Agenda item

PLANNING APPLICATIONS

Minutes:

PLANNING APPLICATIONS

 

Councillor Connelly advised the meeting that four planning applications for sites in Westcotes Ward had been considered at the meeting of the Council’s Planning and Development Control Committee held on 18 January 2011.  The Ward Members had made representations on each of these applications.

 

·            Westcotes Drive

 

This application was for the redevelopment of the former factory site in to housing, (but not student accommodation).

 

Following concerns that the development initially proposed would not be in keeping with the area, the application had been amended, so that the line of the building would be in line with other properties on the road and the type of dwelling had been changed to six three-bed properties and two two-bed ones.  The two-bed properties would front on to Shaftesbury Road.  A small off-street car park also would be provided.

 

The provision of three-bed properties was particularly welcome, as there was a shortage of this sort of property in the Ward.

 

·            Student Accommodation on Upperton Road

 

This application was for the redevelopment of the old Network Rail site.

 

The applicant originally had wanted to build a 15-storey accommodation block, but following consultation this had been changed to a block with a maximum height of seven stories.  This had been accepted by the Committee.

 

As part of the development, a Section 106 Agreement had been entered in to for £100,000 to be provided for the development of green space.  The Ward Members did not want this to only be considered for use for a ball court, but hoped that the Community Meeting could be consulted on how the money should be spent.

 

·            Duns Lane / Western Boulevard – De Montfort University Leisure Centre

 

The University had stated that the Leisure Centre would be open to the public and a note to the applicant had been included in the permission to that effect.  The University also had stated that its prices for use of the facilities would be comparable to charges made for use of the Council’s leisure centres.

 

It was hoped that building work could start in April 2011.

 

·            Braunstone Gate: Narborough Road Retail Park

 

This was the site of the former MFI store.  The Committee had approved its redevelopment for use for a supermarket, which the Ward Members generally supported. 

 

It was noted that this development was by a developer, not a particular supermarket.  The supermarket moving on to the site was likely to be announced in March 2011.  It would have been preferable if the application had come directly from a supermarket, so that direct negotiations could have been held on matters such as how staff would be recruited and what that supermarket’s policy was on controlling the use of shopping trolleys

 

A survey had been carried out and, although some people spoken to opposed this development, the majority supported it.  Some people saw this development as a good way to regenerate a derelict site and some welcomed it as an opportunity to increase local employment.  When asked if they would do their main food shopping at this supermarket, the general view was that that would depend on which supermarket moved on to the site, but they would continue to use local shops for the rest of their shopping.  As a large number of people in the Ward did not have a car, nearly everyone interviewed welcomed the chance to have a local supermarket that could be accessed on foot or by taxi.

 

The developer had indicated that people would still be able to park on the site when using local businesses in Braunstone Gate.

 

Councillor Connelly reported that the Leicester Mercury had wrongly reported that he had said that a supermarket was needed, but he had said that some much needed housing provision had been made.

 

Councillor Connelly then reported that a retrospective planning application was scheduled to be considered by the Council’s Planning and Development Control Committee on 1 March 2011.  This was an application to convert the property at 10 Westcotes Drive from a hotel to a hostel, with an officer recommendation that it be refused.

 

The Ward Members only heard late in the afternoon on the day of the meting that the application had been withdrawn, following officer advice to the applicant.  The Ward Members had lodged a formal complaint about the way in which this had been dealt with, the outcome of which was awaited.

 

As the application had been withdrawn, it was not possible for the Council to take enforcement action against the hotel / hostel.  However, the Planning and Development Control Committee had agreed that, if no further application was received by 18 April 2011, a report should be made to the Committee about taking enforcement action.  At present, people visiting the hostel also were using the rough car park on Filbert Street without permission.

 

During discussion on these applications, it was asked if any action was being taken in relation to another hostel in Westcotes Drive that it was believed did not have planning permission.  The Ward Members reported that the hostel at 18 Westcotes Drive had planning permission, but investigations were needed in to whether reference had been made to the correct parts of Council policy in granting this permission.

 

Specific planning permission had not been given for the hostel at 20 Westcotes Drive, but the owners had been advised that planning permission was not needed, as the property’s current use was so close to that for which planning permission had been granted.

 

The Ward Members would continue to press for enforcement action in regard to the hostel at 10 Westcotes Drive, but in the meantime consideration was being given to other ways in which action could be taken, (for example, possibly under human rights legislation due to loss of quality of life for local residents).

 

The Chair reported that the Ward Members received more representations about hostels than any other planning issue.  A meeting therefore had been held with some residents to discuss establishing a residents’ association. 

 

In response to a query about the development on Paton Street / Crow Lane, Councillor Connelly advised that this application was for two five-storey blocks of flats and one four-storey block.  Although this development was not specifically branded as, or designed for, students, as with any residential properties they could be occupied by students.  Councillor Connelly also advised that he would be requesting that this planning application be submitted to the Council’s Planning and Development Control Committee for determination.

 

Concern was raised that a lot of development was happening in the Ward, but no additional infrastructure was being provided.  The Chair explained that the new Local Development Framework was more flexible than previous systems and gave more opportunities to determine what was delivered, (for example, through Supplementary Planning Guidance and Supplementary Planning Documents).  An example of this was the forthcoming Supplementary Planning Guidance on the provision of green space as part of developments.

 

It was suggested that additional green space could be acquired by extending Bede Park, (for example, by terracing the area near the river and/or opening up the closed walk way).  Another option could be to develop the Quay area as green space, (particularly if the supermarket moving on to the former MFI site removed some of the trees there).

 

It was noted that the number of rats seen in the area seemed to be increasing.  The Council offered a free rat control service and also designated Pest Action Zones in areas where there were historical and/or current reports of problems with pests.  If a zone was designated, all properties within that zone would be treated, rather than trying to treat individual properties, and advice was given on how to prevent pests from returning. 

 

In response to a query, it was noted that planning permission had not been granted to turn the Westcotes Pub in to luxury flats and the Ward Members were not aware of a planning application having been submitted for this.