Agenda and minutes

The Chair announced that this was the last meeting of the municipal year and Councillor Dr Chowdhury’s last meeting as he was retiring.  The Chair thanked Councillor Dr Chowdhury for the excellent work he had carried out as a Councillor saying that it had been a pleasure working with him on the Planning and Development Control Committee.  The Chair wished Councillor Dr Chowdhury best wishes for the future.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Cutkelvin, Halford and Rae Bhatia.

Councillor Thalukdar arrived shortly after the meeting had started.

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 Khote declared that she had received correspondence relating to the report on 10 Friar Lane, Fernandez Grill House Appeal – Council Position, and she had an open mind.

Councillor Dr Chowdhury declared that he had received correspondence relating to the report on 10 Friar Lane, Fernandez Grill House Appeal – Council Position, and he had an open mind.

Councillor Govind explained that he had been away and had not had a chance to catch up with his emails, but he had an open mind.

Councillor Dr Barton declared that she had received emails relating to the report on 10 Friar Lane, Fernandez Grill House Appeal – Council Position, and in the past correspondence regarding Fleet House, and she had an open mind.

Councillor Aldred declared that application 20170533, 377 Uppingham Road was in her ward and she had an open mind.

Councillor Cassidy declared that he had received correspondence relating to report on 10 Friar Lane, Fernandez Grill House Appeal – Council Position, application 20172677, Fleet Street, Fleet House and application 20172678, Fleet Street, Fleet House and he had an open mind.

On joining the meeting, Councillor Thalukdar declared that he had received representations on 20182786, 72-74 Osmaston Road and he had an open mind.

Members are asked to confirm that the minutes of the previous meeting of the Planning and Development Control Committee held 3 April 2019 are a correct record.

RESOLVED:

that the minutes of the meeting of the Planning and Development Control Committee held on 3 April 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.

24 April 2019

Please note that the Supplementary Report (Addendum) is now available and has been attached to this agenda.

The Chair announced that he would take the reports in a different order to that given in the agenda, due to the attendance of members of the public and Ward Councillors who had registered to speak and in the interests of people in the public gallery. The Chair added that application 20182635, 120 Berners Street had been deferred as detailed in the supplementary report.

RESOLVED:

that the report of the Director, Planning, Development and Transportation dated 24 April 2019, on applications, together with the supplemental report and information reported verbally by officers, be received and action taken as below:

Councillor Thalukdar arrived during the Planning Officer’s presentation of the planning application. Councillor Thalukdar did not sit at the meeting table and took no part in the discussion or vote on this application.

Ward: Castle

Proposal: DEMOLITION OF BUILDINGS; CONSTRUCTION OF  10 AND 11 STOREY BUILDING COMPRISING 211 FLATS (76 X 1 BED; 136 X 2 BED) (CLASS C3); ANCILLARY COMMUNAL ANCIALLRY FACILITIES; 238 SQM OF FLEXIBLE SPACE TO BE USED FOR A RANGE OF USES  (CLASS A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, B1A); 163 SQM OF LEISURE (GYM) USE (CLASS D2); LANDSCAPING AMENITY SPACE; NEW VEHICLE AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS(AMENDED PLAN REC 27/6/18)

Applicant: LEE CONTRACTS

The Planning Officer presented the report and drew Members’ attention to the Supplementary Report which had details of amended reasons and notes, additional representations from objectors, an additional representation from the applicant and further considerations.

Mr Badley and Mr May on behalf of the applicant spoke in support of the application.

Mr Sturgess spoke in objection to the application and then Councillor Kitterick as Ward Councillor, also spoke in objection to the application.

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

The Chair moved that the application be refused due to the reasons set out in the report and the supplementary report, in accordance with the officer recommendation. This was seconded by Councillor Govind, and upon being put to the vote, the motion to refuse was CARRIED.

RESOLVED:

that the application be REFUSED due to the reasons as set out below:

              REASONS FOR REFUSAL

1.           The proposal would result in the loss of a large complex of primarily late Victorian two, three and four storey buildings included on the Council's adopted Heritage Asset Register.  Their loss is not considered acceptable due to the positive contribution they make to the street scene and character of the area by providing a focal corner landmark on Fleet Street, Byron Street and Dryden Street.   The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy CS18 of the Core Strategy and paragraphs 185,187,189,197 and 198 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

2.           The proposal fails to appropriately consider and respond to the local context and to the immediate surroundings of the site. The proposal is not justified in townscape terms and would not contribute positively to the area’s character and appearance in terms of scale, height, urban form, massing and appearance and having a negative influence on the potential for appropriately managing the future growth of the area. As such the proposed building will be harmful to the character and appearance of the area and the proposal is contrary to policies CS03 and CS18 in the Core Strategy and to the relevant provisions of the NPPF; in particular paragraphs 122, 124, 126, 127,128 and 130.

3.           The proposed development would by reason of its design and layout result in a poor standard of living environment for future occupants due to the internal layout and positioning and size of fenestration of some units and the placing of fins to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 191.

Ward: Castle

Proposal: DEMOLITION OF BUILDINGS; CONSTRUCTION OF  8 AND 11 STOREY BUILDING COMPRISING 227 FLATS (111 X 1 BED; 89 X 2 BED; 27 X STUDIOS) (CLASS C3); ANCILLARY USES COMPRISING:COMMUNAL FACILITIES; 71 SQM OF STORAGE USE (CLASS B8) AND CRECHE (CLASS D1); LANDSCAPING AMENITY SPACE; NEW VEHICLE AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS

Applicant: LEE CONTRACTS

The Planning Officer presented the report and drew Members’ attention to the Supplementary Report which had details of amended reasons and notes, additional representations from objectors, an additional representation from the applicant and further considerations.

Mr May on behalf of the applicant addressed the Committee and spoke in support of the application.

Mr Sturgess addressed the Committee and spoke in objection to the application.

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

The Chair moved that the application be refused due to the reasons set out in the report and the supplementary report, in accordance with the officer recommendation. This was seconded by Councillor Dr Chowdhury and upon being put to the vote, the motion to refuse was CARRIED.

RESOLVED:

that the application be REFUSED due to the reasons as set out below:

              REASONS FOR REFUSAL

1.           The proposal would result in the loss of part of a large complex of primarily late Victorian two, three and four storey buildings included on the Council's adopted Heritage Asset Register which would significantly affect the value of this historic asset. The application does not satisfactorily justify how this part of Fleet House is more worthy of demolition than the other elements excluded by the site boundary and the information provided is wholly inadequate in terms of assessing the relative significance. This loss is not considered acceptable due to the positive contribution that the building makes to the street scene and character of the area.  The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy CS18 of the Core Strategy and paragraphs 185,187,189,197 and 198 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

2.           The application does not appropriately address the severance of the locally listed building which would result in harm to its appearance.   The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy CS18 of the Core Strategy and paragraphs 185,187,189,197 and 198 of the National Planning Policy Framework

3.           The proposal fails to appropriately consider and respond to the local context and to the immediate surroundings of the site. The proposal is not justified in townscape terms and would not contribute positively to the area’s character and appearance in terms of scale, height, urban form, massing and appearance and having a negative influence on the potential for appropriately managing the future growth of the area. As such the proposed building will be harmful to the character and appearance of the area and the proposal is contrary to policies CS03 and CS18 in the Core Strategy and to the relevant provisions of the NPPF; in particular paragraphs 122, 124, 126, 127,128 and 130.

4.           The proposed development would by reason of its design and layout result in  a poor  ...  view the full minutes text for item 192.

Ward: Abbey

Proposal: CONSTRUCTION OF DROPPED KERB AND DRIVEWAY AT FRONT OF DWELLING (CLASS C3)

Applicant: MR ROGERIO DESA

The Planning Officer presented the report.

Councillor Riyait as Ward Councillor spoke in support of the application.

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

The Chair moved that the application be refused for the reasons set out in the report and in accordance with the officer recommendation. This was seconded by the Vice Chair and upon being put to the vote, the motion to refuse was CARRIED.

RESOLVED:

that the application be REFUSED due to the reason set out below:

              REASONS FOR REFUSAL

1.           The proposed dropped kerb, by reason of its siting would result in the loss of a tree to the detriment of visual and general amenity contrary to the paragraphs 127 and 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), City of Leicester Local Plan Policy UD06 and Core Strategy Policy CS03.

Ward: Thurncourt

Proposal: DEMOLITION OF DWELLING; CONSTRUCTION OF FIVE DWELLINGS (2 X 5-BED, 3 X 2-BED) (CLASS C3) (AMENDED PLANS REC 01/03/19 & 9/4/19)

Applicant: ABC ENTERPRISE

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 and in accordance with the officer recommendation. This was seconded by Councillor Khote and upon being put to the vote, the motion to approve was CARRIED.

RESOLVED:

that the application be approved subject to the conditions 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 development shall only be carried out using the materials specified in the approved plans (2017/03/68/B). (In the interests of residential amenity and in accordance with policy CS03 of the Core Strategy.)

3.           No development shall take place on the site until works to the ditch running along the back of the development site at the base of the embankment is clear of debris and to convey the overland flows from the site generated by periods of rainfall.  The debris clearance shall be completed in accordance with the approved scheme, which shall have been first agreed in writing with the City Council as local planning authority, in consultation with the Environment Agency. (In order to reduce the risk of flooding on the site and in accordance with Policy BE20 of the City of Leicester Local Plan this is a PRE-COMMENCEMENT condition).

4.           No development shall take place until details of drainage works for the disposal of both surface water and foul sewerage, (incorporating Sustainable Urban Drainage System principles) has been submitted to and agreed in writing with the City Council as local planning authority. The agreed works shall be fully completed before the first occupation of any of the dwellings.  (To ensure that the development is provided with a satisfactory means of drainage, to reduce the risk of creating or exacerbating a flooding problem and to minimise the risk of pollution in accordance with policy BE18 of the City of Leicester Local Plan this is a PRE-COMMENCEMENT condition.)

5.           All street works for adoption shall be constructed in accordance with the Council's standards.  (To achieve a satisfactory form of development, and in accordance with policy AM01 of the City of Leicester Local Plan and Core Strategy policy CS3.)

6.           The 2 metre by 2 metre sight lines on the each side of the vehicular access shall be provided at the time of development and shall be retained. (In the interests of the safety of pedestrians and other road users, and in accordance with policies AM01 and AM12 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.)

7.           The access drive shall be surfaced with tarmacadam, concrete or similar hard bound material (not loose aggregate) for a distance of at least 5 metres  ...  view the full minutes text for item 194.

This application was deferred and not considered at this meeting.

Ward: Stoneygate

Proposal: FIRST FLOOR REAR EXTENSION TO PLACE OF WORSHIP (CLASS D1); ALTERATIONS (AMENDED PLANS RECEIVED 20/03/2019)

Applicant: MR DIWAN

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 and 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 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 new walls and roof shall be constructed in materials to match those existing. (In the interests of visual amenity, and in accordance with Core Strategy policy CS03.)

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

4.           This consent shall relate solely to the amended plans ref. no. TA-PA04 and TA-PA05 received by the City Council as local planning authority on 20/03/2019. (For the avoidance of doubt.)

The Director of Planning, Development and Transportation submits a report to establish the Council’s position to respond to an appeal against the conditions attached to planning permission 20181049.

The Committee is recommended to authorise officers to respond to the appeal as follows:

1). Not to defend the removal of condition 1 which limited the consent for the flue until 11 April 2019; and

2) Defend planning conditions 2, 4 and 5

The Director of Planning, Development and Transportation submitted a report to establish the Council’s position to respond to an appeal against the conditions attached to planning permission 20181049. It was noted that the Committee was recommended to authorise officers to respond to the appeal as follows:

1)    Not to defend the removal of condition 1 which limited the consent for the flue until 11 April 2019; and

2)    Defend planning conditions 2,4 and 5.

The Planning Officer presented the report and drew Members’ attention to the supplementary report which had details of further representations and considerations.

Councillor Kitterick as Ward Councillor addressed the Committee and in relation to the first recommendation, he urged Members to ask officers to resist the removal of condition 1. Councillor Kitterick reported that residents were experiencing considerable nuisance from noise and odour from the flue and that if the Council agreed to the removal of condition 1 and a permanent permission for the flue was granted on appeal as a result, the residents’ objections to the flue would not be supported.

Members considered the report and officers responded to the comments and queries raised. Members expressed concerns that the flue was not being maintained effectively and that it was not working properly. Concerns were also expressed relating to the leakage of grease from the flue and odour. Members also commented that the appellant should be responsible for demonstrating that the flue was working, rather than the onus be put on residents to report concerns to the Planning Service or Noise and Pollution Control.

The Chair in his summary, said that the Committee were not convinced that the flue was being properly maintained and working properly. The Chair moved that the Committee recommend that officers defend the retention of planning conditions 2,4 and 5 and also resist the removal of condition 1 because of the continuing problem of noise, odour and grease. In relation to condition 1, that officers be recommended to ask the Planning Inspectorate to grant a maximum limited period of three months during which time the onus would be on the appellant to demonstrate that the flue was working properly and being properly maintained.  This was seconded by Councillor Thalukdar and upon being put to the vote, the motion was CARRIED.

RESOLVED:

that it be agreed that officers be authorised to defend the Appeal as follows:

1)    that officers defend conditions 2,4 and 5; and

2)    that officers resist the removal of condition 1 because of the continuing problem of noise, odour and grease and ask the Planning Inspector to grant a maximum limited period of three months during which time the onus would be on the appellant to demonstrate that the flue is working properly and is being properly maintained.            

Ward: North Evington

Proposal: UNAUTHORISED CONSTRUCTION OF PORCH, CANOPY AND PILLARS TO FRONT OF HOUSE

Appellant: Mrs Asmita Gadhia

Appeal Decision: Dismissed

The Planning Officer presented the report which was considered by Members.

RESOLVED:

                        that the decision of the Planning Inspectorate be noted.

The meeting closed at 8.04 pm.