable level of overlooking. I believe these problems have now been overcome by the redesigning of the house so that the overall depth is reduced and the side windows removed. Light into the 1st floor room will now be via rooflights. The outlook of the adjoining dwellings will be different as a result of the proposal but I do not believe that it will be significantly worse. The size, location and the design of


25

the garage is acceptable and is unlikely to have any detrimental effect on adjoining occupiers. Access and car parking arrangements are also acceptable and there is unlikely to be any significant change in the level of traffic as a result of this proposal. Adequate garden space would remain for a dwelling of this size. Given the size of the proposal, I am concerned about any future extensions to the property which may have an adverse impact upon the character and amenity of the area. I gave therefore recommended a condition to remove permitted development rights. The overall design, scale and massing of the revised proposal is much more sympathetic to its surroundings and is therefore significantly more acceptable than the original proposal. I consider the proposal is unlikely to have any significant detrimental impact upon the character or the residential amenity of the area. I recommend APPROVAL subject to the following conditions: CONDITIONS 1. (0101) START WITHIN FIVE YEARS 2. (0301) MATERIALS (WALLS AND ROOF) TO BE AGREED (%) (H6 and

EN18) 3. Despite the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Genneral

Permitted Development) Order 1995, no enlargement, improvement or other alteration to any dwellinghouse of types specified in part 1 Class A1 and B1 of Schedule 2 to that Order shall be carried out without expres planning permission having previously been obtained(The form of development is such that work of these types may be visually unacceptable or lead to an unacceptable loss of amenity to occupiers of neighbouring properties.)

4. (0903) PLANS AMENDED (AMENDED BY; RECEIVED ON) NOTE FOR APPLICANT 1. Condition 3 refers to alterations/extensions that you are normally allowed to

carry out to houses without planning permission. In this case the City Council wants to be able to control any alterations and extensions to preserve the appearance of the property or protect the amenities of neighbouring properties. You should contact the City Council's Development Control Section (telephone (0116)2527249) if you are considering such works.


26

OTHER APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL 20011035 371 UPPINGHAM ROAD 25/06/2001 AREA: E WARD: Coleman RMS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (ONE 2-STOREY DETACHED

HOUSE AND FIVE DETACHED BUNGALOWS) AS HOLMFIELDS LTD

Introduction This application relates to the entire site of a detached bungalow (371 Uppingham Road) and part of the rear gardens of 369 and 373. The site is located within a primarily residential area. Background Planning permission was granted in July 1999 in outline for residential development (6 dwellings and access drive). The siting of the dwellings and means of access were approved at that time. The development consisted off a detached house with an integral garage fronting Uppingham Road with five bungalows to the rear off a private drive. The garages for the bungalows include three attached garages to the rear of 369 Uppingham Road and two attached garages to the rear of 373 Uppingham Road. A detailed design scheme for the 6 properties was also approved. The existing bungalow would be demolished. The Proposal The application is for reserved matters for the outline permission. The applicant has submitted details of design, external appearance and a landscaping scheme for approval. Further details of the access road have also been submitted. Development Plan Policies EN17 Infill development in housing areas should normally conform to the

prevailing scale, density, site coverage and materials. H6 Within the Primarily Residential Areas, permission normally granted for

residential development, subject to criteria. H8 New residential development density should normally be compatible with

the area. Higher densities may be appropriate in some cases. H9 Proposals for backland development should comply with criteria.


27


28

Policy Considerations Appendix 5 of the City of Leicester Local Plan provides guidance for new housing development referring to minimum distances in order to safeguard privacy and outlook. Consultations The Environment Agency has been consulted with regards to the plans submitted detailing ground investigation works as the site lies within 250 metres of a land fill site. The Agency has no objections in principal to the proposal. Representations Three letters of objection have been received from the occupiers of 367 Uppingham Road. They are concerned that the rear gardens in that area are prone to flooding and query what measures are to be done to overcome that problem. They have concerns with regards to road safety in that there would be an increase in traffic onto Uppingham Road. They consider that the proposal would increase noise levels, reduce privacy, and change the character of the area. They also consider that the trees to the back of the site on the embankment would overshadow the proposed bungalows and may be felled in the future. Consideration The applicant has submitted details of a drainage scheme and Severn Trent Water, and the Environment Agency are aware of the proposal and have no objections. The details/design of the access road is now acceptable and takes into account sight lines to the site. The trees to the rear of the site along the former Tilton railway line are protected by a tree preservation order and permission would be required for any works to the those trees. The existing rear elevations of the neighbouring houses would be over 40 metres away from the front elevation of the proposed bungalows and I therefore consider there would be a minimal amount of loss of privacy to those properties. I considered at the outline stage that the proposal is not contrary to Policy H9 for Back land development. I consider the development is comprehensive in that a private drive is the only means of access off this part of Uppingham Road and that the maximum number of dwellings can only be 5. Further development to the east of the site would de restricted due to the decreasing garden depth of the existing properties, whilst to the west of the site separate access may be feasible off Ambassador Road. The design of the properties is principally the same as previously approved. The properties would be constructed in red brick with a grey tiled roof and white upvc windows. A comprehensive landscaping scheme has been submitted and is in keeping with the surrounding area. The boundary treatment would consist of retaining existing hedging and planting new. I consider that the design, external appearance and landscaping scheme of the proposed development is in keeping with the surrounding area and that it is


29

sufficient distance away from the neighbouring properties that it would not adversely effect the amenities they currently enjoy. I also consider that the proposed development is not contrary to policies or guidelines contained in the Local Plan. I recommend APPROVAL subject to the following conditions: CONDITIONS 1. (0111) START BY - RESERVED MATTERS 2. (0201) SIGHT LINES TO ACCESS (%) (H6) 3. (0205) PROVISION OF FOOTWAY CROSSING(S) (%) (H6) 4. (0206) ALTERATIONS TO FOOTWAY CROSSING(S) (%) (H6) 5. (0812) TURNING SPACE WITHIN SITE (%) (H6) 6. (0813) PARKING SPACES TO BE RETAINED 7. No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a

scheme for the provision of surface water drainage works has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The drainage works shall be completed in accordance with the details and timetable agreed.

(To prevent the increased risk of flooding by ensuring the provision of a satisfactory means of surface water disposal).

NOTES FOR APPLICANT 1. The applicant should contact Mr Limbachia at Severn Trent Water on 0116

234 3503 prior to any connections to the public sewers. 2. With regards to conditions for the provision and alterations to footway

crossings, the applicant must contact the Highways Management Team on Direct line 0116 252 6543 for written approval for details on construction and contractors prior to commencement of works on the highway.


30

OTHER APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL 20011072 8 WHITEHALL ROAD 27/06/2001 AREA: E WARD: Evington DEV TWO STOREY AND SINGLE STOREY EXTENSION AT FRONT;

TWO STOREY EXTENSION AT SIDE; SINGLE STOREY EXTESION AT REAR OF HOUSE:DORMER WINDOW TO REAR.(AMENDED PLANS)

AS NEIL HARRISON

Introduction This application relates to a detached house located within a primarily residential area. The Proposal The applicant proposes to extend the property to the front at single and two storey level to form an extension to the existing garage and study on the ground floor with a first floor extension above. A two storey side extension is proposed to the west side enlarging existing rooms with a single storey rear extension which would stretch across the entire width of the house. To the rear a dormer window is proposed. Development Plan Policies EN18 Extensions to houses should normally match the existing house in

materials, roof form, scale and proportion of openings. H6 Within the Primarily Residential Areas, permission normally granted for

residential development, subject to criteria. Policy Considerations


31

Further guidelines are contained in appendix 5 which states side extensions should have a roof which matches that of the main house in form, slope and material. It goes on to state that where the street scene consists of a row of houses with relatively small spaces between them, a series of two storey extensions built up to the side boundary of each plot is likely to create a �terraced� effect. To help reduce this effect side extensions should be set back from the front wall of the original house by at least 1 metre. If this dimension would not accommodate an existing or proposed garage the setback can begin at first floor level. There are further guidelines contained in appendix 5 which state for detached houses extensions deeper than 2.4 metres may be acceptable but should not intersect a 45° line taken from the centre of the window of the adjacent house closest to the boundary. Representations One letter of objection has been received from the occupier of the neighbouring property, 6 Whitehall Road. They consider the proposed side extension would affect the light in their living room. They also object to the proposed front extension as they consider it will detract from the appearance of the house and that it would also affect the appearance and light to their own house. They have concerns with regards to the parking a van and they consider that there is insufficient room to park the van off the highway. They are further concerned about the level of work proposed and the amount of time it would take to build. These concerns are not a material planning consideration. Consideration There is an existing garage to the east side which is to be extended to the front by 1.5 metres and to the rear. The rear part would be a covered way retaining the side boundary fence to 6 Whitehall Road. The two storey front extension would be 2.7 metres from the side boundary with 6 Whitehall Road. The single storey rear extension would have a depth of 4 metres at its deepest and would be 2.7 metres from the side boundary with 6 Whitehall Road. The remainder of the single storey rear extension would have a depth of 2.4 metres and would be built up to the side boundary with 10 Whitehall Road. The two storey side extension has been amended by straightening the side elevation and pulling it away slightly from the boundary. 6 Whitehall Road is a bungalow which is set deeper into the rear garden and has a flat roofed single storey rear extension. There are a number of windows on the side elevation which are obscure glazed and would be 2.7 metres away from the rear extension. 10 Whitehall Road is a semi detached house which is set closer to the highway than 8 Whitehall Road, therefore �terracing� would not occur in this instance if no. 10 were to extend to the side. The design of the extension is not ideal but acceptable and it is proposed to render the elevations to match the existing. The driveway length after development would


32

be 5 metres and I recommend a condition to restrict the type of garage door that can be fitted. I consider the proposed dormer window to be acceptable. I consider the proposed extension to be sufficient distance away from the adjacent properties as not to have an unreasonable effect upon the amenities currently enjoyed by the occupiers of those properties. I also consider that the proposed extension is not contrary to policies or guidelines contained in the local plan. I therefore consider the proposed extension as amended to be acceptable. I recommend APPROVAL subject to the following conditions: CONDITIONS 1. (0101) START WITHIN FIVE YEARS 2. (0305) WALLS AND ROOF TO MATCH (%) (EN18) 3. (0816) GARAGE/CAR PORT FITTED WITH DOOR (TYPE) (roller shutter,

sliding or inward opening door) 4. (0901) AMENDMENTS RECEIVED ON (DATE) (14/8/2001)


33

OTHER APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL 20011083 143 SHANKLIN DRIVE 29/06/2001 AREA: E WARD: East Knighton DEV SINGLE STOREY EXTENSION AT SIDE & REAR OF HOUSE

(AMENDED PLANS) MS DR'S LEATHER & RABBIT

Introduction The application site comprises a semi-detached house and garden situated on the north side of Shanklin Drive, which is characterised by semi-detached houses with long gardens. The site is situated within a �primarily residential area� as defined in the City of Leicester Local Plan. The Proposal The proposal involves the construction of a single-storey extension at the side of the house to form a utility/wc and a cloaks/drying area, served by a timber framed, glazed entrance porch with access from the rear. The extension would have a lead roll roof. The second element of the proposal consists of a living room with double glazed roof and rear wall with timber verticals, set between the existing kitchen wall and a new wall constructed close to the boundary with 141 Shanklin Drive. Both extensions would have shallow pitched roofs; the roof of the side extension being set behind a parapet wall at either end, and the roof of the rear extension sloping towards the new wall adjacent to No 141. Development Plan Policies EN18 Extensions to houses should normally match the existing house in


residential development, subject to criteria.


34

Further criteria for house extensions are contained in Appendix 5 of the City of Leicester Local Plan. Consultations None Representations A letter of objection has been received from the adjoining owner at No 141, in which the following points are raised:- • the precise dimensions of the extension are not detailed or calculable from the

drawing due to the disclaimer on the plan, which prevents a full evaluation of the extent of the proposed building works;

• the accuracy of the measurements of the property (No141) are questioned, in particular the position shown for the French door, given that the architect did not request access to the property;

• there would be reduced daylight to the property should the extension be built given that there is already a significant reduction caused by the two-storey extension built at No 139 on the other side;

• no materials are shown for the finish of the dividing wall; • according to the Land Registry the existing boundary fence is in the ownership of

No 141; and • consent would not be forthcoming for any part of the construction to be built on or

over the property (No 141), including foundations, gutters or eaves, drainage works, downpipes, sewerage connections etc.

In addition to the above, concerns are raised about the plans showing insufficient detail to obtain building regulation approval and not including cross sections, or details of foundations, drainage or any wall plates. Consideration The proposed side extension would be set about 1 metre from the boundary fence with No 145 allowing pedestrian access along the side, and would replace an existing carport which extends to the boundary. The front wall of the extension would be positioned back from the front wall of the main house to leave sufficient driveway space for 2 vehicles to park clear of the highway. The rear living room extension is an innovative design, enclosing the space between the external kitchen wall, which extends some 5 metres from the main wall of the house, and a new wall 2.4 metres in length built close to the boundary with No 141. The glass roof would slope towards the boundary where the wall would be in the form of a parapet. The height of this wall adjacent to the neighbouring boundary would be some 2.9 metres above ground level. The City Council�s guidance on house extensions advises that a single storey extension built on or close to the boundary of an adjoining house will in most cases be acceptable if up to 2.4 metres deep. Although a 45 degree line from the centre of


35

the French door to the living room at the rear of the adjoining property marginally intersects the proposed extension, the length of the side wall is in accordance with the guidelines and would be acceptable in this instance. Appraisal of the proposal from within the living room and the garden of No 141, confirms that there would be no significant adverse effect on the adjoining occupiers in terms of loss of daylight or overshadowing. I understand that a dimensioned drawing has been given the next door neighbour, but notwithstanding this, the drawings as submitted are to scale and a proper assessment of the proposal has been possible. The grant of planning permission would give no common law rights to the applicant to encroach on the adjoining property. The more detailed constructional matters to which the next door neighbour refers, would be dealt with under building regulations and are not necessary in the consideration of the planning application. Although the asymmetric shape is an unusual design, it is a light structure that would complement, rather than dominate the more traditional character of the main dwelling. Both elements of the proposal would comply with the relevant policies of the Local Plan. I therefore recommend APPROVAL subject to the following conditions. CONDITIONS 1. (0101) START WITHIN FIVE YEARS 2. Before the development is begun the materials and colour finish to be used

for the external walls shall be agreed in writing between the applicant and the City Council as local planning authority.

(In the interests of visual amenity, and in accordance with policy(ies) EN18 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.)

3. (0903) PLANS AMENDED (AMENDED BY; RECEIVED ON) (Drawing Nos

L14(-)03D and 04; 20 July 2001) NOTES FOR APPLICANT 1. (1307) NO PERMISSION FOR DEVELOPMENT OUTSIDE SITE 2. (1315) DEVELOPMENT ADJACENT TO BOUNDARY


36

OTHER APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL 20011106 DE MONTFORT STREET/LANCASTER ROAD 01/08/2001 AREA: C WARD: Castle DEV 650 BED STUDENT ACCOMMODATION. 220 SQ METRES

RETAIL.(AMENDED PLANS). HLB SOWDEN GROUP

Introduction This application is for the redevelopment of the cleared site of nearly 0.4 hectares at the corner of Lancaster Road and De Montfort Street. The site slopes from east to west, down to Lancaster Road. The Midland Main Line railway runs parallel to the north boundary of the site beyond a 2-storey car park which has access from both Lancaster Road and Regent Road. To the east of the application site is the recently built Barclay�s Service Centre. On the opposite side of De Montfort Street is open space around Regent College. To the south of Lancaster Road is the Fire Station and its 2-storey houses, all listed Grade II. The site is within an area allocated primarily for office use in the City of Leicester Local Plan. Background The site was formerly part of a larger site on the north side of De Montfort Street extending from Regent Road to Lancaster Road, including the car park at the rear, and serving as the main Gas Board offices. Since the Premises were vacated by the Gas Board, the Regent Road building has been refurbished and reoccupied as offices, and the central building on De Montfort Street has been redeveloped for use by Barclay�s as a service centre. The remaining building, on the application site, was demolished this year.


37

The Proposal The application is for the redevelopment of the site for flats for students and �key workers� , providing 658 bed spaces in 2, 3, 5 and 6 bed cluster flats and 49 in studio flats. The buildings range from 7 to 15 stories, with the highest blocks on the northern boundary alongside the car park, parallel to the railway. The block on the corner of De Montfort Street and Lancaster Road, overlooking the listed Fire Station and its houses, would be 9 stories high. The main entrance to the flats is on this corner. A wide gateway on De Montfort Street provides access for pedestrians and cyclists into a central landscaped courtyard. A small retail unit is proposed on the Lancaster Road frontage. Materials would be light coloured, tying in closely with the Barclay�s building further up De Montfort Street. The main body of the development would be a combination of buff blockwork and metallic silver, micro-rib cladding panels. The stairwells are to be rendered and coloured blue, as a contrast. The corner blocks have feature roof structures and different cladding forms to the topmost storeys. An existing access to the car park at the rear of the development site would also act as a route for service vehicles and for deliveries to the retail unit. Although not within the application site, the ground floor of the car park would be available for use by the occupants of the new development, providing space for 74 cars and 90 cycles. Development Plan Policies EN3 Development adjoining public spaces or thoroughfares must provide

positive and attractive built frontages. EN5 High quality modern design normally permitted where existing surroundings

have been taken into consideration. EN10 Development affecting the setting of listed buildings will not normally be

approved if it would have a detrimental effect. EN20 In new buildings, shop front design to be an integral part of the design of

the whole building. EN34 Tall buildings will be permitted where they meet specified design and

locational criteria. EN40 Prominent ventilation and mechanical plant not normally approved. Also a

material consideration in applications for change of use. H3a The Council will encourage a variety of housing types and densities to meet

all needs, and the provision of affordable housing. H5 Permission normally granted for residential development for student

accommodation near university and polytechnic campuses. H8 New residential development density should normally be compatible with

the area. Higher densities may be appropriate in some cases. H14 Permission normally granted for new flats and conversion to self-contained

flats, flatlets or cluster flats, subject to criteria. S8 Retail development outside Central Shopping Core will normally be

confined to shopping centres shown on the Proposals Map. T12 Permission not normally granted unless adequate provision for parking of

vehicles including cycles off the highway. T16 Specified provision for the parking of bicycles for employees and users of

facilities will be expected in new developments.


38

T17 Bicycle parking facilities to be provided in a form and location allowing surveillance, improving security for cycles and people.

T20 Non-residential development will normally be expected to include loading and manoeuvring space within the site.

T15 Permission not normally granted for car parking where safety provision inadequate, including pedestrians and vehicle security.

T29 Development shall create a safe and convenient environment for pedestrians on paths within the site and on footways alongside.

T30 New road schemes to provide easy and safe crossing facilities for pedestrians, wheelchair users and cyclists.

T31 Traffic managemen measures to be introduced away from major roads to improve conditions especially for pedestrians and cyclists.

EN55 New developments should have a high standard of landscaping. Full and accurate details should be submitted.

Policy Considerations The Environmental policies ensure that the quality of new development does justice to its setting, particularly where in conjunction with other sensitive neighbours such as listed buildings. Tall buildings need careful scrutiny because of their prominence and visibility from a distance. The Housing policies relate to the need to provide different types of accommodation for different groups of people, and to ensure that the accommodation is of a high standard and meets identified criteria. Consideration must be given to the need to provide affordable housing in the city. The Shopping policy restricts new retail development to sites identified in the Local Plan. The Traffic policies cover the need to provide an acceptable level of parking for both vehicles and cycles, to ensure that the location is secure and safe for the users, and to provide servicing within the site. Consultations The statutory consultees were notified, and the application was presented to the Conservation Advisory Panel. No representations have been received. CAP considered that the new building would not adversely affect the setting of the listed buildings on the opposite side of Lancaster Road: the two developments were quite separate, and the one would not impinge on the other. Severn Trent asked for a slight adjustment to the siting of the building at the north west corner to avoid a main sewer. The Police Architectural Liaison officer asked for specific security measures for windows and doors and, if possible, for CCTV over the whole site. Representations The application was advertised in the press, and by site notices on Lancaster Road and De Montfort Street. Adjoining and nearby occupiers, including residents on that


39

part of Lancaster Place opposite the development, were notified directly. I have received 10 individual objections and a petition with 57 names from the Lancaster Place Residents� Association, mostly from Lancaster Place. The issues raised include: a) a 12 storey building would dwarf the listed buildings on the opposite side of

the road, and conflicts with the City Council�s �tall buildings� policy in relation to its effect on the setting of a listed building;

b) an inappropriate building affecting the setting of the listed buildings; design not sympathetic to buildings on opposite side of road;

c) lack of garden area around the new building; d) loss of privacy from overlooking of houses and gardens from a high

building; e) noise and disturbance from large number of students, and effect on the

present tranquil area; likelihood of disturbance late at night; f) possible disturbance from students taking a short cut through Lancaster

Place past the houses to the University; unsociable behaviour; g) noise from heating and ventilation systems; h) lack of any parking; i) polluting effect of cars if all 650 occupants had one; j) need for new developments to be environmentally friendly; k) lack of information about retail unit; l) failure of scheme to take account of Local Plan and its policies; m) safety issues, so close to a busy fire station; n) devaluation of property. These issues, apart from the possible devaluation of property, which is not a material planning consideration, will be covered in the appropriate sections of the report below. Consideration The site is allocated in the Local Plan for primarily office use. Policy H 5, however, states that accommodation specifically for students would be acceptable in the vicinity of the two universities, subject to the constraints of the particular site and to criteria applicable to all housing development. Leicester University campus is less than 300 metres from the application site and therefore well within walking or cycling distance of the proposed accommodation. I consider that the principle of the use of this site for student housing is appropriate and in line with the Local Plan policy. Concern has been expressed by the occupiers of the houses on Lancaster Place about the possible noise and disturbance from large number of students on their way to and from the University, some of whom currently take a short cut from the former allotments and car park to Lancaster Road. The main entrance to the flats would be on the corner of De Montfort Street and Lancaster Road, encouraging the use of the main road rather than the route through the houses. Lancaster Close is not a public highway and closure of the rear accesses into Lancaster Close would effectively control misuse, but is not in the hands of the applicants. The small retail unit, less than 200 sq metres, would probably serve as a �corner shop� for the occupants of the building and residents on Lancaster Road, although I have no information on the goods to be sold, nor could I recommend conditions to restrict the range of goods for such a small unit. Deliveries would be from an access


40

to the courtyard off the car park access, and goods would be taken by trolley across the courtyard to the rear of the retail unit. This is a major development on a prominent site in an attractive part of the city. The development consists of 8 linked blocks, varying in height from 7 storeys on part of the De Montfort Street frontage to 15 storeys on the north side overlooking the car park and railway. The corner block, closest to the listed fire station and houses, would be 9 storeys with a roof feature bringing it up to a maximum height of 29 metres. The fire station tower is 25 metres, the same as the corner block without the roof. I have looked at the relationship between the new development and the listed buildings. The new is uncompromisingly modern in design and materials but is sufficiently far away from the old not to have any adverse effect. The original submitted scheme has been amended, slightly reducing the height of the corner block and redistributing the accommodation in the other blocks to maximise the height on the north boundary. This has the benefit of making the development more visible from and across the railway and presenting a better frontage to the adjoining streets. Although higher than the Barclay�s building to the east, the architectural styles are compatible and the materials will unify these two new developments on the north side of De Montfort Street. Residents on Lancaster Close are concerned about the loss of privacy from overlooking from the high building. The windows of the nearest house would be at least 40 metres from the new development, and thus sufficiently far away to maintain privacy. The gardens of those houses closest to Lancaster Road would be overlooked from the upper floors of that frontage. Again, however, I consider the houses and the new development to be far enough apart for the intrusion to be minimal, although the perception of being overlooked may persist. I do not consider that this issue would justify any further reduction in the height of development on this site. The internal courtyard would be paved and with soft landscaping, and be free of vehicles. There is sufficient space around the building to provide further landscaping which would be detailed later, and is covered by conditions. The development would significantly improve surveillance over the adjoining streets from the ground floor flats, the manager�s office, the shop and the students� common room. On the other hand, the flats are sufficiently far from the footway to maintain privacy. There is no car parking provided within the application site. The applicants would, however, have a lease of the ground floor of the adjoining car park which would provide 74 car park spaces and an enclosed, secure cage for cycles. The car park exists and this portion is surplus to the requirements of the other users of the former Gas Board site. I consider that some parking for such an intensive development is necessary, but that this provision is sufficiently low to discourage the use of private transport here. There would be no increase in the amount of parking over that available when the whole site was occupied by the Gas Board. I have recommended a condition to ensure that this parking area is always available for use by the occupants of the application building. Affordable Housing.


41

The initial application was for accommodation for students only. The Director of Housing has not asked for a contribution to affordable housing in applications for student housing in the past and confirmed that approach in this application. Following the initial submission, however, the applicants asked for the use of the building to be extended to �key workers�. This was defined as �employees of a public sector organisation a Health Trust

any other organisation providing essential services that are essential to the continuing sustainability of the local community and local economy.

I have no objection to the widening of the use, providing the principal occupants remain students. The applicants have agreed to accept a condition that no less than 50% of the flats should be occupied by students, leaving a possible maximum 85 units for occupation by key workers, defined by a further condition. The Director of Housing has now asked for a contribution to affordable housing on the basis that key workers are not a specified group in need of accommodation on the Council�s housing list, and accommodation in cluster flats is not appropriate for, nor in demand by those on the waiting lists. Central Government Guidance in PPG3 includes both students and key workers as groups which should be considered in the assessment of affordable and other housing needs. All accommodation is set out in the plans as cluster flats or single bed sits, only suitable for student or other residents representing a section of the population with distinct, if possibly short term housing needs. The development and occupation of this complex could release other family housing which is currently used by students and others living together, or reduce pressure on such housing in the future. The cluster flats could be modified in the future to provide larger self- contained flats, but their occupation would be limited to some degree by the lack of on-site parking and presence of students elsewhere in the complex. I have considered the Director of Housing�s request for a contribution to affordable housing but am of the view that it is not appropriate in this case: the two categories of occupants specified by the applicant have similar and compatible housing needs and are identified in Central Government Guidance for special consideration. Conclusion The proposed development is one of high quality in a prominent and sensitive location. It would provide accommodation primarily for the growing student population in a secure and pleasant environment. I have no objections to the scheme and recommend APPROVAL subject to the following conditions: CONDITIONS 1. (0101) START WITHIN FIVE YEARS 2. The 2 metre by 2 metre sight lines on each side of the vehicular access to

the car park shall be provided at the time of development and shall be retained.


42

(In the interests of the safety of pedestrians and other road users, and in accordance with policy T29 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.)

3. All streetworks shall be constructed in accordance with the Leicestershire

County Council's "Highway Requirements for Development". (To achieve a satisfactory form of development, and in accordance with

policy T29 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.) 4. Dropped kerbs and ramps, suitable for wheelchairs and prams, shall be

provided at the time of development in the footways at all pedestrian crossing points, at road junctions, and at footway crossings in accordance with details to be agreed in writing with the City Council as local planning authority.

(For the safety and convenience of pedestrians including disabled people and pram and wheelchair users; and in accordance with policy T29 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.)

5. Loading and unloading of goods for both the retail unit and the rest of the

development shall take place within the site; all delivery vehicles shall load/unload from the vehicle access into the courtyard, off the car park access; turning space for delivery vehicles shall be maintained at the head of this access as shown on the plans hereby approved. No vehicles shall go beyond the defined loading area, and goods shall only be taken across the courtyard by hand or by trolley.

(In the interests of highway safety and to maintain a safe vehicle-free courtyard for pedestrians, and in accordance with policies T20 and T29 of the City of Leicester Local Plan).

6. The development shall not be occupied unless and until the City Council

has sight of a deed which conveys the ground floor of the adjoining land coloured blue on plan 7098 P25 to the developer of the application site for use for car and cycle parking. The land with its parking shall be retained and made available at all times for use solely by the occupants of the development hereby approved.

(To ensure that adequate off-street parking for both cars and cycles is provided as part of this development in a secure location and under cover, and in accordance with policies T12, T16 and T17 of the City of Leicester Local Plan).

7. The development shall not be occupied until the following highway works

have been carried out to the satisfaction of the City Council as local planning authority:

a) the improvement of pedestrian crossing facilities at the junction of Lancaster Road and De Montfort Street;

b) the redesign of the vehicle crossover at the access to the car park to improve the safety of pedestrians.

(In the interests of highway safety and in particular to improve facilities for the increased numbers of pedestrians resulting from this development, and in accordance with policies T29, T30 and T31 of the City of Leicester Local Plan).


43

8. Before the development is begun details of the design and materials, with samples, for all external surfaces of the buildings, together with full details of the escape stair 2, the service/pedestrian entrance on the north elevation, and the high level service vents shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the City Council as local planning authority.

(In the interests of visual amenity, to ensure that the quality of materials and finishes is high and appropriate to the location of the building close to listed buildings, and in accordance with policies EN3, EN5, EN10 and EN34 of the City of Leicester Local Plan).

9. 50% of each type of accommodation unit shall be available at all times for

occupation by students in full-time study. Any surplus accommodation shall only be available to key workers and students/trainees in the following categories:

a) a Health Trust; b) a local authority; c) The Leicestershire Constabulary; d) the Fire Service; e) providers of public transport; f) any other public sector organisation which may subsequently be agreed

in writing between the applicant and the City Council as local planning authority.

(To ensure that the building is occupied by those groups of people who would otherwise have difficulty finding affordable accommodation in the area, and in accordance with policy H5 of the City of Leicester Local Plan).

10. No ventilation, heating, lift or other plant, nor any telecommunications

equipment shall be mounted on any part of the roof of the building. (In the interests of visual amenity, to maintain the uncluttered appearance

of the upper part of the building which will be visible from a distance, and in accordance with policies EN34 and EN40 of the City of Leicester Local Plan).

11. (0401) LANDSCAPING TO BE AGREED & CARRIED OUT: VERSION 1

(%) (EN55) (EN55)12. All trees on the highway around the site shall be protected from

damage during building operations, in accordance with details to be agreed in writing with the City Council as local planning authority.

(In the interests of amenity, and in accordance with policy EN55 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.)

13. Before the development is commenced a scheme for the lighting of the

access to the car park, the car park itself and the central courtyard of the development shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the City Council as local planning authority. The scheme shall identify lux levels on the ground, and the location and form of lighting columns and heads. The approved scheme shall be implemented before any part of the development is occupied.(In the interests of the safety and comfort of users of the development and in accordance with policy T29 of the City of Leicester Local Plan).


44

14. This consent shall relate to the amended plans received by the City Council as local planning authority on 5th September 2001, plan ref 7098 P01E, P02E, P03E, P04E, P05D, P06D, P07B, P08B, P09A, P10D, P11E, P12E, P13E, P14E, P15B, P16B, P17B, P18B, P19B, P23, P24, P25 and P26.

(For the avoidance of doubt). NOTE FOR APPLICANT 1. With regard to conditions 3, 4 and 7 above, works within the highway will be

involved. Prior to the commencement of such works, the applicant/developer will need to contact the Council's Highways Management Team (direct line 0116 252 6543) for written approval of construction and contractor details.

OTHER APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL 20011161 22 PLOVER CRESCENT 12/07/2001 AREA: W WARD: Beaumont Leys DEV TWO STOREY EXTENSION AT SIDE; SINGLE STOREY

EXTENSION AT REAR OF HOUSE GS MR TOMS

Introduction This application relates to a semi-detached house located on the south-west corner of Plover Crescent. Background The house is at the end of a row of semi-detached properties. At the side are the back gardens of houses on Chaffinch Close situated on land that slopes down from the application property. 3 Chaffinch Close is not directly perpendicular to the application property being at an angle of about 65º. The rear garden includes some high conifer trees near the boundary of 3 Chaffinch Close. To the rear 31 Swallowdale Drive is 23 metres from the rear of the application property.


45

The Proposal The application is for a two-storey side extension and a single storey rear extension. The rear extension will abut an existing rear extension on 20 Plover Crescent. It includes a mono pitch lean to roof. The two-storey side extension is 3.25metres wide and has a gable extending the existing roof plains. The gable wall would be approximately 1 metre from the boundary with 3 Chaffinch Close at the nearest point. The scheme would be flush with the front façade of the house. Development Plan Policies EN18 Extensions to houses should normally match the existing house in


residential development, subject to criteria. Policy Considerations Appendix 5 of the City of Leicester Local Plan gives detailed design criteria to ensure new housing and house extensions provide a satisfactory form of development. It includes amongst other things:

Side extensions should have a roof that matches that of the main house in form, slope and material.

Extensions should generally be constructed of materials to match the front wall should be set back 100mm unless a satisfactory match can be demonstrated. The following minimum distances should normally be respected in order to safeguard privacy and outlook:


46

Between facing windows of two storey houses where principal rooms will be overlooked: 21 metres. Changes of level may require an increase in this distance to maintain adequate privacy. Between facing windows of two storey houses and the gable ends of two-storey houses: 15 metres

Representations An objection from the occupier of 31 Swallowdale Drive at the rear refers to loss of natural light and privacy and impact on their property value. Consideration The proposed rear extension will not affect the outlook of the adjoining house due to the extension on that property. The two-storey extension will be a minimum of 23 metres from the rear of the objector�s property. It therefore accords with Appendix 5 criteria and will not have an unacceptable impact on light or privacy to the properties at the rear. The house is of recent construction and therefore I consider the materials used should be capable of an acceptable match. There are no terracing issues for this end house. The significant concern relates to the impact on the outlook of the properties to the side. The proposal is below the minimum distance guidelines for facing windows of two-storey houses and the gables of side properties. The top of the gable wall and the ridge will be visible above the existing trees. However, as the two houses are not directly facing the impact is reduced and the distance increases near the front of the application property to a maximum of 16.5 metres. The applicant has agreed to reduce the depth of the two storey side extension by 1 metre at the rear, slightly lowering the ridge height of the extension and reducing the impact at the side. SUBJECT TO THE RECEIPT OF ACCEPTABLE AMENDED PLANS I consider the proposal acceptable and recommend APPROVAL subject to the following conditions: CONDITIONS 1. (0101) START WITHIN FIVE YEARS 2. (0305) WALLS AND ROOF TO MATCH (%) (EN18) 3. (0903) PLANS AMENDED (AMENDED BY; RECEIVED ON)


47

OTHER APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL 20011198 35 BRAUNSTONE GATE 31/07/2001 AREA: W WARD: Westcotes COU CHANGE OF USE OF RETAIL SHOP WITH ANCILLARY

STORAGE (CLASS A1) TO BAR AND RESTAURANT(CLASS A3);ALTERATIONS TO FRONT ELEVATION; SINGLE AND TWO STOREY EXTENSION TO SIDE AND REAR; VENTILATION FLUE AT REAR.

BC BLUE PYRAMID INVESTMENTS Introduction The application site is a two storey vacant building on the corner of Earl Howe Terrace and the north side of Braunstone Gate. It is located within the Braunstone Gate Shopping area as defined in the Local Plan. The lawful use of the property is for a showroom\shop for the sale of soft furnishings, upholstery, fabrics and trimmings by retail and to the trade (no use class). At the time the consent was granted (19811514A) for its present use, a condition was attached to the approval restricting the use described above. The adjacent property is a food and drink outlet (Class A3). The rear of the application site backs onto car park servicing the MFI, Allied and Carpetwright warehouses. There are a number of food and drink outlets on Braunstone Gate and within close proximity of the application site on Narborough Road. There are houses on Bede Street, on the opposite side. The block plan shows existing A3 uses and other premises which have been granted consent for A3 uses, but which have not yet been implemented. Background The property was used as a public house until the early 1980�s. The Proposal The application is for the change of use of the showroom\shop (no use class) to a bar on the ground floor with a restaurant above (Class A3). A two-storey extension is proposed at the side and a single storey at the rear of the property. The proposal includes the use of part of the rear yard for a beer garden. The extensions will be constructed in materials to match the existing. Alterations to the front include the removal of the ground floor windows and door and replacement with a centrally positioned entrance door and large glazed windows on either side with balustrades in front. The ventilation flue will be directed through the building and project via a newly constructed chimney at the rear of the property. The proposed hours of use 1100 to 2300 hours Mondays to Saturdays. The A3 use proposes to employ 6 staff.


48


49

Development Plan Policies S11 Use of premises within shopping areas for Class A3 (Food and Drink)

normally permitted, but with exceptions. S12 Outside the Central Core, restrict opening hours for A3 (Food and Drink)

except where no detriment to residents. Policy Considerations S11 of the Local Plan suggests that change of use to Class A3 uses are acceptable in shopping areas except where this would be detrimental to residential amenity, cause unacceptable traffic problems, the addition of another A3 use within any particular shopping area or part of a shopping area would have a cumulative detrimental effect in terms of character or function. The Planning Committee considered a review of current policies and guidelines in March 1996, which resolved that there is a presumption in favour of Class A3 uses in shopping areas. The Committee further resolved that the standard hours of 0900 to 2300 Mondays to Saturdays are still appropriate but that some Sunday opening might be acceptable in some locations. Consultations None. Representations The occupiers of the neighbouring properties have been notified of the proposal and site notices have been posted in the vicinity. No representations have been received. Consideration The application property is situated within a shopping area as defined in the Local Plan; therefore I have no objection in principle to the proposed change of use. However, there are a number of existing Class A3 uses nearby the application site and I have some concerns that if all the outstanding consents for A3 uses, especially at 52 Braunstone Gate and 54 Braunstone Gate/8 Western Road are implemented, then it would have a detrimental impact on the character and function of this centre. However, Braunstone Gate Shopping Area is a small centre, which adjoins the Narborough Road and Hinckley Road Shopping Centre to form a larger centre, and if the number of existing and outstanding consents for A3 uses were consider then it could be argued that the proposal will not result in the concentration of A3 uses in the larger centre. On this basis, the proposal is unlikely to have a detrimental impact on the character and function of shopping area because the larger centre offers a good variety of other uses. I consider that this proposal is a borderline case and in light of the pending review of the SPG on A3 uses, I consider that it would be unreasonable to withhold consent for this reason. The premises are located within a busy shopping area where traffic and other activity remain high throughout the day and late into the evening. I consider that


50

activity from customers is unlikely to have a significant direct impact on the residential area of Bede Street. Activity within the building in my view is unlikely to have a direct impact on properties immediately to the side or rear, subject to satisfactory ventilation details. No off-street parking provision is provided. However, the property is within a busy shopping area where traffic and other activity are high throughout the day and into the evening. The restricted parking on Braunstone Gate will be available in the evening and the MFI car park is also available for customers visiting premises on Braunstone Gate. The traffic that is likely to be generated as result of the proposal is unlikely to be any greater than the former use, although they may be higher levels of evening traffic generated to the site. However, I have concerns that if all the outstanding consents are implemented there could be parking difficulties in the area. I have previously considered Braunstone Gate a location where Sunday opening to be acceptable. The proposed side and rear extensions are acceptable. However, I am concerned that the proposed alterations to the front elevation are likely to be detrimental to the appearance of the building. The existing windows have good attractive stone surrounds and should be retained. I have suggested to the agent that the design of the front elevation should be amended to retain the windows. I consider the siting of the flue acceptable, but the height of it is insufficient to adequately disperse cooking smells. I await amended plans. The applicant has agreed to amend the plans to keep the existing widows on the front elevations and to amend the height of the flue. I recommend APPROVAL SUBJECT TO SATISFACTORY AMENDED PLANS RECEIVED BEFORE THE MEETING, and the following conditions: CONDITIONS 1. (0101) START WITHIN FIVE YEARS 2. The premises shall be closed for business outside the hours of 0930 to

2300. (In the interests of residential amenity.) 3. The flue to the ventilation system shall terminate not less than 1m above

the main ridge of the primises and shall not incorporate a cowl. (To secure a satisfactory use of the premises and in accordance with policy

S11 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.) 4. (1006) NO NOISE/VIBRATION FROM VENTILATION SYSTEM (%) (S11) 5. (1007) VENTILATION SYSTEM INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED (%) (S11) 6. (0504) NO DETRIMENT FROM LIVE/AMPLIFIED MUSIC OR VOICE (%)

(S11)


51

OTHER APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL 20011262 ULVERSCROFT ROAD, BOSTIK 27/07/2001 AREA: E WARD: Latimer DEV EXTENSION TO WAREHOUSE SS BOSTIK FINDLEY

Introduction The application site lies on the north of Ulverscroft Road within a primarily employment area as defined in the local plan. To the north east of the site are residential properties on Harrington Street. The site is occupied by Bostic Findley Ltd. The Proposal It is proposed to construct an extension to the existing warehouse facing Martin Street which run along the northern boundary of the site. The proposed extension would measure 36m by 48m and would have pitched roof maximum 12.7m at ridge level. It would be constructed of profiled and coloured metal cladding and facing bricks to match the existing warehouse. The proposed extension would be attached to the existing warehouse by means of a 3.5m wide and 30m deep link. The north and south elevations would only have pedestrian access to the building, however, the east elevation would also have a roller shutter door. It is proposed to use an existing loading/unloading bay attached to the existing warehouse. Delivery vehicles use an existing access from Ulverscroft Road through an internal access road to reach the existing warehouse. It is envisaged that the existing arrangements will remain for the extended warehouse. There is an existing vehicular access with gates at the corner of Carter Street and Harrington Street. Development Plan Policies E2 Criteria for determining planning applications for the development or expansion of employment uses. Policy Considerations Policy E2 states that planning applications for the expansion of employment uses within, on the edge of or outside Primarily Employment Areas and Office Areas shall be subject to considerations of the effect on the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties caused by hours of working and street parking; the effect on the character of the local environment; and the generation of traffic.


52


53

Representations I have received a letter from an occupier of a residential property on Harrington Street objecting the proposal on the following grounds: • loss of sunlight and outlook; • the proposal will devalue the objector�s property (It is not a material planning

consideration); • Increase in noise and pollution if back gates were used by vehicles; • appearance of existing gates and the building would be an eyesore.

Consideration The applicant proposes a large extension which would add 1799 sqm floor space to the existing and would generate three additional jobs on site. The building would be only 30m from the boundary with residential properties on Harrington Street and it would likely to have additional impact on the outlook from residential properties. However, I am of the opinion that it would be unlikely to have a significant detrimental effect on light and outlook such as to warrant refusal. I have some concerns relating to use of roller shutter door in the east elevation, a condition restricting its use for loading and unloading can safeguard the amenities of the residential properties. The site has existing parking facilities and the applicant proposes to use the existing access arrangement for the extension. No new vehicular access from Harrington Road is proposed, therefore I do not consider that the residential properties would be effected by any additional traffic. Given that a link will be used to gain access to the proposed extension, I do not consider that the increase in activity would result in unreasonable significant noise, detrimental to the occupiers of residential properties on Harrington Street. The proposed building would be partially screened from Martin Street by trees. On balance I do not consider that the proposal would have significant detrimental effect on the amenities of the surrounding area or the proposal would be contrary to the objectives of the above policy. I consider it acceptable and recommend APPROVAL subject to the following conditions: CONDITIONS 1. (0101) START WITHIN FIVE YEARS 2. The new walls and roof shall be constructed in materials to match those of

the existing warehouse. (In the interests of visual amenity, and in accordance with policy E2 of the

City of Leicester Local Plan.) 3. The roller shutter door in the east elevation (facing residential properties on

Harrington Street) of the proposed building and the existing vehicular access from Carter Street shall not be used for loading/unloading purposes.


54

(In the interests of the amenities of the occupiers of nearby residential properties and in accordance with policy E2 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.)

OTHER APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL 20011273 36 OXFORD ROAD 30/07/2001 AREA: C WARD: Castle RMS THREE TERRACED HOUSES (RESERVED MATTERS FROM

PLANNING PERMISSION 20000568)(AMENDED PLANS) AP M M ELECTRICAL & SHOPFITTNG

Introduction The application site is currently occupied by a small part single, part two-storey commercial building on the east side of Oxford Road. This is within a Primarily Residential Area as defined within the City of Leicester Local Plan. There are terraced houses adjoining the site on each side and adjacent to the rear. Background Outline consent was granted in June 2000 (20000568) for residential development. The Proposal The applicants propose to build three terraced houses on the site. Development Plan Policies


55

EN17 Infill development in housing areas should normally conform to the prevailing scale, density, site coverage and materials.

H6 Within the Primarily Residential Areas, permission normally granted for residential development, subject to criteria.

Appendix Five of the City of Leicester Local Plan states that a minimum of 11 metres will normally be required between any elevation containing principal room windows and any site boundary other than a frontage to a highway, river or canal. Also, the minimum distance between facing windows of two storey houses where principal rooms will be overlooked should be 21 metres. The minimum distance between facing windows of two storey houses where overlooking of principal rooms is avoided by the design of the house type should be 18 metres. Where windows of two storey houses face the gable ends of two storey houses the minimum distance should be 15 metres. Where development takes place on infill sites within areas of older terraced houses, the roof pitch should reflect that of the surrounding properties. Representations I have received three letters of objection to the proposal. The objections include the proposed use of the alleyway to the rear of the site to provide access to the proposed gardens. The alleyway also serves properties on Edward Road. The objectors question whether the applicant has rights of access to use the alleyway. This is a legal issue that needs to be discussed between the applicants and the residents of Edward Road. The objectors are also concerned that the proposal to place the living rooms for the houses on the first floor at the rear will cause a loss of privacy to the rear of their houses. Concern has been raised regarding the loss of a mature tree located to the rear of 1 Edward Road and the high rear wall existing on the site. They are concerned that they will also lose security to their premises. The objectors consider the site is not large enough to contain the three houses proposed. Consideration The site is located within a primarily residential area and the principle of removing the industrial use currently occupying the site and replacing it with residential properties has already been approved. The site is restricted in terms of the distance between the proposed houses and the rear boundary of the site. There will be 7.2m between the rear elevation of the houses and the rear boundary. This is below the normally accepted 11m. Due to the existing layout of the area none of the properties have the minimum distance of 11m to the boundary or 21m between facing principal room windows. The three proposed terraced houses have been designed to be in scale with the surrounding terraced properties. The lengths of the houses are slightly shorter than the existing neighbouring houses. The width of the houses matches those existing on Oxford Road. The elevations onto Oxford Road match those of the existing


56

houses in design and scale including the roof height, design and materials, and the design and materials of the doors and windows. Although the proposal does not provide the normally required 11m distance to the boundary I consider the proposal for three houses on this site to be acceptable. I consider however the current proposal for the rear elevation of the houses to be unacceptable. The layout of the houses proposes the living rooms to be on the first floor facing the properties at the rear. The proposed use of normal windows at first floor level will cause a loss of privacy to the rears of the properties on Edward Road. However I consider that if the design of the rear elevation was amended the proposal could be considered acceptable. I have written to the applicants requesting that the roofline be amended to continue down to between ground and first floor level. This would remove the normal windows and replace them with roof lights. I have also requested that the internal arrangements of the houses be altered to remove the living rooms from the first floor. These amendments will I consider prevent overlooking and retain the privacy of the properties at the rear on Edward Road. I have also advised the applicants to remove the rear gates shown on the plan until the issue of the right of way is clarified and asked on behalf of the objector whether it is planned to remove the existing mature tree as part of the development. The development of the site for three terraced houses will I consider provide a secure development. There will be no additional access to the rear of the properties on Edward Road. Due to the restricted site I am recommending that a condition be imposed that prevents any further extensions to the property without the prior approval of the City Council as Local Planning Authority. I consider that SUBJECT TO ACCEPTABLE AMENDED PLANS BEING RECEIVED the application should be APPROVED subject to the following conditions: CONDITIONS 1. (0101) START WITHIN FIVE YEARS 2. (0207) REINSTATE REDUNDANT FOOTWAY CROSSINGS 3. (0301) MATERIALS (WALLS AND ROOF) TO BE AGREED (%) (EN17) 4. (0912) NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS/ALTERATIONS (CLASS; %)

(A,B,C,D,E and G; H6) 5. (0901) AMENDMENTS RECEIVED ON (DATE)


57

OTHER ITEMS 20010814 35-45 BLACKBIRD ROAD 18/05/2001 AREA: W WARD: St Augustine's DEV 75 FLATS (CLASS C3); ONE 3 & 4 STOREY BLOCK & ONE 3-

STOREY BLOCK; ACCESS FROM BLACKBIRD ROAD AND EGRESS ONTO BRADGATE STREET; ANCILLARY CAR PARKING (AMENDED PLANS)

BC BARRATT EAST MIDLANDS Introduction This application relates to the former Omega Works site (1.34 acres) located on the eastern side of Blackbird Road. Former buildings on the site have been cleared and it has been vacant for many years and is overgrown with vegetation. The site has two access points off Blackbird Road, and a separate access off Bradgate Street, which I understand was the main service access to the former works. The later is between a house and a detached bungalow on the north side of Bradgate Street. Bradgate Street is a mixture of residential and industrial premises. There are also residential properties on the south side of the application site on Blackbird Road and opposite. To the north is a tool hire and car sales dealership. There are 6 mature London Plane trees located in the highway verge on Blackbird Road. Background In November 1998 consent was granted for a car sales showroom including ancillary offices, workshops and storage facilities (use outside the use classes order), car sales forecourt, new vehicular access, customer and operational car parking and landscaping. This consent has not so far been implemented, expires in November 2003. The Proposal The amended proposal is for the development for 75 flats (Class C3) with access off Blackbird Road and egress onto Bradgate Street. 70 car parking spaces including disabled parking, secured covered cycle parking and bin stores are to be provided. Two blocks are proposed: one three and four storey fronting Blackbird Road (Block A) and the second a three storey block (Block B) at the rear of the site. The accommodation comprises 64 two-bed and 11 one-bed units with private amenity areas at the rear of each block. The scheme has been amended several times. The original scheme proposed 67 units with 75 spaces. The vehicular access width off Blackbird Road on the original scheme was 11m wide including the visibility splays. The width has been reduced to 5.4m wide. The overall height of block A for the 4-storey element has been reduced from 15m to 14m and the 3-storey part from 13m to 11.5m high. The height of Block


58


59

B has been reduced from 14m to 13m and the side wings from 12.5m to 11m high. The internal layouts of the flats have also been amended. The two blocks have pitched roofs and will be constructed in stone\bricks with tiled roofs. Development Plan Policies E4 Within Primarily Employment Areas permission normally granted for B1, B2

and B8 uses and not for changes to other land uses. H3a The Council will encourage a variety of housing types and densities to meet

all needs, and the provision of affordable housing. H8 New residential development density should normally be compatible with

the area. Higher densities may be appropriate in some cases. H14 Permission normally granted for new flats and conversion to self-contained

flats, flatlets or cluster flats, subject to criteria. H3b The Council will encourage the provision of access housing, normally close

to shops and public transport and on level ground. EN19 Design and layout of new housing development should satisfy criteria. T12 Permission not normally granted unless adequate provision for parking of

vehicles including cycles off the highway. T13 Car parking areas shall provide extra wide spaces for disabled drivers. T18 Permission not normally granted for development if unacceptable amount

of traffic generated. T19 Developers may be expected to contribute to the cost of improvements to

the transport system to enable development to take place. T35 The Council will promote the provision of a more efficient public transport

system and enhanced passenger facilities. R10 In residential developments, play and amenity open space to be provided.

Conditions or Agreements may be used to secure provision. Policy Considerations Planning Policy Guidance Note 1 encourages the development of brownfield sites such as this for residential use, and PPG 3 Housing encourages the provision of higher density housing and lower levels of parking provision. The site allocation is for employment use in the Local Plan. The Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) on Affordable Housing and Access Housing set out criteria for residential developments. Appendix 5 of the Local Plan gives guidance on space standards between dwellings and suggests a minimum of 21m between opposing principal room windows of houses on level ground and 15m to gable walls. Appendix 9 suggests one off-street parking space for 1-bed unit and two spaces for each 2-bed unit or 1.5 spaces where communal car parking is provided. The development would have required 113 spaces and 70 are provided, hence a shortfall of 43 spaces. However, parking standards were revised in 1998, when a report to the Environment & Development Committee altered the current standards


60

from being the minimum requirement, to being a bench mark of the number of car parking spaces that would be required. The criteria set out below should be used to assess individual cases on their merits: - • access by other means of transport; • the availability of alternative parking arrangements; • the benefits of imposing traffic constraint; • relationship to other nearby users; • anticipated levels of car use. However, insufficient parking provision in the absence of short to medium term alternatives will not be permitted, where unreasonable adverse effects on safety, amenity or traffic management are likely. Consultations The Director of Housing has stated that 30% affordable housing should be 8 units of low cost home ownership and 4 units for rent on the site, and a financial contribution of £192,000 to provide 8 units off site. Concerns were also expressed on the original scheme regarding the lack of accessibility of the buildings for persons with mobility problems. The Director of Arts Leisure Services opposes the alteration to the footway area beneath the trees to provide the new access into the site because the works are likely to damage the roots of the two trees and have a detrimental impact on the stability of the those trees. Severn Trent has no objection on the proposal. Representations The neighbouring properties were notified of the development, site notices were posted in the area and development was advertised as a departure and a major development in the press. Subsequently, the neighbouring properties, including the residents who made representation on the original application were re-notified of the first amended scheme. Original scheme The concerns contained in 3 letter of objection\representation on the original scheme (from the occupiers of 27 and 33 Blackbird Road) are: • welcomes the development of the waste land; • opposes the 3-4 storey blocks because they would block out light and result in

loss of privacy to garden areas to dwellings on Blackbird Road and Bradgate Street

• not in keeping with the surrounding area which is mainly two storey properties; • additional traffic on an already congested Blackbird Road; • concerns regarding the boundary treatment; • questions the type of flats to be provided, i.e. private, rented or others?


61

• would devalue the properties in the surrounding area (not a material consideration);

Councillor Bunce objects to the scheme on the grounds that the three storey flats fronting Blackbird Road will overlook residents on Blackbird Road and Bradgate Street. Concern is expressed about the entrance for vehicles off Blackbird Road because it is located on the bend where traffic is very fast moving. Councillor Walker has expressed concerns on behalf of his constituents that the 3-4 storey blocks fronting Blackbird Road are too high and will overlook surrounding properties and intrude on the privacy of the residents. It has been suggested that the 4-storey block be located further back into the site and away from Blackbird Road to overcome residents concerns. First amended proposal Further 2 letters (from 33 & 50 Blackbird Road) of objections as a result of the re-notification of the amended proposal, which contained the increased number of units, repositioning of the blocks and reduction in the height of the blocks. The grounds of objection are summarised as follows: • the scale of the development is out of character with the surrounding area; • would prefer houses; • the flats will be occupied by families with children and the busy road is likely to

result in accidents; • loss of privacy and overshadowing of garden areas; • additional noise from future occupiers using the car parking areas; Councillor Bunce remains concerned regarding the amended scheme for the same reasons as stated on the original proposal. Consideration I have no objection to this departure from the Local Plan as there is ample supply of employment land in the City. Government advice in PPG3 encourages the use of vacant and surplus industrial land for housing provisions. The main issues for considerations are the access and egress into the site, siting, scale and design of the buildings, financial contributions, and representations. One of the significant issues is the effect on the mature street trees, which are an important feature of this part of Blackbird Road. A new vehicular access is proposed between two existing trees fronting Blackbird Road. The existing accesses cannot be utilised for the development because it would impact on the siting of the buildings and circulation within the site. The scheme has been amended and reduces the width of the access. However, in my opinion the proposed excavation for the new access is likely to have a detrimental impact on the stability of the two street trees, and as such is unacceptable. I have suggested to the agent that an exploratory survey be commissioned to establish the extent of the root system of the trees below the access excavation area. The agent has confirmed that the survey has been commissioned and I will report on its findings at the meeting.


62

A one way circulation system will be provided within the site with access from Blackbird Road and egress onto Bradgate Street. I am satisfied that vehicular traffic generated by the development is unlikely to be any greater than the previous use. The application site is located on a major transport corridor where public transport is good. I therefore consider that the number of parking spaces is adequate to serve the development. However, the development is likely to generate an increase in pedestrian activity in the immediate vicinity and there are no suitable pedestrian crossing points across Blackbird Road opposite the site. Hence, off-site measures are required to improve and\or provide pedestrian facilities by hard paved areas across Blackbird Road, signing and lining at the junction of Blackbird Road and the gaps in the central reservation along Blackbird Road. Improvements will also be required to existing bus stops by providing bus shelters and timetable information to encourage the use of modes of transport other than the car. The details and relating financial contribution would form part of a Section 106 agreement The siting of the blocks have been amended to provide an attractive built form fronting Blackbird Road, and private amenity areas at the rear of each block adjacent to the surrounding dwellings. Adequate distances have been provided between windows of ground floor principal rooms and gable ends of the rear block on the application site and houses on Bradgate Street and Blackbird Road to ensure the impact on outlook from and amenity of the existing properties are minimised. The internal layout of the blocks, particularly the ground floors have been amended to comply with the SPG for access housing and to provide satisfactory standard of accommodation, which I welcome. The agent has confirmed that 30% of affordable housing will be provided with 8 units of low cost home ownership, 4 units for rent on the site, and a financial contribution of £192,000 to provide 8 units off site. A condition has been recommended to the consent for this element. The financial contribution for off site provisions will need to be covered by a Section 106 agreement. The site is likely to be contaminated and I have recommended conditions to cover this element. Residents and ward councillors concerns are mainly relating to the height and position of the blocks and the impact on residential properties on Blackbird Road Bradgate Street. The overall heights of the 3 and 4 storey blocks have been reduced and the position of the 4-storey block amended. The distance between the 3-storey rear block and 33 Blackbird Road (house adjacent to the application site) is approximately 39m and the gable end of the rear block to 73 Bradgate Street is approximately 28m. These distances are more than is necessary to maintain reasonable outlook and privacy to and from the proposed development to the existing dwellings and their gardens. The 4-storey element on the block fronting Blackbird Road is positioned in the centre of the site and the distance between the side boundary of the garden at 33 is approximately 22m. Blackbird Road is approximately 34m wide with a central reservation, and application site and the houses on the other side are well screened by the street trees. Overall, I consider the mass and scale of development acceptable and in keeping with the surrounding area. There is still the issue of adequate access off Blackbird Road to be resolved and I have advised the agent that this issue could potentially


63

lead to a recommendation of refusal of the submitted scheme. I hope that this matter can be satisfactorily resolved before the committee meeting. SUBJECT TO BEING SATISFIED ON THE OUTSTANDING MATTER ON THE ACCESS I recommend approval subject to the following CONDITIONS AND SUBJECT TO THE APPLICANT ENTERING INTO A SECTION 106 PLANNING AGREEMENT relating to financial contributions in respect of highway improvements and off-site affordable housing. CONDITIONS 1. (0101) START WITHIN FIVE YEARS 2. The applicant shall provide affordable units comprising eight low cost 2

bedroom\4 person flats with restrictive floorspace, four 2-bed 4 person flats for rent (to include ground floor provision to wheelchair standard).

(To contribute towards a satisfactory level of affordable housing and in accordance with Policy H3a of the Local Plan.)

3. Before development commences, the application site shall be subjected to

a detailed ground investigation. A site investigation report incorporating risk assessment shall be submitted to, and approved by the City Council as the local planning authority prior to the commencement of the development.

For all risks indentified by the assessment as being unacceptable for the proposed use and before the development commences detailed remidiation proposals shall be submitted to and approved by City Council as the local planning authority, and the approved measures shall be carried out prior to the occupation of the first unit on the development.

(To provide a satisfactory form of development.) 4. (0201) SIGHT LINES TO ACCESS (%) (T27) 5. (0205) PROVISION OF FOOTWAY CROSSING(S) (%) (T29 & T30; EN18) 6. (0207) REINSTATE REDUNDANT FOOTWAY CROSSINGS (EN55-EN61) 7. (0302) MATERIALS TO BE AGREED (FOR; %) (walls, roofs and boundary

walls\fencing; EN18) 8. (0401) LANDSCAPING TO BE AGREED & CARRIED OUT: VERSION 1

(%) (EN55) 9. (0402) LANDSCAPING TO BE CARRIED OUT (%) (EN55) 10. (0411) SURFACING/BOUNDARY TREATMENT ETC TO BE AGREED (%)

(EN55) 11. (0806) PETROL/OIL INTERCEPTOR TO BE PROVIDED 12. (0812) TURNING SPACE WITHIN SITE (%) (T12-T15)


64

13. The parking spaces shown on the approved plans shall be provided at the time of development and shall be retained.

(To secure adequate off-street parking provision, and in accordance with policy T12 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.)

14. Details of signing and physical restraints at the entrance off Blackbird Road

and egress onto Bradgate Street, and within the curtilage of the site to enforce the one way vehicular system through the curtilage of the site for residents and visitors at the development, and access and egress for refuge and larger vehicles off Bradgate Street shall be agreed before the development commences and implemented before the occupation of the first unit.

(To achieve a satifactory form of development.) 15. Before the development is begun a scheme for lighting within the site shall

be submitted to agreed with the City Council as local planning authority and shall include details of a) location of points of illumination; b) the nature and design of the lighting source; c) the illumination levels (candela) in the evening. The approved scheme shall be completed before the development is occupied and retained.

(To achieve a satisfactory form of development). 16. (0904) PLANS AS AMENDED (RECEIVED ON; PLAN NO) NOTES FOR APPLICANT 1. (1323) AGREE HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION/CONTRACTOR DETAILS 2. The consent is subject to the signing of a section 106 agreement between

the applicant and the City Council. 3. (1305) SEEK ADVICE (CONDITION; OFFICER; TELEPHONE) (3 and Note

to applicant Nos. 4-5; Robin Marston; 252 6436) 4. In respect of Condition 3, all risks indentified by the assessment as being

unacceptable for the proposed use and before the development commences detailed remediation proposals shall be submitted to and approved by the City Council as the local planning authority. The approved proposals (ie Remediation Proposals) shall be in line with current best practice for removal, containment or treatment of contaminants.

5. For each part of the development, the Remediation Proposals relevant to

that part (or any part that would be affected by the development) shall be carried out either before or during such development as approporiate.

6. If during development work any contamination of the same type addressed

by the Remediation Proposals is found in areas previously expected to be clean, remediation of these areas shall be carried out in line with the Remediation Proposals.


65

7. Before occupation of the site or any part of the site, a completion report shall be submitted for the approval by the City Council as the local planning authority. The completion report shall contain:

(i) A full description of the works undertaken in accordance with the Remediation Proposals.

(ii) Results of any additional monitoring or testing carried out between the submission of the Remediation Proposals and the completion of remediation works.

(iii) A statement, signed by the developer or the approved agent, confirming that all the works specified in the Remediation Proposals have been completed.

Date post:	09-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Wards: See individual reports. Development Control Sub ... A.pdf1...

Documents