Agenda and minutes

Apologies had been received by Councillor Kitterick and Councillor Kennedy-Lount, who would be substituted by Councillor Porter.

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

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

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

Members were asked to declare any interests they had in the business on the agenda.

Councillor Mohammed informed the Committee that a constituent had approached the surgery regarding planning application 20250186, however confirmed he remained open-minded about the application.

Councillors Joel, Chauhan and Modhwadia informed the committee they had received an email relating to planning application 20250490, which was circulated to all members of the committee on the afternoon of 2 July 2025.

There were no other declarations of interest.

Members are asked to confirm that the minutes of the meeting of the Planning and Development Control Committee held on 7 May 2025 and 11 June 2025 are a correct record.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting of the Planning and Development Control Committee held on 7 May 2025 and 11 June 2025 be confirmed as a correct record.

The Committee is asked to consider the recommendations of the Director, Planning, Development and Transportation contained in the attached reports, within the categories identified in the index appended with the reports.

The Chair noted that the meeting would proceed in the order stated on the agenda.

20250186 - 6 Green View

Ward: Stoneygate

Proposal: Change of use from residential dwelling (Class C3) to residential care home (4 Children) (Class C2)

Applicant: Mr A Hamirani

The Planning Officer presented the report.

Mr Yunus Patel and Ian Cross addressed the Committee and spoke in opposition to the application.

Councillor Sood MBE also spoke in opposition to the application.

Members of the Committee considered the application and Officers responded to questions and queries raised by the Committee.

The Chair summarised the application and points raised by Committee Members and moved that the application be refused. This was seconded by Councillor Mohammed, and upon being put to the vote, the motion was CARRIED

RESOLVED: Refused on the following grounds, detailed drafting of the reasons to be delegated to officers in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair of the Committee:  

1. The proposal will result in a further loss of large family housing. The loss of the larger family dwellinghouse would be unacceptable in light of the evidenced need for additional large family dwellings in the city, undermining the Council's housing strategy, contrary to Core Strategy policies 06 and 08

2. The proposal would result in negative impacts upon the amenity of occupiers of nearby residential properties from associated noise and activities which would be unacceptable and contrary to paragraph 135f of the NPPF and Saved Policies PS10 and PS11 of the 2006 City of Leicester Local Plan.

20250490 - 4-10 Macdonald Road

Ward: Belgrave

Proposal: Demolition of single storey rear extension at no.10; change of use of dwellinghouse (no.10) to shop at ground floor (Use Class E) and flat at first floor (1-bed) (Class C3); installation of extended shop front with shutter and canopy; construction of single storey extension at side and rear of nos 8 & 10; alterations

Applicant: Mr Kamlesh Pabari

The Planning Officer presented the report.

Members of the Committee considered the application and Officers responded to questions and queries raised by the Committee.

The Chair summarised the application and points raised by Committee Members and moved that in accordance with the Officer recommendation, the application be refused. This was seconded by Councillor Joel, and upon being put to the vote the motion was CARRIED.

RESOLVED: permission was refused

            REASONS FOR REFUSAL

1. The loss of the 3-bed family dwellinghouse would be unacceptable in light of the evidenced need for additional family dwellings in the city, harmfully affecting the Council’s housing strategy for the area. The replacement of the family dwellinghouse with the extension to the ground floor shop would also be inappropriate in, and incompatible with, the otherwise predominantly residential area. The proposal would therefore conflict with Core Strategy 2014 policies CS06 and CS08, Local Plan 2006 saved policies H07 and PS10 and Emerging Local Plan policy Ho09.

2. The submission has failed to address whether the extension to the shop would be flood resilient and therefore the shop would be at unacceptable risk of fluvial flooding contrary to Core Strategy (2014) policy CS02, National Planning Policy Framework 2024 paragraph 181 and Government standing advice on preparing a flood risk assessment.

            NOTES FOR APPLICANT

1. The City Council engages with all applicants in a positive and proactive way through specific pre-application enquiries and the detailed advice available on the Council’s website. On this particular application advice was given prior to the submission. The City Council has determined this application by assessing the proposal against all material considerations, including planning policies and any representations that may have been received. As the proposal was clearly unacceptable and could not be reasonably amended it was considered that further discussions would be unnecessary and costly for all parties.

There being no other urgent business, the meeting closed at pm.

As there was no other urgent business, the meeting closed at 18:45.