Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Dr Chowdhury.

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 interest they had in the business on the agenda, including under the Council’s Good Practice Guidance for Member Involvement in Planning and Development Management Decisions.

Councillor Aldred declared that she had received an e-mail in relation to agenda item 5, “York Road Improvement Scheme – Objection to Proposals”, but had not opened it and approached the meeting with an open mind.

Councillor Dr Barton declared that she had received e-mails in relation to agenda item 5, “York Road Improvement Scheme – Objection to Proposals”, but she approached the meeting with an open mind.

Councillor Cassidy declared that he was a member of the Cathedral Council, so would vacate the Chair and leave the meeting during consideration of planning application 20182729 St Martin’s, St Martin’s Cathedral Church.  Councillor Cassidy further declared that that he had received correspondence in relation to agenda item 5, “York Road Improvement Scheme – Objection to Proposals”, but he approached the meeting with an open mind.

In relation to agenda item 5, “York Road Improvement Scheme – Objection to Proposals”, Councillor Cutkelvin declared that she had been present when a petition in relation to that scheme had been discussed at Council on 24 January 2019, (minute 47, “Petitions”, referred), and that, as a member of the Overview Select Committee, had been present at that Committee’s discussion of the same petition, (minute 72, “Petition: To retain a safe parking zone / drop off for users of the Jain Centre, York Road, LE1 5TT”, referred), but had not participated in either discussion.  She further declared that she approached this meeting with an open mind.

Councillor Govind declared that he had received e-mails in relation to agenda item 5, “York Road Improvement Scheme – Objection to Proposals”, and, as a member of the Overview Select Committee, had been present at that Committee’s discussion of a petition received in relation to that scheme, (minute 72, “Petition: To retain a safe parking zone / drop off for users of the Jain Centre, York Road, LE1 5TT”, referred).  He further declared that he approached this meeting with an open mind.

Councillor Halford declared that she had received e-mails in relation to agenda item 5, “York Road Improvement Scheme – Objection to Proposals”, but she approached the meeting with an open mind.

Councillor Khote declared that she had received e-mails in relation to agenda item 5, “York Road Improvement Scheme – Objection to Proposals”, but she approached the meeting with an open mind.

Councillor Rae Bhatia declared that he had received e-mails and a telephone call in relation to agenda item 5, “York Road Improvement Scheme – Objection to Proposals”, but he approached the meeting with an open mind.

Councillor Thalukdar declared that he had received an e-mail in relation to agenda item 5, “York Road Improvement Scheme – Objection to Proposals”, but he approached the meeting with an open mind.

Members are asked to confirm the minutes of the previous meeting of the Planning and Development Control Committee, held on 30 January 2019, as a correct record.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting of the Planning and Development Control Committee held on 30 January 2019 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 to the reports.

Please note:

Application 20172690 10 Canal Street, Aylestone, which was not determined at the meeting of the Planning and Development Control Committee held on 30 January 2019, (minute 140, “20172690 10 Canal Street, Aylestone”, refers), will be brought to a future meeting of this Committee.

The Chair announced that he would take the Planning reports in a different order to that given in the agenda, due to the attendance of a member of the public who had registered to speak.

RESOLVED:

That the report of the Director of Planning, Development and Transportation dated 19 February 2019 on planning applications, together with information reported verbally by officers, be received and action taken as below:

Councillor Cassidy left the meeting at this point

Councillor Aldred (Vice-Chair) in the Chair

Ward: Castle

Proposal: DEMOLITION OF SINGLE STOREY EXTENSION; CONSTRUCTION OF TWO STOREY ABOVE GROUND AND TWO STOREY BELOW GROUND BUILDING FOR A LEARNING CENTRE, STORE AND VOLUNTEERS AREA (CLASS D1); ALTERATIONS (PLANS DATED 17/12/2018 & 4/2/2019)

Applicant: LEICESTER CATHEDRAL

The Planning Officer presented the report.

The Very Reverend David Monteith, Dean of Leicester, addressed the Committee on behalf of the applicant and spoke in support of the application.

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

Councillor Aldred, (Vice-Chair, in the Chair) moved that the application be approved subject to the conditions in the report, in accordance with the officer recommendation. This was seconded by Councillor Govind and upon being put to the vote, the motion to approve was CARRIED.

RESOLVED:

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

CONDITIONS

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

2.           1. No demolition shall take place in relation to the Old Song School or new development in relation to the Heritage Learning Centre until the applicant has secured the implementation of an appropriate programme of archaeological work to be undertaken by a competent and experienced organisation in accordance with a Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI), which has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the City Council as local planning authority. The scheme must include an assessment of significance, research questions, and:

              (1)        a programme and methodology for site investigation, excavation and recording of archaeological deposits to an agreed depth below final formation levels, or to undisturbed natural geology;

              (2)        a method statement for the excavation, recording and analysis of human remains;

              (2)        the programme for post-investigation assessment;

              (3)        provision for the analysis of the site investigation and recording;

              (4)        provision for the publication and dissemination of the analyses and records of the site investigation;

              (5)        provision for archive deposition of the analysis and records of the site investigation.

              2. No demolition or development shall take place other than in accordance with the Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) approved under (1) above. No variation of the WSI shall take place without the prior written consent of the local planning authority.

              3. The applicant shall notify the local planning authority of the intention to begin works at least seven days before commencement. The archaeological work and post-investigation assessment will be completed in accordance with the programme set out in the Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) approved under (1) above.

              4. In accordance with the Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) approved under (1) above, the applicant will ensure that provision for the analysis, publication and dissemination of results and archive deposition has been secured, unless first otherwise submitted to and approved in writing by the City Council as local planning authority.

              (To help to determine the extent of the loss of heritage assets of archaeological  ...  view the full minutes text for item 152.

Ward: Spinney Hills

Proposal: CHANGE OF USE FROM MOTOR REPAIR GARAGE (CLASS B2) TO MOTOR REPAIR GARAGE AND MOT TESTING CENTRE (SUI GENERIS)

Applicant: MR ASHOK BHUTIYA

The Planning Officer presented the report.

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

The Chair moved that the application be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report, in accordance with the officer recommendation. This was seconded by THE Vice-Chair and upon being put to the vote, the motion to approve was CARRIED.

RESOLVED:

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

CONDITIONS

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

2.           The use shall not be carried on outside the hours of 07:30 to 18:00 Mondays to Fridays and 07:30 to 13:00 on Saturdays. (In the interests of the amenities of nearby occupiers, and in accordance with policy PS10 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.)

3.           Prior to the commencement of the use details of a petrol/oil interceptor shall be submitted to and agreed by the City Council as local planning authority. The interceptor shall be implemented in accordance with these agreed details and maintained throughout the lifetime of the development (to minimise the risk of pollution of drains and watercourses and in accordance with saved City of Leicester Local Plan policy PS11).

4.           This consent shall relate solely to the submitted plans received by the City Council as local planning authority on 12.11.18 and 19.11.18, unless otherwise submitted to and approved by the City Council as local planning authority. (For the avoidance of doubt.)

Ward: Westcotes

Proposal: INSTALLATION OF TWO ROOF LIGHTS TO FRONT AND CONSTRUCTION OF DORMER EXTENSION TO REAR OF HOUSE (CLASS C3); ALTERATIONS (AMENDED PLANS RECD 04/02/19)

Applicant: D PATEL

The Planning Officer presented the report.

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

The Chair moved that the application be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report, in accordance with the officer recommendation. This was seconded by Councillor Govind and upon being put to the vote, the motion to approve was CARRIED.

RESOLVED:

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

              CONDITIONS

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

2.           The cheeks of the dormer shall be constructed in materials of a similar appearance to those used in the construction of the existing roof. (In the interests of visual amenity, and in accordance with Core Strategy policies CS3 and CS18.)

3.           This consent shall relate solely to the amended plans ref no. 2018/6003/01F and 2018/6003/02E received by the City Council as local planning authority on 04/02/19. (For the avoidance of doubt.)

The Director of Planning, Development and Transportation submits a report inviting Committee members to give their views to the Director on the York Road Improvement Scheme.  The Committee is recommended to give its views for the Director of Planning, Development and Transportation to take into account prior to making a final decision on the Scheme.

The Director of Planning, Development and Transportation submitted a report inviting the Committee to give its views to the Director on the York Road Improvement Scheme.

The Solicitor to the Committee reminded Members that the Committee was being asked to consider and make recommendations regarding a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) to which objections had been received.  The Committee was not being asked to make the final decision on the Order, as under the Council’s Constitution that was the responsibility of the Director of Planning, Development and Transportation.

The Project Manager presented the report, explaining that one aspect of the Improvement Scheme would be to create a pedestrian zone in York Road.  No provision had been included in this for a pick-up/drop-off area for users of the Jain Centre.  A number of objections to these proposals had been received, including a petition concerning alternative parking provision for visitors to the Jain Centre.  This petition had been presented at the Council meeting held on 24 January 2019, (minute 47, “Petitions”, referred), and discussed at the meeting of the Overview Select Committee held on 7 February 2019, (minute 72, “Petition: To retain a safe parking zone / drop off for users of the Jain Centre, York Road, LE1 5TT”, referred). 

The draft minute of the Overview Select Committee’s consideration of the petition had been circulated to members of this Committee for information prior to this meeting.  From this, it was noted that the Overview Select Committee had sympathy with the concerns raised and had asked for a meeting to be held between the Director of Planning, Development and Transportation and representatives of the Jain Centre.  That meeting had been held on 18 February 2019.

It was noted that an e-mail had been circulated to members of this Committee by the Leicester Disabled People’s Access Group (LDPAG).  The Project Manager explained that the TRO set out how access to the street would be controlled, but the issues raised in the e-mail from the LDPAG related to the design of the street, so did not relate to the TRO.  However, an Equality Impact Assessment had been undertaken by the design team, which would be used to address issues of concern.

At the invitation of the Chair, Mr Madhani, the lead petitioner, addressed the Committee, explaining that the Jain Centre relied on contributions from its users to continue, but if users could not get to the Centre, they would be unable to attend, with the resulting drop in contributions threatening the survival of the Centre.  A few changes to the Improvement Scheme therefore were requested, which it was felt would benefit everyone. 

Mr Madhani explained that services were held at the Centre at 11.00 am and 7.00 pm daily.  Most people tried to attend at least one service a day, with the evening service being the best attended.  It therefore was requested that the restrictions proposed for York Road be relaxed after 6.00 pm on weekdays and all day on Saturdays, to enable elderly, disabled and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 155.

The meeting closed at 7.02 pm