Minutes:
a) Minute 3, “Ward Community Budget 2011/12
To date, alley gates had been fitted in five streets and keys had been given to residents. As a result, bins had been removed from the streets.
b) Minute 4a, “Minutes of Previous Meeting: Minute 35 – Planning Applications”
Councillor Connelly reminded the Meeting that he was a member of the City Council’s Planning and Development Control Committee. He therefore could not give opinions on planning matters that could be seen as a predetermined view, as this would prevent him from being involved in discussions and/or votes at Committee meetings on the applications.
Councillor Connelly advised the Meeting that:-
· he would be making representations at the Planning and Development Control Committee against applications for the development of student accommodation in Western Road (the Equity Shoe site) and Upperton Road;
· two variations to the plans for the block of student accommodation in Upperton Road were being requested. One of these was an application to have a telecommunications mast on the roof of the building and the other was for advertising on the side of the building. It was not known what sort of advertising this would be; and
· the application to use 10 Westcotes Drive as a hostel had been refused and the hostel there was no longer operating.
Councillor Connelly advised that he had already made representations at the Planning and Development Control Committee about the use of the premises at 20 Westcotes Drive as a hostel. The owner of the premises had claimed that it had operated as a hostel for over ten years and had produced a letter from the previous owner to substantiate this claim. The Ward Councillors and local residents contested this claim, so Councillor Connelly had asked for the application for a certificate of lawful use to be referred to the Committee. A public meeting would be held to discuss this further when it was known when the application would be considered by the Planning and Development Control Committee.
A member of the community confirmed that, at one time, the premises had been used as a lodge for ex-servicemen. Investigations were being made in to whether referrals to this had been made by the Council or other agencies. If this had been done, it could be classed as having been a hostel. However, local residents felt that to change from a lodge for elderly, frail people to a hostel for young people was inappropriate.
Councillor Connelly reported that a student accommodation summit had been held on 9 September. At this, it had been noted that a speculative application for the development of the old CPH Thurmaston building in Upperton Road for student accommodation had been submitted. It was understood that the developer would buy the land if the application was successful.
An Article of Direction had been applied for in relation to this application. The application submitted included the demolition of the existing building, so under the Article a decision on the demolition would have to be taken in the context that a full planning application was needed to show what would replace it.
Councillor Connelly further advised that he had been contacted by a doctor, who also wanted to demolish the building, but proposed to replace it with a new health centre. Although this would be preferable to more student accommodation, further discussions were needed to see if the original building could be kept.
The Meeting noted that a suggestion had been made that no further applications for student accommodation should be approved until Supplementary Planning Guidance on student accommodation had been produced by the City Council. The Chair noted that whether this was possible would need to be investigated.
Some concerns remained about the development of the Equity Shoes site. Although the original building had been saved, it was proposed to accommodate over 700 students on that site in an eight-storey building. This was felt to be an over-development of the site, which would generate a lot of foot traffic in a primarily residential area. Representations on this application could be made up until it was considered by the Planning and Development Control Committee. It was not yet known when this would be.
Members of the community expressed concerns that amenity space was not being provided by developers, its provision being made under Section 106 Agreements. In reply, it was noted that planning officers were encouraged to hold discussions with developers before their applications were considered by a Committee so that this type of issue could be discussed. It was not always possible to include green space in developments, but developers could be required to make a substantial financial contribution towards its provision. However, these contributions would not always be sufficient to buy an area of green space and so did not resolve the problem of insufficient green space in an area.
Bede Park was not big enough for the number of people now wanting to use it. This had been the first new park that had been created for a number of years and it had not been realised how well it would be used. The problems now were to identify and obtain more green space and to encourage people to use other green space.
c) Minute 5, “Bede Park”
Councillor Connelly thanked those who had attended the recent residents’ meeting about issues relating to Bede Park. Following on from this, the Ward Members had met with Council officers and it had been agreed that the benches at the Coriander Road end of the Park would be removed, as they encouraged people to gather there. In turn, this led to anti-social behaviour. There had been some concern about removing the benches, as they were used by families and the disabled.
Parks officers had contacted the slide manufacturer, to see if security could be improved to avoid it being misused, but this was not possible. Consideration also had been given to putting a fence around the play area, but this also created more problems than it solved. It therefore was proposed to put an acoustic barrier along the edge of Tarragon Road, up to The Project. This would cost approximately £175,000.
Concerns were raised that, if noise was being made at the top of the slide, this barrier would not work. It also could reduce surveillance from the houses opposite and could encourage graffiti. A further residents’ meeting could be needed to address these issues.
It also was suggested that the slide could be removed and used in another park. However, it was well used by children, so a more suitable alternative could be to relocate it within Bede Park. Alternatively, the Park could be locked at night, to make it more manageable. Residents also noted that people sat in the Park drinking, which was a particular concern when children were there.
The Meeting was reminded that the possibility of introducing an alcohol-free zone in the Park had been discussed under this item at the last meeting. However, one problem with introducing such a zone could be that the activity could be moved to another location.
The Chair confirmed that possible options would be considered and approximate costs calculated. A further residents’ meeting would be held to review progress with resolving the issues identified.
d) Minute 7, “The Manor House Neighbourhood Centre”
The Chair advised that the Centre was increasingly busy and reminded the Meeting that funding from the Ward Community Budget had been used towards some community events there. The response to these events had been very pleasing.