development control committee 30th november 2004 … apps.pdf · rlp_ud08 planning permission will...

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE 30TH NOVEMBER 2004

1

Wards:See individual reports.

Development Control Committee 30TH NOVEMBER 2004

REPORTS ON APPLICATIONS AND CONTRAVENTIONS

Report of the Service Director ,Environment 1. Introduction The City Council has resolved that reports to any committee must address the implications of the action recommended in relation to finance, equal opportunities, policy, legal issues, sustainability and the environment and crime and disorder. This report deals with development control matters on which the recommendations must be based on material planning considerations as set out in the Planning Acts and associated regulations, circulars and central government guidance. The following implications paragraphs relate to all the recommendations in this report. 2. Financial Implications The cost of operating the development control service, including processing applications and pursuing enforcement action, is met from the Development Control Group budget which takes account of the income expected to be generated by planning application fees. Development Control decisions can result in appeals to the Secretary of State or in some circumstances legal challenges which can have cost implications for the City Council. Where there are special costs directly relevant to a recommendation these are discussed in the individual reports. 3. Equal Opportunities Implications To assist the City Council to identify the impact of planning application decisions, these are monitored by the ethnic group of the applicant. It is established policy not to identify individual applicants by ethnic origin as this would be against assurances of confidentiality. I am also unable to give numbers of applications in each group as in some cases these are so small that individual applicants could be identified. Regular reports are sent to Members giving the results of this monitoring.


2

The following reports on this agenda were identified as having a particular impact on one or more disadvantaged group, or relate to the provision or improvement of facilities to the benefit of particular groups. APPLICATIONS WITH SPECIFIC EQUAL OPPORTUNITY IMPLICATIONS

App No Page Ward Address Ethnic Minority Groups

Religious Groups

People with Disabilities

Res. Care inc.

Children and

Elderly

Non-Res. Care inc. Children and the Elderly

Children Women's Issues

20030347 5 SH MELBOURNE ROAD/BERNERS STREET/NEPTUNE

√

20041186 17 SH 99-101 VULCAN ROAD √ √ √

4. Policy Implications Planning applications must be decided in accordance with the provision of Development Plan, principally the City of Leicester Local Plan and the Leicestershire Structure Plan, unless these are outweighed by other material considerations. The latter include supplementary planning guidance, site specific development briefs produced by the City Council, and emerging/ updated versions of the Development Plan. Individual reports refer to the policies relevant to the recommendation. 5. Legal Implications The recommendations in this report are made under powers contained in the Planning Acts. Specific legal implications, including the service of statutory notices, initiating prosecution proceedings and preparation of legal agreements are identified in individual reports. As appropriate, the Head of Legal Services has been consulted and his comments are incorporated in individual reports. 6. Human Rights Act Members will be aware that the Human Rights Act 1998 is now in force. Provisions in the Act relevant to considering planning applications are Article 8 (the right to respect for private and family life), Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) and, where relevant, Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination). In terms of reports on enforcement action, preparatory information, including details of ownership, has been sought in the light of current case law. The Head of Legal Services takes the view that obtaining such information does not relate to a trial process and so does not breach Article 6 (the right to a fair trial). The uncertainty over whether the Secretary of State can “call in” planning appeals because of potential incompatibility with the Human Rights Act has been clarified by a decision of the House of Lords. They decided that the Secretary of State’s powers to call in planning applications, or to recover planning appeals for decision by him, are lawful and do not breach Article 6. This clarification lessens the possibility of any challenge, under human rights legislation, to enforcement action


3

7. Sustainability and Environmental Implications The City of Leicester Local Plan has been subjected to a full sustainability appraisal. The sustainability implications material to each recommendation, including any Environmental Statement, submitted with a planning application, are examined in each report. The following applications in this report are accompanied by an Environmental Statement:

Page App.

No. Address Ward Report

Section

8. Crime and Disorder Implications Issues of crime prevention and personal safety are material considerations in development control recommendations. Where relevant these are dealt with in individual reports. 9. Consultations Consultations with other departments and external organisations are referred to in individual reports. 10. Background Papers Copies of individual planning applications are available for inspection in the Customer Service Centre, New Walk Centre. Representations and consultation responses on individual applications are kept on application files which can be inspected by contacting the Development Control Group, extension 7249. 11. Officer to Contact Authors of individual contravention and application reports, via Extension 7249 or Mike Richardson, Head of Development Control, Extension 7244.


4

CONTENTS PAGE NOS. Contravention Matters - Applications Recommended For Refusal 5-20 Listed Building Consents And Conservation Area Consents Recommended For Approval

-

Other Applications Recommended For Approval 21-40 Development By The City Council - Observations On Consultations From Government Departments - Other Items 41-61 Planning Inspectorate Appeal Decisions 62-63 Petitions -

INDEX 30TH NOVEMBER 2004 Page MAIN

Page ADDEND

App No. Address Area Ward Report Section

38 20042126 308 Abbey Lane C AB APP 24 20041747 105-107 Belgrave Road E LA APP 14 20041873 52 Checketts Close E BE REF 11 20031857 34 Cobden Street E LA REF 34

20041989 Donald Close, Land adjacent No.11 E RM APP

21 20041191 120 Doncaster Road E LA APP 62 20048016A Havelock Street C CA APL 51

20041141 Jarrom Street, Havelock StreetClarendon Street C CA OTH

28 20041791 20a Lutterworth Road W AY APP 5

20030347 Melbourne Road/ Berners Street/Neptune Close E SH REF

41 20040980 78 St Nicholas Circle, C CA OTH 17 20041186 99-101 Vulcan Road E SH REF


5

APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR REFUSAL 20030347 MELBOURNE ROAD / BERNERS STREET / NEPTUNE CLOSE 27/02/2003 AREA: E WARD: Spinney Hills DEV THREE STOREY BUILDING FOR EDUCATION / PLACE OF

WORSHIP (CLASS D1) MRC ISLAMIC DAWAH ACADEMY

Introduction The application site is located on the western side of Melbourne Road, at the junction with Berners Street, which fronts the northern boundary of the site. Neptune Close adjoins the western boundary of the site. There are two-storey terraced dwellings on the opposite side of Berners Street and four-storey dwellings on the opposite side of Neptune Close. The rear gardens of the four storey dwellings fronting Mensa Close adjoin the southern boundary of the site. The site is currently vacant apart from the former St Hilda’s Church building, located in the south-eastern corner of the site, which is now in use as a Mosque, and some out-buildings to the rear. A landscaped area of land adjacent to Mensa Close, which was owned by the City Council, is also included within the application site. Background There is no relevant planning history at the site.


6

The Proposal The proposed Islamic Da’wah Academy (IDA) building would be 3 storey in height with a footprint covering the entire site apart from an area fronting Melbourne Road. It would be of brick construction with a metal clad curved element fronting Melbourne Road. The roof would be of a hipped and flat roof construction. The entrances to the building would be off Melbourne Road and Berners Street. Offices, ablution areas, classrooms and a library would be provided in the northern part of the building, while the prayer halls would be located in the southern and eastern part. There would be a garden of contemplation in the centre of the building and a single storey meditation area in the southern part of the site. 5 car parking spaces including a space for disabled persons would be provided within the site. The IDA seeks to serve mainly the local community through providing advice and counselling, formal Islamic education as well as informal adult education through a computer and homework club. Some residential students would be accommodated in the nearby Spinney Lodge. Amended plans have been submitted by the applicant setting the proposal further back from Melbourne Road, compared with the drawings originally submitted and changing the design of the Melbourne Road frontage. Development Plan Policies EN3 Development adjoining public spaces or thoroughfares must provide

positive and attractive built frontages. EN4 No permission for poor quality or inappropriate designs. High quality design

expected in City Centre and Conservation Areas. EN5 High quality modern design normally permitted where existing surroundings

have been taken into consideration. EN40 Prominent ventilation and mechanical plant not normally approved. Also a

material consideration in applications for change of use. EN41 Make provision for access for disabled people in new public buildings and

where possible in existing buildings. EN42 Permission not given for development which is potentially unsafe,

particularly for women, children and elderly people. EN55 New developments should have a high standard of landscaping. Full and

accurate details should be submitted. EN63 The Council will encourage development which make full use of energy

conservation techniques. C3 Permission normally granted for community development except where

proposal inadequate or adverse effects on amenity or traffic. C1 Design and layout for development for community or education facilities

should if possible facilitate dual use. C5 In community buildings the design, layout and access for people with

mobility restrictions are important considerations.


7

C20 Permission for places of worship or extensions, normally granted subject to criteria on amenity, design, traffic, access, etc.

C21 For places of worship conditions may be attached on hours of use, noise, appearance, traffic and parking.

T12 Permission not normally granted unless adequate provision for parking of vehicles including cycles off the highway.

T13 Car parking areas shall provide extra wide spaces for disabled drivers. T14 Surface-level car parks shall be appropriately landscaped and surfaced,

and satisfactorily provide for pedestrians. T15 Permission not normally granted for car parking where safety provision

inadequate, including pedestrians and vehicle security. T16 Specified provision for the parking of bicycles for employees and users of

facilities will be expected in new developments. T17 Bicycle parking facilities to be provided in a form and location allowing

surveillance, improving security for cycles and people. T20 Non-residential development will normally be expected to include loading

and manoeuvring space within the site. T26 The Council will give careful consideration to the means of access proposed

for pedestrians, including those who are disabled. T29 Development shall create a safe and convenient environment for

pedestrians on paths within the site and on footways alongside. RLP_ST04 All development proposals should take account of the potential impact

on safety, security and crime. RLP_ST03 Major new developments are expected to demonstrate good urban

design. When considering proposals the council will take account of certain criteria to help achieve this.

RLP_ST05 Criteria will be used to assess planning applications which concern the amenity of existing or proposed residents.

RLP_UD01 Planning permission granted for sustainable high quality building designs providing the proposals take into consideration criteria. Poor quality or inappropriate designnot accepted.

RLP_UD02 Planning permission will be given for new development in which the design and layout of buildings meets criteria.

RLP_UD08 Planning permission will not be given for development proposals which fail to sufficiently demonstrate consideration of efficiency in the use of energy.


RLP_UD13 New development should not impinge upon landscape features that have amenity value whether they are within or outside the site unless they can meet criteria.

RLP_UD18 Negotiations will be sought with landowners and/or developers of major proposals to allocate one per cent of the capital budget for the provision of public art.

RLP_UD19 New development and redevelopment should have sufficient refuse storage space to allow segregated waste collection.

RLP_AM10 Proposals for large-scale or travel intensive development (ie those which exceed development thresholds contained in Appendix 02) must be accompanied by a Transport Assessment. Travel plans may be required.


8

RLP_AM12 Proposals for parking provision for non-residential development should not exceed the maximum standards specified in the supplementary planning guidance "Vehicle Parking Standards".

RLP_AM16 Location and design of new parking provision should be subject to safety and design criteria.

RLP_CL11 Community, education, sports and leisure facilities should be accessible by a choice of means of transport. Permission for their development and extension will be granted subject to amenity and traffic considerations. Major facilities subject to a sequential test and transport assessment.

RLP_CL13 Provision for places of worship will be sought in District Centres, Potential Development Areas and areas offering redevelopment opportunities.

Policy Considerations The site is located in a Primarily Residential Area in the Adopted City of Leicester Local Plan (CLLP) and the 2nd Deposit Copy of the Replacement Local Plan (RLP). Appendix 5 of the CLLP – Development Control Criteria (Housing Design) Supplementary Planning Guidance Note – Vehicle Parking Standards Consultations Chief Fire Officer – No response Housing – No response from affected tenants. Housing Department and Tenants Association happy with the proposals, although Housing Department have requested parking restrictions on Neptune Close given the amount of traffic they consider the centre will generate. Representations 16 letters have been received from nearby residents and the Maynard Co-operative Housing Association supporting the application for the following reasons: a). The proposal will provide community services for local Muslims b). The IDA provides advice and educational facilities for local youths c). The site is currently an eyesore and the proposal will rejuvenate it d). The development will provide a landmark building for the city 1 letter has been received objecting to the proposal on the following grounds:

a). Concerns about safety with a large number of people entering and leaving the site at a busy junction

b). Disruption for nearby residents and drivers c). Loss of privacy

Consideration


9

Policy Context While the site is designated as a Primarily Residential Area the site has been used as a place of worship with associated facilities. Policy C3 of the CLLP states that planning permission will be granted for the development of new community buildings subject to criteria including the effect on the amenities of nearby properties, traffic impact and being located to meet the needs of the community. Design of the development and the impact upon the street scene The design of the building is characterised by large frontages, particularly to Berners Street and Neptune Close. With little variation in the height of the building and no elements set back from the frontages, the three-storey building would appear excessive in bulk, particularly in relation to the two storey dwellings on the opposite side of Berners Street. It would dominate the street scene to an unacceptable degree and detract from the visual amenities of the area. This bulk would be emphasised by the design of the ground floor frontages which would contain mainly small or obscure glazed windows. This would provide little surveillance from the building and would result in a predominantly ‘dead’ frontage to the street. As well as giving a poor appearance to the building, it would result in an environment where pedestrians did not feel safe due to the lack of surveillance. The fenestration (windows and doors) has been poorly designed, for example, the ground floor openings do not align well with the uppers floors of the building. Coupled with the awkward relationship between the roof components, particularly on the corner of Berners Street and Neptune Close, and the element of cladding, the building would have an incoherent appearance which would detract from the visual amenities of the area. The effect on the occupiers of adjoining residential property The development would have a detrimental effect on the occupiers of Nos. 1 and 9, 3 and 11, and 5 and 13 Mensa Close, due to the close proximity of the proposed building to the rear habitable room windows, balconies and gardens of these properties. While there are no specific criteria under policy C20 against which to assess the impact of community buildings on the amenity of adjoining occupiers, Appendix 5 of the CLLP provides a useful guide. This states that between habitable room windows of two storey dwellings there should be a minimum of 21m, and between two storey dwellings and flank walls of two storey dwellings a minimum of 15m. There would be distances of between 8.25m and 15m between the rear elevations of these properties and the southern elevation of the proposed building. While the proposal would be sited approximately 0.5m further away than the existing building, the new building would be significantly higher with a height to the eaves of 9.5m and 12.6m to the ridge. The existing building has a height of approximately 2.75m to the eaves and 5m to the ridge. The single storey element would be sited just 7m from the rear elevation of No. 3 and11 Mensa Close.


10

The development would therefore appear as an oppressive and unacceptably intrusive for the occupiers of the existing dwellings. Any loss of privacy could be overcome by obscure glazing to the proposed windows. I am aware that the prayer halls are required to be located in this part of the site, as a place of worship has been established there, which I understand must be retained as such. Officers have suggested setting back just the first floor to overcome the concerns about the proximity to the dwellings. However the applicant has not been prepared to consider this. Furthermore, the proposed three-storey building would appear over-dominant and visually intrusive for the occupiers of the two storey dwellings on the northern side of Berners Street. The front elevation of the proposal would be sited just 14m from these dwellings. Again, officers offered to meet with the architect to discuss amendments but the offer has not been taken up. Lowering the height of the building to include rooms in a lowered roof would also help to improve the design and break up the bulk of the building. Parking provision and the impact on traffic generated by the development For a proposal of this nature 42 on-site spaces are normally required, based on a reduction target of 30 percent of the maximum parking standard. I have requested further information from the applicant regarding the number of people visiting the site at various times and the means by which they would arrive. No information has been forthcoming to assist my consideration. Despite this I am aware that the provision of 42 spaces would take up a considerable amount of space and that the development will primarily serve the local community. In addition, the site is located on a bus route and located at the centre of the community in which it serves. Therefore, on balance I recommend that the limited level of parking proposed is acceptable. However, the layout of the car parking is not acceptable. No visibility splays would be provided and cars would reverse over an extensive length of pavement. This would be detrimental to pedestrian and highway safety. Furthermore, the undercroft parking arrangement poses a security and safety issue as people could conceal themselves easily in this area. Other matters The development would result in the removal of 4 trees, which are subject of a Tree Preservation Order. I do not consider that the trees are of sufficient quality to warrant the refusal of a satisfactory development although any redevelopment of the site would require replacement planting. Conclusion The development would clearly provide an important community facility. However, the poor design of the building coupled with the impact on adjoining occupiers are such that the proposal cannot be recommended for approval. Officers remain willing to discuss how these serious concerns can be overcome with the applicant.


11

REASONS 1. The development would be detrimental to the visual amenities of the street

scene by reason of its size, siting and design, and would not provide a safe or attractive environment for pedestrians, thereby conflicting with Policies EN4, EN42 and C20 of the City of Leicester Local Plan and Policies UD01, UD02, UD11 and ST04 of the Replacement City of Leicester Local Plan (2nd Deposit Copy)

2. The development would be detrimental to the occupiers of adjoining

residential properties by reason of over-dominance and visual intrusion as a result of its size and siting, thereby conflicting with policies H7 and C20 of the City of Leicester Local Plan and policies ST05 and H12 of the Replacement City of Leicester Local Plan (2nd Deposit Copy)

3. The proposed parking area would be detrimental the safety of pedestrians

and other road users by reason of its layout and lack of visibility splays, and would not provide a safe and secure environment, thereby conflicting with policies T15 and T29 of the City of Leicester Local Plan and policies ST04 and AM16 of the Replacement City of Leicester Local Plan (2nd Deposit Copy)

APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR REFUSAL 20031857 34 COBDEN STREET 19/09/2003 AREA: E WARD: Latimer COU CHANGE OF USE FROM WAREHOUSE (CLASS B8) TO

PRIVATE FUNCTION HALL AND CONFERENCE HALL (CLASS D2)

JB2 GAFFAR PACKAGING LTD


12

Introduction This application was deferred from your 2 November meeting to allow the applicant an opportunity to make further submissions in support of the application. These vacant single storey storage premises are located in a Key Employment area as defined in the second deposit Replacement Local Plan. To the rear of the site is a petrol filling station on Dysart way and there are industrial or storage premises on the sides. Background 1986 – An application for a single storey packaging workshop was approved and

the consent was implemented. 1970 – Planning permission for a single storey building to be used as a retail

warehouse was granted. The consent was implemented.. 2001 – Planning permission for change of use to fibre optic cable relay station was

granted but the consent was not implemented.. The Proposal The application is for change of use to private function hall /conference hall (Class D2). The main public hall would have a floor area of 796m². Details have been submitted for an external flue for a proposed ventilation and extraction system although to it is not proposed to prepare hot food at the site but to order prepared food from outside caterers and warmed at the site. The hours of use for the function hall are 0900 to 2330 daily. The applicant has agreed to provide sound insulation in accordance with Building Regulation Part E standards and will accept the imposition of a condition to this effect.


13

The existing car park to the side of the existing building would accommodate 42 vehicles. The applicant has submitted the following statement in respect of the proposed development: 1. The premises have been empty and unlettable for the last 4 years. 2. It is anticipated that the proposed function room would provide between 15-20

permanent jobs. 3. The applicant has agreed to a personal planning consent. 4. At present local businesses lack facilities for meetings conferences etc. 5. They have identified a local need for a small (400 person) social facility which is

lacking in the area. Development Plan Policies E4 Within Primarily Employment Areas permission normally granted for B1, B2

and B8 uses and not for changes to other land uses. RLP_E03 Planning permission granted for the development of appropriate B1, B2

and B8 uses in Primarily Employment Areas and not for changes to other uses unless they meet criteria.

Policy Considerations Supplementary Planning Guidance: Vehicle Parking Standards (Sept 2002) sets out parking standards for D2 uses would be 1 space per 22 m². Representations Councillor Sood has requested a committee decision on this application. Consideration Cobden Street lies in one of the Key Employment Areas (KEA) identified in the Replacement Local Plan (RLP). These signify strategic industrial areas that can accommodate a wide range of industrial uses and as such Policy E02 of the RLP protects them specifically for B Class uses. It also differentiates them from the remaining Primarily Employment Areas (PEA), which although predominantly catering for B Class uses, may not always be suitable for B2 or B8 uses due to adjoining residential development. Within these areas policy E03 of the RLP does look at possible alternative uses particularly job generators outside the B Class, and community facilities. As part of the Local Plan review the boundaries of the Cobden Street KEA were altered to exclude community facilities from inside its western boundaries. Having reviewed the boundaries of the KEA I would not wish to see further incursions of non B Class uses into the Key Employment Area. Notwithstanding the supporting information supplied by the applicant, I do not consider that there are grounds for an exception to be made to policies E4 of the Local Plan or E02 of the Replacement Local Plan. I therefore recommend REFUSAL for the following reason:


14

REASON 1. The proposed site is located within a Key Employment area where planning

permission will normally be granted for the development of B1, B2 and B8 uses. The proposed change of use to a function hall/conference room (Class D2) would result in the loss of key employment land and is therefore contrary to Policy E4 of the adopted City of Leicester Local Plan and Policy E03 of the Replacement City of Leicester Local Plan (2nd Deposit Copy).

APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR REFUSAL 20041873 52 CHECKETTS CLOSE 10/09/2004 AREA: E WARD: Belgrave DEV PORCH AT FRONT, TWO STOREY EXTENSION AT SIDE,

SINGLE STOREY EXTENSION AT REAR OF HOUSE (AMENDED PLANS 02.11.04)

EO MR & MRS D P PARMAR

Introduction This application was deferred from the 16 November meeting at the request of the applicant, for submission of amended plans.


15

The application relates to a two-storey semi-detached house at the head of a cul-de-sac within a primarily residential area. The Proposal The applicant proposes a single-storey extension at the front of the house (porch), a two-storey side extension and a single-storey rear extension.

• The Front Porch: - would be 3.04m by 1.2m and 2.3m in height. • Two Storey Side: - would be 2.8m by 7.3 m and 7.2m in height to the ridge of

the roof. • Single Storey Rear: - would be 2.8m by 2.4m and 3.7m to the ridge of the roof

Development Plan Policies H6 Within the Primarily Residential Areas, permission normally granted for

residential development, subject to criteria.

EN18 Extensions to houses should normally match the existing house in materials, roof form, scale and proportion of openings.

RLP_H14 Criteria for extensions to existing houses. Policy Considerations Additional criteria are contained in supplementary guidance entitled A Design Guide for House Extensions and in Appendix 5 of the City of the Leicester Local Plan. The guidance states that a minimum distance of 15 metres between facing windows of two-storey houses and the gable ends of two-storey houses should be respected in order to safeguard privacy and outlook. Representations A number of representations have been received from the agent, applicant and Councillor Hall regarding this application. The agent has expressed concern over the description of the application in respect of a single storey front extension to describe the porch as he felt that this placed undue emphasis on this application. He has also stated that there is a similar extension (2 storey side) on 54 Checketts Close that gained consent and that this sets a precedent for this application. Issues relating to the direction of sunlight and amenity have also been raised. The applicant also included letters that had been signed by neighbours stating that they were aware of the application and had no objections to it. The applicant has been in correspondence with his ward councillor regarding this application and Councillor Hall has requested that it be determined at committee as opposed to officers powers of delegation. Applicant/ Agent: with reference to the revised plans submitted, comment that, due to a single-storey extension having to have a steeply pitched roof to match the


16

existing house, a single storey extension (suggested as a possible option by officers) would effectively be no different to the two-storey extension applied for. They have also requested that the description be amended, as it gave undue emphasis to the proposed porch. (I have no objection to this and have amended the description accordingly) Consideration 54 Checketts Close faces onto the two-storey side elevation of the applicant’s property. The existing distance between 54 Checketts Close and the two-storey gable wall of 52 is 9 metres. This distance is already significantly below the minimum standard recommended. The proposal for a two-storey side extension would reduce this distance even further to 6 metres. This would be detrimental to the outlook of the occupants of 54 Checketts Close as the proposed extension would be very dominant to the view from principal windows of their property. As submitted I consider this proposed two-storey side extension is contrary to planning policy and unacceptable in terms of its impact of the neighbouring property of 54 and merits refusal. I have advised the applicant’s agent that in my view I did not consider that a two-storey extension would be acceptable in this location and suggested that as an alternative a single storey extension following the footprint of the proposed two-storey may be acceptable and invited him to submit amended plans accordingly. However, I have been advised that the applicant wishes to proceed with the plans as submitted for a two-storey side extension. Over the course of my correspondence with the agent he has expressed concern regarding the description of the application with specific reference to a single storey front extension to describe a porch as he claimed it to be misleading placing undue emphasis on this part of the application. I have advised him that as proposed on plans the porch does need to be included in the description, as it does not constitute permitted development. That applicant has asked me to consider that a two-storey side extension and front porch has been given consent and implemented at 54 Checketts Close and it therefore sets a precedent and that the same should be acceptable on 52. I consider that although a two-storey side extension was acceptable at 54 the planning issues that needed to be taken into consideration are different than the ones for this application. I consider that the proposed two storey is contrary to planning policy as it would have a detrimental impact on the neighbouring property and be unacceptable as submitted. Revised plans (02.11.04) have been submitted which reduce the porch at the front of the house to a size that would be acceptable as permitted development. However, not withstanding the applicant’s arguments, I consider that the amended plans still do not address my concerns regarding the proposed two storey extension to the side of the house. My recommendation therefore remains one of refusal I therefore recommend REFUSAL for the following reasons: REASON


17

1. The proposed two-storey side extension, by reason of its height, bulk and

proximity to the neighbouring house, 54 Checketts close, would result in a cramped form of development which would be detrimental to the amenity of occupiers of that property through loss of light and outlook. The proposal is thereby contrary to policy H6 and guidelines contained in Appendix 5 of the City of Leicester Local Plan, policy H14 of the Replacement Local Plan (Second Deposit Copy) and guidance contained in the approved "Design Guide for House Extensions".

APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR REFUSAL 20041186 99-101 VULCAN ROAD 08/06/2004 AREA: E WARD: Spinney Hills COU CHANGE OF USE FROM LIGHT INDUSTRIAL UNIT (CLASS B1)

TO YOUTH AND COMMUNITY CENTRE (CLASS D1) SJM MR A A RAMZAN

Introduction This application was deferred from your 16 November meeting at the request of the applicant, for further discussions with officers. The application relates to a two-storey building, to the rear of houses on Vulcan Road, Florence Road and Hartington Road. The site is located within a Primarily Residential Area as defined in the Local Plan. Access is obtained via a covered way between 99 and 101 Vuncan Road. 99 Vulcan Road is a residential property and 101 Vulcan Road has been used as a lock up shop.


18

These premises were originally combined to comprise two dwelling houses with a factory to the rear. Background In 1978 an Established Use Certificate for light industrial use was granted in respect of most of the premises with the remainder having been used for residential purposes. An application for the change of use of the premises to a religious meeting place was refused in 1984 for the following reasons: 1. The property is considered inappropriate for the proposed use, being located within

a primarily residential area and surrounded by dwellings such that problems of noise and disturbance to local residents would inevitably occur.

2. The proposal would lead to an increase in on-street parking in a congested area likely to lead to a traffic hazard.

3. The proposal would be contrary to the provision of the Draft East Leicester Local Plan concerning the establishment of places of worship by reason of noise, traffic and parking problems that could result.

4. The proposal would lead to a loss of residential accommodation for which there is a demand in the city.

In 1986 consent was granted to convert the first floor accommodation of 99 and 101 Vulcan Road to a flat. The Proposal The applicant seeks consent to use the building as a youth and community centre. He lists the proposed activities as: ! Home work club ! I.C.T.facilities for the unemployed ! Youth work ! Creche facility ! Maddrasa and language classes ! Club for the elderly and drop in facility ! Resident’s action group. The proposed opening hours are Monday to Fridays 0900 to 2100 and, Saturday and Sundays 0900 to 2200. 150 people could, the applicant estimates, be accommodated within the premises. It is claimed that the majority of these will walk to the centre. A petition, in support of the proposal, was submitted with the application containing approximately 1519 signatures. The internal layout plan shows the main entrance to be from Vulcan Road into the covered foyer. This would lead in to a large activity room with kitchen facilities off, and 5 class rooms which would be separated only by folding screens. On the first floor, an activity room is proposed. Development Plan Policies H7 Permission not normally granted for non-residential uses in Primarily

Residential Areas unless no seriously detrimental effects. C3 Permission normally granted for community development except where

proposal inadequate or adverse effects on amenity or traffic.


19

C20 Permission for places of worship or extensions, normally granted subject to criteria on amenity, design, traffic, access, etc.

C21 For places of worship conditions may be attached on hours of use, noise, appearance, traffic and parking.


Policy Considerations The proposed change of use would comply with Policies H7, C3, and C20 of the City of Leicester Local Plan provided that the development would not have a significantly detrimental effect on the residential amenities of nearby occupiers, or the traffic likely to be generated by the development would not be detrimental to the local road system. Policy Cl11 in the Replacement Local Plan notes that planning permission will be granted for community facilities provided that the scale and range of activities do not cause an unacceptable level of disturbance, in accordance with the provisions of policy ST05, and that the flow of traffic does not have an unacceptable impact through traffic congestion or be a hazard to road safety. Representations I have received 18 individual letters and petitions signed by seven, twenty-three, and twelve local residents respectively, in objection to the proposal. In addition, Councillor Karim has written in opposition to the proposal. The grounds of objection are as follows: ! Increase in traffic ! Exacerbation of parking problems ! Increase in noise disturbance ! Increase in litter ! Increase in crime and anti-social behaviour. ! Gathering of youths could intimidate local residents and prevent young children

from playing outside their houses. ! Possibility of fire risk ! Health risk from food preparation on premises and associated food waste. ! Other nearby facilities already attract people from outside the area, this would

provide a further attraction to non-residents. ! The premises has been used for functions which has resulted large numbers of

people attending and in disturbance for residents, particularly those on Hartington Road which back on to a raised area outside a rear exit door of the application premises. These functions have extended until midnight on occasion.

! Many residents who have individually objected to the proposal claim that the petition, submitted by the applicant, was signed by many people under a false misrepresentation of the applicant. They were asked to sign blank sheets in support of a madrassa with no mention of a youth and community centre.

Councillor Panchbhaya has written in support of the application stating that the Community has no facilities for the youth and elderly activities in the immediate vicinity and considers that these premises would be ideal for such purposes. Consideration


20

The Local Plan policies encourage the provision of places of worship and other community facilities within residential areas close to the communities they serve. I consider that the proposed use as a community centre, even with many people walking to the site, is likely to attract additional on street parking demand in an area that is already heavily parked. If consent is granted, the authorised Class D1 use would also entitle the site to be used as a place of worship and for celebrations such as the wedding receptions held on occasions previously. The fact that the proposed hours of use extend until 2200 hours on Saturdays and Sundays is of concern. I consider that the potential for disturbance, from vehicles manoeuvring and parking on the street and from noise from people on the street, inside the premises and at the rear of the building, is great. The comments submitted by nearby residents in reference to the functions previously held, appear to bear this out. The change of use of the building to class D1 would demand twice as much traffic in comparison to its authorised use. The pattern of vehicular movements would also change from daytimes to evenings/weekends to the detriment of resident parking when parking demand is high. Consent for a community use could be granted subject to the removal of its potential use as a place of worship and for functions, however, a community use could arguably involve other large gatherings. Government guidance on the use of conditions requires that they are necessary, effective and should avoid placing unreasonable burdens on applicants. Conditions should not be used where they, in effect, nullify the benefit of the grant of planning permission. On visiting the premises, it was clear that the applicant had already carried out significant alterations to the inside of the property. The floors and pillars to the ground floor are finished with decorative tiles forming a large and open room. No folding screens had been fitted to separate the “classrooms” and I am concerned that even if fitted these would provide little privacy and sound proofing between each partitioned area. There is clearly scope for the ground floor to be used for entertaining. Although there are no windows at ground floor level, the door in the rear of the building could allow general egress or access or just ventilation which could potentially cause significant disturbance to neighbouring residents. The upper floor has windows and extends in to the roof. It is likely that noise from inside the building would be perceptible to neighbouring properties without substantial sound insulation measures. Despite the benefits of the removal of a non-conforming industrial use and provision of local community facilities, I consider that, due to the scale and location of this premises, the immediately adjacent residents are likely to experience a significant and unacceptable loss of amenity in terms of disturbance, increased demand for on-street parking and through traffic congestion. I therefore recommend that the application be REFUSED for the following reason: REASON 1. The proposal is likely to result in a significant loss of amenity for nearby

residents through increased noise and disturbance, traffic congestion and demand for on street parking space contrary to provisions of policies H7,C3


21

and C20 of the City of Leicester Local Plan and policies CL11 and ST05 of the Replacement City of Leicester Local Plan.

OTHER APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL 20041191 120 DONCASTER ROAD AREA: E WARD: Latimer COU CHANGE OF USE FROM LIGHT INDUSTRIAL UNIT TO CAR

SHOWROOM; EXTERNAL ALTERATIONS (AMENDED) SJM MR K LAKHANI

Introduction The application site is an industrial building fronting Doncaster Road, Glendon Street and Halkin Street. It is located in a primarily residential area as defined by both the adopted Local Plan and the Replacement City of Leicester Local Plan. The existing permitted car sales area is restricted to part of the building fronting Glendon Street. Many cars are displayed on the forecourt in front of this part of the building. Background The Doncaster Road elevation originally forms part of a larger factory building which has been sub-divided with part (under different ownership) remaining in industrial use. This retains its original design although the windows have been recently replaced. The Halkin Street elevation incorporates small industrial units, one of which has been used for motor vehicle repairs since the early 1980’s. The


22

introduction of a MOT test centre at the application site occurred following consent in 2003. Proposal It is proposed to use the acquired industrial building for the display of cars. On visiting the site substantial alteration work to achieve this had already been carried out. Vehicular access in to the show room would be gained off Halkin Street through the newly acquired industrial unit. A small parts section would also be located in the unit. The MOT service area and garage would be rearranged in the north east corner of the premises. The existing forecourt parking on Halkin Street would remain. The flat roofed building in the north east corner of the site would be incorporated into the main building with a small extension and improvements to the roof. The existing elevation fronting Glendon Street, which wraps around the corner onto Doncaster Road, is rendered, it is proposed to clad these sections of wall with colour coated aluminium cladding. This detail would be continued around the building from Glendon Street and along the Halkin Street elevation. The originally submitted plans showed the entire Doncaster Road elevation to be similarly clad, but I advised that this was unlikely to be acceptable due the loss of the existing brick detail which continues through to the neighbouring industrial unit and which complements the detail of the surrounding residential buildings and the general character of the street. The applicant has amended the plans to show the existing brick elevation to be retained along Doncaster Road. It is proposed to increase the depth of the “showroom” windows along this elevation. Development Plan Policies E6 Within Primarily Residential Areas permission not normally granted for

office, business, industrial or warehousing. RLP_H12 Planning permission not granted for non-residential uses within existing

and proposed Primarily Residential Areas unless certain criteria can be met. EN4 No permission for poor quality or inappropriate designs. High quality design

expected in City Centre and Conservation Areas. Representations I have received one letter submitted anonymously by a resident of Glendon Street objecting to the increased demand for on street parking. A petition signed by 27 individuals from Glendon Street, Halkin Street and Doncaster Road has been submitted objecting to the proposal on the grounds that extra traffic would be generated to the inconvenience of residents, particularly those on Glendon Street. Additional external lighting on the premises would also cause disturbance. Keith Vaz MP has written in support of the application. The applicant (Mr Lakhani) has submitted letters of support from residents who previously signed the petition in objection to the proposal. In these letters residents of 10 addresses state that they “previously opposed the application but after looking at the plans and explanation given by Mr Lakhani we have no objection against this application. We understand that this development will bring a better image to this


23

area.” A few of the signatures differ from those on the petition although they represent the same address. Consideration Policy E6 suggests that the extension of existing businesses will not normally be granted in primarily residential areas unless it can be shown that there will not be seriously detrimental effects in terms of the impact of the development on the amenities of occupiers of adjoining residential properties or on the general residential character of the area, on the local traffic situation or on the provision of satisfactory servicing and parking arrangements. Policy H12 in the Replacement Local Plan reflects this consideration. Although the proposal represents an extension of an existing business, the proposal does not involve a significant physical extension to the building only the alteration of adjoining existing industrial premises. Indeed it amalgamates three separate industrial premises into one use. The proposal would allow cars currently displayed and manoeuvred on the forecourt to be stored and displayed internally. I would not expect the car show room to attract a high volume of customers at any one time. The garage and MOT facility already exists at the premises and I would not therefore expect there to be a significant increase in traffic to and from the site in respect of these facilities. According to the applicant, cars sold from the premises are currently brought in individually and large car transporters are not used. Irrespective of this, given the existing industrial use of the premises it could be expected that large delivery vehicles could potentially visit the site under the current authorised use. The problems that nearby residents experience with on-street parking would appear to be from inconsiderate parking, rather than from high levels of on street parking and I would not expect the proposed use to result in a significant increase for on-street parking. Although initially concerned over the proposed alterations to the existing elevation on Doncaster Road, I consider the amended proposal, to retain the brickwork whilst dropping the cill level of the upper level windows, and to confine the proposed cladding to the part of the building currently rendered and to the Glendon Street and Halkin Street elevations, acceptable. I consider that the proposals for the part of the building to the north east corner of the site to be an improvement to the existing building. I find the amended external alterations to be acceptable, I do not consider that the proposal would significantly detrimentally affect the amenities of nearby residents nor that it conflicts with policy contained in the local plan. I therefore recommend that the application be APPROVED subject to the following conditions: CONDITIONS 1. (0101) START WITHIN FIVE YEARS 2. (0302) MATERIALS TO BE AGREED (FOR; %) (external cladding; EN4)


24

3. (0304) ROOF TO MATCH (%) (EN4) 4. (0903) PLANS AMENDED (AMENDED BY; RECEIVED ON) (plans; 28th

October 2004) OTHER APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL 20041747 105-107 BELGRAVE ROAD 03/09/2004 AREA: E WARD: Latimer COU CHANGE OF USE OF FIRST FLOOR FROM RETAIL (CLASS

A1) TO RESTAURANT (CLASS A3), EXTERNAL ALTERATIONS (AMENDED)

RDR S & A DRAPERS

Introduction This application was deferred from your 2 November meeting for discussions between officers and the Ward Councillors. The application relates to a first floor retail unit (Class A1) surrounded by a mixture of retail (Class A1), office (Class A2), food and drink (Class A3) and residential (Class C3) units. The site is located within an existing Shopping Centre as designated in both the adopted and replacement City of Leicester Local Plans. Background There is an extensive history with the relevant applications being 20030732 – Change of use of first floor to retail (Class A1); first floor extension for showroom: (Approved)


25

20012121 – Change of use of first floor from offices (Class A2) to private members club with ancillary restaurant and beauty parlour (no class use) (amended letters): (Refused)

19970625 – Change of use of first floor to Class A3 hot food takeaway including extraction flue: (Withdrawn) The Proposal The application is for a change of use of the first floor from retail (Class A1) to a restaurant (Class A3) with external alterations. The external alteration involves the location of a mechanical kitchen ventilation system on the roof, on the Belgrave Road side of an existing roof top water tank located towards the rear of the roof. Additional information received on the 30 September 2004 states it will be used 7 days a week and has amended the applications by amending the proposed hours of use from 09.00 hours to 23.00 hours. Development Plan Policies EN40 Prominent ventilation and mechanical plant not normally approved. Also a

material consideration in applications for change of use. S11 Use of premises within shopping areas for Class A3 (Food and Drink)

normally permitted, but with exceptions. S12 Outside the Central Core, restrict opening hours for A3 (Food and Drink)

except where no detriment to residents. RLP_R07 Proposals for the use of premises within existing shopping centres for

food and drink purposes (Use Class A3) will be permitted subject to criteria. SPG Guidelines For A3 Uses In Local, District And Town Centres. Policy Considerations The SPG Guidelines for Class A3 uses in local, district and town centres contains the following guidance on this kind of application; Guideline 2 Opening hours in the local and district centres will normally be

restricted to 0730 to 23.00 hours Monday to Saturday. Guideline 4 [On Sundays] in the district centres a closing time of 2300 hours will

normally be permitted. Guideline 5 In the district and local centres not more than 30% of the total frontage

length of any one side of the street in the defined shopping centre shall consist of non-retail uses (Class A2 and A3).

Guideline 6 It is recommended that no more than two non-retail uses should be

adjacent to each other. Guideline 8 Any new A3 use shall normally be confined to the ground floor and be

no larger than two shop units.


26

Guideline 11 In the district and local centres the upper floors shall not normally be used for A3 purposes.

Representations Councillors Sood and Chohan have requested that the application be determined by your committee. Neighbouring properties have been notified. I have received no response from those sites notified. One letter of objection has been received from Leicester Civic Society on the grounds of insufficient parking provision; no disabled access having been provided; fire exit details and locations being vague; no details of the fat sumps have been provided, and rubbish disposal, food preparation and storage details are vague. Consideration The site is located in an existing shopping area where policy supports, subject to the relevant criteria, the creation of A3 uses. I therefore consider that in this location the siting of an A3 restaurant is acceptable in principle. There are residential dwellings (Class C3) to the rear of the site 15 metres from the rear wall of the site. The site will not be able to be accessed from Rendell Road. I consider they will not be overlooked or suffer any unacceptable loss of amenities by the proposal. In terms of highway implications the increase in employee levels on the site is a concern. The sites location in an existing shopping centre close to the City Centre has resulted in both the site and immediate area being served by good public transport links as well as parking areas on and surrounding Belgrave Road. It is considered that an increase in traffic levels will occur as will late night traffic noise. However I consider that the amounts generated will be marginal and that due to the sites proximity to the City Centre and public transport, levels of late night traffic noise, associated activity noise and traffic levels are insufficient to justify a refusal being issued. I therefore consider this to be a sufficient basis on which to overcome this concern. A mechanical ventilation system will be installed on the rooftop adjacent to the existing roof top water container (visible from the residential properties to the rear of the site on Rendell Road) located to the rear of the roof. Its ventilation flue, to terminate 1 metre above roof level, will be located behind and adjacent to the water container on the Belgrave Road side of the building. I consider it will not therefore be readily visible from the residential properties to the rear or from Belgrave Road. The flue meets with the required pollution regulations. The ventilation flue and other equipment, such as vibration plant and ducting, needed on site plus live / amplified music played in the restaurant raises a concern of noise levels and amenities to neighbouring and surrounding sites. These concerns can be overcome through the use of conditions requiring no live / amplified music be played and that any equipment or machinery involved in the proposed use be fitted


27

and installed to prevent the transmission of noise and vibration to neighbouring and/or surrounding sites. The buildings visual appearance will remain unaffected by the proposal as will the scale, appearance and character of the surrounding area, whilst it will be neighboured by retail (Class A1) uses in-line with Guideline 6 on both floors. In relation to Guideline 5, the relevant total frontage is 215 metres of which 33.5 metres will be in non-retail use representing 15% of the total frontage, half of the permitted 30% frontage in non-retail use. I therefore consider it acceptable. A condition is attached restricting the hours of use in-line with Guidelines 2 and 4. Guidelines 8 and 11 state that new A3 uses shall normally be confined to the ground floor with the following 3 aims in mind; a) principally to protect the residential amenities of neighbouring occupiers as

acoustic insulation is not always fully effective; b) to retain housing as an element of diversity, and c) to manage the intensity of activity. The upper floors of the adjacent sites are in retail (Class A1) use, with the closest residential properties located 15 metres from the rear of the site. As the proposal is a change of use from retail rather than residential, no residential units are being lost so the diversity of the area is not being detrimentally affected. The need to manage the intensity of activity relates more specifically directed to pubs and bars as opposed to restaurants and I therefore consider it acceptable subject to its use being restricted to a restaurant only. By doing so it would prevent the site being used as a public house / bar thereby preventing any unacceptably adverse impacts on neighbouring sites. It would also serve to prevent the development of neighbouring upper floors to residential units being prejudiced should they become vacant from their current use. An acoustic insulation condition should also be attached, with details to be agreed prior to implementation, to ensure amenity levels of neighbouring properties and the residential properties remain unaffected. I consider this condition appropriate given the attached sites are in retail use and the residential units are 15 metres away and any impacts posed are considered to be insufficient to support a refusal. I consider that due to the above reasons the application is considered acceptable. I therefore recommend APPROVAL subject to the following conditions: CONDITIONS 1. (0101) START WITHIN FIVE YEARS 2. (0510) HOURS OF USE (DAILY; %) (0900 and 2300; S11 and S12 of the

adopted and policy R07 of the replacement) 3. There shall be no live or amplified music or voice played which would be

detrimental to the amenities of occupiers of nearby properties.


28

(In the interests of the amenities of nearby occupiers, and in accordance with policy(ies) S11 and S12 of the adopted and policy R07 of the replacement City of Leicester Local Plan.)

4. Prior to commencement of the use, a scheme of measures to control the

transmission of noise and/or vibration to neighbouring properties shall be submitted to and agreed by the the City Council as local planning authority and shall be implemented in accordance with a timescale to be agreed.

(In the interests of the amenity of nearby occupiers and in accordance with policies S11 and S12 of the City of Leicester Local Plan and policy RO7 of the replacement Local Plan (Second Deposit Copy))

5. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Use

Classes) Order 1987 the premises shall be used solely for the sale and service to seated customers of food with or without drink and shall not be used as a bar or public house or other form of outlet serving drinks unaccompanied by a meal.

(To minimise comings and goings in the interests of residential amenity and in accordance with policy(ies) S11 and S12 of the adopted and policy R07 of the replacement City of Leicester Local Plan)

6. (0903) PLANS AMENDED (AMENDED BY; RECEIVED ON) (letter dated

29 September 2004; 30 September 2004) NOTES FOR APPLICANT 1. (1302) NO CONSENT FOR ADVERTISEMENTS 2. (1401) REASON FOR APPROVAL (IN ACCORDANCE WITH PLAN) OTHER APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL 20041791 20A LUTTERWORTH ROAD 31/08/2004 AREA: W WARD: Aylestone DEV FIRST FLOOR EXTENSION AND TWO STOREY EXTENSION

AT FRONT; SINGLE STOREY EXTENSION AT REAR OF HOUSE; GARAGE EXTENSION (AMENDMENT TO 20021003 & 20031135)

SSB MR RAI Introduction The application site is one of three detached hip roofed bungalows with an attached garage at the end of a cul-de-sac with private access off Lutterworth Road. It backs onto mainly terrace properties on Holywell Road, which have very long rear gardens (40m) but are approximately 2m lower level than the application site. It has a site area of approximately 1200 sq. metres and lies within a primarily residential area. On the boundary of the property is a 2 metre high wooden boarded fence. There is variation in ground level and a mixture of residential properties within the immediate locality, including terrace, semi-detached and detached properties. This property is at a higher level that most of the surrounding properties. Background Previous applications on this site were:


29

20020045 FIRST FLOOR EXTENSION TO BUNGALOW Refused 2/4/02


30


31

20021003 FIRST FLOOR EXTENSION TO BUNGALOW (RESUBMISSION OF 20020045) (AMENDED PLANS) Approved 8/11/02

The application to convert the bungalow to a five-bedroom dwelling was approved in November 2002 (20021003). The ridge height was raised to 7.5m (bungalow was approximately 5.5m).

20030094 GROUND FLOOR AND FIRST FLOOR EXTENSION TO BUNGALOW;

ALTERATIONS TO ROOF Refused 14/3/03 Dismissed at Appeal. The inspector concluded that this would create an

overly large and dominant dwelling which would be out of character with the adjacent bungalows. Howvere when dismissing the appeal on this site he stated that the scheme would have no greater impact on outlook and overlooking than the scheme already approved

20031135 SINGLE STOREY EXTENSIONS TO REAR OF BUNGALOW (CLASS

C3) Approved 16/9/03 The site of the three bungalows was probably at one time within the ownership of the church. The two bungalows closer to the church were built first. This bungalow with a double garage (application site) was granted planning permission in April 1978 (19780754), with outline approval having been granted a year earlier. The Proposal The applicant appears to have merged the two approved applications in order to secure approval for the development being carried out. The footprint of the ground floor is smaller in area to the one approved in application 200311345. The significant differences are that the single storey extension to the rear has been reduced in depth by 1.2m and is now kept in line with the original building. The gap between the garage and the dwelling has been retained to allow access to the rear from this side. The living room to the rear southwest corner measuring approximately 36sq. m has been deleted. The first floor of the proposal is identical to the one approved in application 20021003 the only amendment being the projection to the front which is increased by 1m in depth but is still in line with the existing front wall. Development Plan Policies EN18 Extensions to houses should normally match the existing house in

materials, roof form, scale and proportion of openings. H6 Within the Primarily Residential Areas, permission normally granted for

residential development, subject to criteria. RLP_H11 Planning permission normally granted for housing within the Primarily

Residential Areas shown on Proposals Map. Policy Considerations Additional criteria are contained in supplementary guidance entitled A Design guide for HOUSE EXTENSIONS and in Appendix 5 of the City of Leicester Local Plan. Amongst other things it provides guidance on the relative distances required between properties to safeguard privacy of dwellings and gardens.


32

Representations Eight letters primarily from residents of Holywell Road and Cooper Close have been received objecting to the proposal the concerns being: • Loss of privacy because of the difference in level and overlooking • Overshadowing and loss of daylight • Not in keeping with the character of the area and increase in traffic and risk to

safety and increase in pollution. • Lack of turning space within the site and damage to driveway. • Additional noise nuisance with increase in occupancy and traffic. • Built without planning permission. • Threat to pedestrian safety. Others matters have been included but they are not material planning considerations. They include the fact that applicants have been notified of the proposal after building work started. Loss of shrubs and vegetation and screening becoming ineffective as there is no requirement to retain it. Consideration This application is similar to previous applications in that there is no increase in total volume or height from that already approved (ie 20021003 & 20031135). There is a slight change in the positioning of the windows however the overall number is still the same. There are no additional windows to the rear elevation. The rear single storey extension has been reduced in depth by approximately 1m and the living room has been removed altogether. The reduction in mass is therefore unlikely to have significant detrimental impact on the area. The first floor element of the proposal is identical to the one already approved (20021003) other than the two-storey front gable extension, (the only unauthorised part), the enlargement of the bedroom window on the side and the additional bathroom window on the same elevation. None of these alterations give any cause for concern regarding loss of privacy or loss of outlook. The proposed extension to the garage has already been approved. I am satisfied that there is adequate parking provision for the proposed development. Any vehicles using the site will be able to leave in forward gear and thus will not be detrimental to highway safety. The design merits of the proposal were discussed by Committee in the previous approvals and accepted. The proposal meets the distance criteria given in the design guide for Housing Extensions, (ie 18m between indirect windows and 21m between facing windows). The nearest window to the proposal is over 23m away. There is therefore no significant loss of daylight, outlook or overshadowing even though the proposal is at a higher level than the surrounding area. Because of the relatively large distance between the proposal and the objector’s properties I do not consider that the amenity of the adjacent residential properties is likely to be significantly detrimentally affected. The proposed design is acceptable; I therefore do not consider the proposal to be out of character with the adjoining dwellings. The proposal does not conflict with local plan policies or the design guide for house extensions. There are no main habitable room side windows facing Cooper Close


33

therefore there are no significant implications as far as privacy, light and outlook are concerned. It does not contravene the 45° guideline and sufficient garden area is being retained as amenity space. The form, design, size and materials proposed reflect the design of the existing dwelling. The proposal is not too dissimilar to the previous approval in 2003 (20031003) and is therefore acceptable. I recommend APPROVAL subject to the following conditions. CONDITIONS 1. (0101) START WITHIN FIVE YEARS 2. (0305) WALLS AND ROOF TO MATCH (%) (EN18) 3. (0912) NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS/ALTERATIONS (CLASS; %) (B,C,E) 4. Before the development is occupied, a scheme showing the boundary

treatment, shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the City Council as local planning authority. The agreed scheme shall be implemented as part of the development and shall be retained.

(In the interests of amenity, and in accordance with policy H6 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.)

5. (0901) AMENDMENTS RECEIVED ON (DATE) (10/11/2004) NOTE FOR APPLICANT 1. REASON FOR APPROVAL. In the view of the City Council, the proposal

complies with the relevant criteria in the City of Leicester Local Plan policies listed in this decision, and with SPG, on House Extensions and there are no material considerations which outweigh these policies.


34

OTHER APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL 20041989 DONALD CLOSE, LAND ADJACENT NO.11 04/10/2004 AREA: E WARD: Rushey Mead DEV FOUR DETACHED DWELLINGS (CLASS C3) AS PRESTIGE PROPERTIES

Introduction The application site comprises rear gardens of dwellings at 20-26 Barkby Thorpe Road. It is an area of land situated to the sides of 11 and 9 Donald Close. To the north east of the site is a builders yard which is currently vacant and is accessed off Barkby Thorpe Road. The site area is approximately 1444 sq. m. and fronts onto Donald Close, which is a cul-de-sac comprising of bungalows. The site is located within a primarily residential area. Background Outline planning consent (20031686) was approved for residential development (4 bungalows) in January 2004. The approval included the siting of 4 detached bungalows with vehicular access of Donald Close. That site area was approximately 1100 sq. m. The Proposal This application is for the development of 4 detached dwellings. It is on a slightly larger site, than the previous outline consent and the dwellings consist of 4 ‘chalet’ style bungalows. The dwellings are sited so that they do not project beyond the front and rear building lines of the existing dwellings. The rear garden depths would be a minimum of 11 metres. Each property would have an integral garage with an additional parking space on each drive. The vehicular access will be off the turning head by a means of a private drive to serve the proposed 3 dwellings and the other


35

will be served directly off the turning head of Donald Close. The private access road makes provision for 3 visitor parking spaces. There is approximately 15 metres from the front elevation of the proposed dwellings to the side elevation of 9 Donald Close. The site has been cleared. Development Plan Policies EN17 Infill development in housing areas should normally conform to the

prevailing scale, density, site coverage and materials. H6 Within the Primarily Residential Areas, permission normally granted for

residential development, subject to criteria.


T29 Development shall create a safe and convenient environment for pedestrians on paths within the site and on footways alongside.

RLP_H02 Proposals for housing development on windfall sites will be considered on the basis of criteria.

RLP_H11 Planning permission normally granted for housing within the Primarily Residential Areas shown on Proposals Map.

Policy Considerations Further guidelines are contained in appendix 5 of the City of Leicester Local Plan, which states:

• In designing new housing schemes, whether infill or large scale estates the following minimum distances should normally be respected in order to safeguard privacy and outlook:

1. Between facing windows of two storey houses where principal rooms will be

overlooked: 21 metres. Changes of level may require an increase in this distance to maintain adequate privacy;

2. Between facing windows of two storey where overlooking of principal rooms is

avoided by the design of the house type: 18 metres. Changes of level may require an increase in this distance, or screen fencing to maintain adequate privacy;

3. Between facing windows of two storey houses and the gable ends of two

storey houses: 15 metres.

A minimum of 11 metres will normally be required between any elevation containing principal room windows and any site boundary other than a frontage to a highway, river or canal. Single storey dwellings: shorter distances may be acceptable in the case of bungalows, depending on the orientation of windows, orientation and massing of the proposed buildings.

Representations


36

6 letters of objection have been received from occupiers of neighbouring properties along Donald Close and one letter from Councillor Willmott. Their objections are as follows:

• Proposal should read 4 houses and not bungalows. • Height of bungalow is some 2.5 metres higher than existing. • Over intensive and out of keeping with the area. • Traffic and safety problems. • Overlooking • Loss of hammerhead. • Wish to see 2 bedroom bungalows and not 3 bedroom houses. • Proposal will change nature of cul-de-sac.

Consideration The site is located within a primarily residential area and the principle of residential development is acceptable in this location subject to criteria outlined in policy H6 of the local plan. I am satisfied that the site is of sufficient size to accommodate 4 dwellings and meet the amenity standards set out in Appendix 5 of the local plan. However, due to the size of plots I consider it appropriate to remove the permitted development rights to allow the City Council to assess future extensions/alterations on the individual dwellings. The proposed vehicular access is located at the end of the turning head; one bungalow will be accessed directly off Donald Close and the remaining three off a private access road that will run along the front/side boundary of 9 Donald Close. I am satisfied that adequate visibility splays can be provided to serve the development. However, the proposed access road cannot be adopted and will therefore remain as a private drive. A note to this effect is recommended. The proposal includes two off-street parking spaces to each dwelling and a further three visitor parking spaces. The proposal would meet current parking standards for a residential development of this size and I am satisfied that the development would not result in congestion on Donald Close nor compromise highway safety. I am satisfied that adequate separation distances have been provided to comply with policies in the local plan. There would be a window at first floor level to the front on each building and I would consider there would be a limited loss of privacy to the occupiers of the existing dwellings due to the position of the proposed dwellings being in line with the existing bungalows. The side elevation (which has no windows) of 9 Donald Close would be 15 metres away from the front elevation of the end dwelling. Each dwelling has a steep pitched roof and would be approximately 2.5 metres higher than the existing bungalows, however the height of the side wall would be the same as the existing dwellings. I consider that the design of the proposed dwellings to be in keeping with the existing dwellings of the close and that there would be a minimal loss of privacy to the occupiers of the neighbouring properties. I also consider that the proposal is not contrary to policies or guidelines contained in the Local Plan. I recommend APPROVAL subject to the following conditions:


37

CONDITIONS 1. (0101) START WITHIN FIVE YEARS 2. (0301) MATERIALS (WALLS AND ROOF) TO BE AGREED (%) (EN17) 3. (0201) SIGHT LINES TO ACCESS (%) (T29) 4. (0205) PROVISION OF FOOTWAY CROSSING(S) (%) (T29) 5. (0812) TURNING SPACE WITHIN SITE (%) (T29) 6. (0813) PARKING SPACES TO BE RETAINED (T29) 7. (0912) NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS/ALTERATIONS (CLASS; %) (A, B, C;

H6) 8. (0406) LANDSCAPING TO BE AGREED & CARRIED OUT: VERSION 2

(%) (EN17) 9. (0411) SURFACING/BOUNDARY TREATMENT ETC TO BE AGREED (%)

(EN17) NOTES FOR APPLICANT 1. (1319) FURTHER EXTENSIONS/ALTERATIONS (RE CONDITION) (7) 2. The future maintenance of the private access road will be the responsibilty

of the developer and future occupiers of the dwellings. 3. REASON FOR APPROVAL. In the view of the City Council, the proposal

complies with the relevant criteria in the City of Leicester Local Plan policies listed in this decision, and with policies in the replacement local plan which supersede those in the adopted plan, and there are no material considerations which outweigh these policies. The City Council considers that any harm to visual amenity, residential amenity and the street scene can be overcome by the attached conditions.


38

OTHER APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL 20042126 308 ABBEY LANE 14/10/2004 AREA: C WARD: Abbey DEV CONTINUATION OF USE OF PETROL STATION (NO USE

CLASS) AS CAR WASH (CLASS B2) AP SPARKKLEAN CAR WASH

Introduction The application relates to a vacant petrol station site on the northern corner of Abbey Lane and Orton Road. The site is within a Primarily Residential Area as defined within the City of Leicester Local Plan. There is an existing petrol station on the southern corner with Orton Road. Background Consent was refused for the change of use of the site to car sales and valeting in 1996 (19960868). One of the reasons for refusal was that the use of the proposed garage for valeting and car cleaning purposes would be likely to be detrimental to the amenity of the occupiers of nearby dwellings by reason of noise, fumes, etc associated with mechanical car cleaning equipment. A complaint was received about the site being used as a car wash in March 2003. The complainant questioned whether the use was authorised. The occupants of the application site were informed that they were in breach of planning control and advised to submit an application. Limited period consent was granted in November 2003 (20031502) for the use of the site for a car wash/valeting business for a period of 1 year.


39

In 2004 Local Councillors asked officers to investigate whether the site was being operated in breach of condition 3 of the limited period consent, which required a drainage system to be provided. In addition there was concern that one of the buildings was being used for residential purposes. Enforcement officers investigated and no breaches of planning control were found. The Proposal The applicants propose to continue to use the site as a car wash/valeting business for a further temporary period. Development Plan Policies H7 Permission not normally granted for non-residential uses in Primarily

Residential Areas unless no seriously detrimental effects. E6 Within Primarily Residential Areas permission not normally granted for

office, business, industrial or warehousing. RLP_H12 Planning permission not granted for non-residential uses within existing

and proposed Primarily Residential Areas unless certain criteria can be met. RLP_AM12 Proposals for parking provision for non-residential development should

not exceed the maximum standards specified in the supplementary planning guidance "Vehicle Parking Standards".

Representations I have received one letter of objection to the proposal from Councillor Henry who has requested that the application be reported to committee and states that: • the proposal blocks traffic on Orton Road; and • water from the jet washes runs across the road making conditions difficult for

residents. I have received a representation from the applicant clarifying that he has the drainage interceptors on the site cleaned regularly, which prevents them from blocking and water dispelling onto the road. A copy of an invoice from City Cleansing has been provided as evidence that the work is done. There are four parking spaces on the site which prevents waiting customers from parking on the road. He has purchased electronically powered and low emitting power washers reducing noise and fumes compared with the previously used petrol powered washers. I have also received a petition signed by 54 local residents who support the car wash continuing to trade on this site. Consideration Policies H7 and E6 of the City of Leicester Local Plan have a presumption against non-residential uses within primarily residential areas unless it can be shown that there will be no serious detrimental effects in terms of impact on residential amenity, traffic and highway safety and the provision of satisfactory off-street manoeuvring, servicing and parking arrangements.


40

While concern was expressed about the operation of the use, investigation by Officers did not reveal a breach of the conditions. The authorised use of the application site is as a petrol station. Compared with a car wash this is a more intensive use of the site and could be re-established without further planning consent. The site has also been used for car sales. It has existing vehicular access and egress with acceptable sight lines. The site also has space for parking of vehicles. I consider the traffic arrangements to be acceptable. The applicant has taken steps to improve the operation of the car wash and minimise any effect or inconvenience of the use on local residents. I consider that with the hours of use restricted and keeping the matter under review, for a further period the detriment to amenity can be controlled and if problems do occur further consent can be reconsidered. I therefore recommend LIMITED PERIOD CONSENT for a further 3 year period subject to the following conditions: CONDITIONS 1. The use shall be discontinued and the temporary buildings removed not

later than 30th November 2007 unless consent for a further period of time has been granted before that date.

(To keep the matter under review, in the interests of the amenities of nearby occupiers; and in accordance with policies H7 and E6 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.)

2. No machinery shall be operated and no work shall be undertaken outside

the hours of 0900 to 1900 hours Mondays to Saturdays, or 1000 to 1630 hours on Sundays.

(In the interests of the amenities of nearby occupiers, and in accordance with policy(ies) H7 and E6 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.)

3. The drainage system shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the City

Council as local planning authority. (In the interests of residential amenity and highway safety and in accordance with

Policy H7 of the City of Leicester Local Plan and Policy H12 of the Replacement City of Leicester Local Plan 2nd Deposit Copy)

NOTE FOR APPLICANT 1. REASON FOR APPROVAL. In the view of the City Council, the proposal

complies with the relevant criteria in the City of Leicester Local Plan policies listed in this decision, and with policies in the replacement local plan which supersede those in the adopted plan and there are no material considerations which outweigh these policies. The City Council considers that any harm to residential amenity and the street scene can be overcome by the attached conditions.


41

OTHER ITEMS 20040980 78 ST NICHOLAS CIRCLE 11/05/2004 AREA: C WARD: Castle DEV FOUR TO NINE STOREY BUILDING, WITH: 39 CLUSTER-

FLATS (CLASS C3); ONE UNIT ON PART OF GROUND FLOOR FOR USE AS RETAIL (CLASS A1), FOOD AND DRINK (CLASS A3) OR OFFICE (CLASS B1); LANDSCAPED COURTYARD (SUBJECT TO A S.106 AGREEMENT)

AW VICTORIA HALL LTD

Introduction The application site sits alongside St Nicholas Circle, between its junctions with Castle Street and Southgates. The land slopes by a couple of metres from the Southgates end down to Castle Street. Opposite the site on St Nicholas Circle is a multi-storey car park, a hotel and a disused petrol station. A foot bridge from these drops down onto the pavement alongside the site. Opposite the site on Castle street is a two-storey terrace of housing, built in the 1960’s. Adjoining the site on Southgates is a recently completed student accommodation scheme, delivered and operated by the applicant. This houses about 367 students, has an internal courtyard containing landscaping and about 12 parking spaces (accessed off Castle Street), and ranges from 4 storeys, adjacent to the application site, up to 7 storeys at the junction of Castle Street with Southgates. Adjoining the site on Castle Street is a two storey employment premises, which has a rear yard vehicular access along the site boundary. To the southwest of the site is St Mary De Castro Church, which is Grade I listed. Views of this are presently available across the site from various locations around St Nicholas Place.


42

The site has been cleared of buildings; the following remains:

• A small open area at the junction of Southgates and St Nicholas Circle, containing some trees; this is highway land and therefore owned by the City Council

• Landscaping alongside St Nicholas Circle, including some young trees. The Proposal The proposal is for student accommodation providing 166 bedrooms in a mix of four and five bed cluster-flats, in a building running up from the Castle Street end and turning the corner on Southgates to adjoin the existing student accommodation. In so doing it rises from 4 storeys up to 9 storeys on the Southgates corner, before dropping down a couple storeys along Southgates. The equivalent of the ground and first floors on the Southgates corner would be taken up by a commercial unit, for either Class A1 (retail), A3 (food and drink) or B1 (office). A rear landscaped courtyard, containing two parking spaces, would be formed between the new building and one of the blocks of existing student accommodation to the rear. A pedestrian link would be formed through that block, enabling the proposal to make use of the existing main site access and other facilities within the existing scheme. Vehicular and pedestrian access would also be available via the adjoining employment premises’ access off Castle Street. The proposed materials would combine red brick, render, metal panelling and glass. Development Plan Policies EN1 In areas of character, development should reinforce established pattern of

built form, spaces and movement routes. EN3 Development adjoining public spaces or thoroughfares must provide

positive and attractive built frontages. EN4 No permission for poor quality or inappropriate designs. High quality design

expected in City Centre and Conservation Areas. EN5 High quality modern design normally permitted where existing surroundings

have been taken into consideration. EN6 The Council will seek to preserve the City's archaeological heritage. EN10 Development affecting the setting of listed buildings will not normally be

approved if it would have a detrimental effect. EN20 In new buildings, shop front design to be an integral part of the design of the

whole building. EN41 Make provision for access for disabled people in new public buildings and


particularly for women, children and elderly people. H8 New residential development density should normally be compatible with

the area. Higher densities may be appropriate in some cases. H10 Within the City Centre, a high priority will continue to be given to the

principle of development for residential purposes.


43

H14 Permission normally granted for new flats and conversion to self-contained flats, flatlets or cluster flats, subject to criteria.

R1 Applications for residential development only permitted where open space provided and related to the development.

T14 Surface-level car parks shall be appropriately landscaped and surfaced, and satisfactorily provide for pedestrians.

T16 Specified provision for the parking of bicycles for employees and users of facilities will be expected in new developments.

T17 Bicycle parking facilities to be provided in a form and location allowing surveillance, improving security for cycles and people.

T29 Development shall create a safe and convenient environment for pedestrians on paths within the site and on footways alongside.

RLP_ST03 Major new developments are expected to demonstrate good urban design. When considering proposals the council will take account of certain criteria to help achieve this.

RLP_ST05 Criteria will be used to assess planning applications which concern the amenity of existing or proposed residents.

RLP_ST06 Proposals which may pollute air, ground or water will not be permitted unless the health and amenity of users, neighbours and the wider environment can be assured.


RLP_UD05 List of net densities required for residential development sites. RLP_UD08 Planning permission will not be given for development proposals which

fail to sufficiently demonstrate consideration of efficiency in the use of energy.

RLP_UD09 Proposals for new development should ensure that buildings are designed for flexibility with the future in mind and take into consideration criteria.

RLP_UD11 Criteria for the design and layout of corner buildings in new development.

RLP_UD17 Tall buildings will be permitted where they meet the design and locational criteria.

RLP_H05a Criteria for the development of student accommodation. RLP_AM02 Planning permission will only be granted where the needs of cyclists

have been incorporated into the design and new or improved cycling routes should link as direct as possible to key destinations.

RLP_AM13 Levels of car parking for residential development will be determined in accordance with the standards in "Vehicle Parking Standards".

Policy Considerations Local Plan Designations Adopted Plan: The eastern half of the site does not have a specific designation; the western half is designated as part of a Primarily Residential Area that takes in the houses on Castle Street opposite the site. The site is in the Archaeological Alert Area Replacement Plan:


44

The site is within an area designated for Community, Education and Leisure Use and the Area of Influence for De Montfort University. It is also within the Archaeological Alert Area, Central Commercial Zone, and Strategic Regeneration Area. Pre-Inquiry Changes Some of the Criteria in Policy H05a (Student Housing) have been amended. The full policy now reads: Planning permission will be granted for student housing accommodation where: a) university facilities are readily accessible to the development by a choice of transport, especially by public transport, walking or cycling; b) the scale of the development, including height and massing of buildings, will not be detrimental to the general character of the surrounding area; c) the development or maintenance of mixed and inclusive communities is not prejudiced by an over concentration of student housing; d) appropriate management arrangements are in place to ensure a satisfactory residential environment for the future occupants and the established community;and e) satisfactory arrangements are proposed for the management of any car parking required to serve the development. Supplementary Planning Guidance Vehicle Parking Standards (September 2002): The site is in Zone 2, which allows a maximum car parking provision 1 per 12 bed spaces for the students. Open Space Provision in New Residential Developments (Draft 2003): This guidance contains suggested maximum contribution levels which can be broken down into individual contributions for amenity space, adult/youth recreational facilities and children’s playspace. No specific contributions are suggested for student accommodation . Since the number of bedrooms in such accommodation indicates the actual intended occupation level, the number of students occupying a scheme is used to calculate their maximum contribution requirement. However, such accommodation is not expected to contribute towards children’s play areas. Consultations English Heritage – creating a delightful townscape for this part of the Old Town is a challenge; the proposed building will be too high, blocking important views of the steeple of St Mary De Castro Church; the scheme should be redesigned with the future townscape of the wider area in mind; the development of this site could be an influential start to the process of redevelopment in the St Nicholas Circle Area. Conservation Advisory Panel – opposed to the scheme: relationship between Castle Area and Guildhall/Cathedral area further eroded; too high; design poor and incoherent; scheme should be broken to preserve and link views of the Old Town. Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings – no comment Leicestershire Constabulary – the proposed Class A3 use is unacceptable because of the growing residential population of the area and likelihood of anti-social problems for residents. Severn Trent Water – no objection, subject to a condition being added requiring drainage works to be undertaken.


45

Representations 18 letters of objection have been received, including one from the Vicar of St Mary De Castro and one from Leicestershire County Council, in its capacity as owner of some listed buildings Castle Street. Many of the objections have come from parishioners of the church. The following grounds have been cited:

• Construction contractor’s cars and students cars have been a problem on the applicant’s first scheme, which would only get worse with a second scheme.

• Area is saturated with students; more will affect the nature of the area • Insufficient student numbers to fill other student accommodation in the area • views of the spire of St Mary De Castro Church would be lost • adverse impact on light • commercial unit, whatever it is used for, will add to parking problems • a food and drink use would add to noise and litter • scale of proposal is out of character with the Castle Park area • the De Montfort University campus should not spread without control • unsympathetic materials for the area • parking problems affect the use and viability of the St Mary De Castro Church

if people cannot park reasonably close by • loss of privacy from overlooking • noise from student rooms • detrimental effect of traffic noise and pollution on students • room should be made for street trees by setting any new building back • detrimental impact on other listed buildings and the Castle gardens

Conservation Area • loss of trees from the site

Consideration Principle of residential use. The Community, Education and Leisure designation of the site in the Replacement Local Plan also includes the De Montfort University Campus and the adjoining student accommodation recently completed by the applicant. There is no prohibition of non-community/education/leisure uses in areas designated as such. There are specific policies which protect existing community, education and leisure uses and protect identified known proposal sites for such uses. In this case, there are no such uses on the site and no proposals for such uses either. The development of a non-community/education/leisure use on this site is therefore not contrary to policy. Policies in the adopted local plan and RLP support the principle of regenerative schemes in this area, which this scheme would be, and residential development in the City Centre. Subject to some of the conditions I have recommended, I consider that a satisfactory living environment can be achieved on this site. In particular, a scheme for noise insulation and mechanical ventilation will be needed to overcome noise and air quality problems associated with the adjacent main roads. I recommended a condition to this effect.


46

I therefore conclude that residential development is acceptable in principle. Principle of student accommodation. The site’s location within the De Montfort University Area of Influence means that uses compatible with the University are acceptable in principle. It also means the University’s facilities would therefore be readily accessible to occupants, either by foot or cycle. In addition, there is already a range of other housing accommodation available in the area, which includes the family-standard housing on Castle Street, and a scheme for around a hundred flats is currently under construction on Bath Lane, just to the northwest of the site, across St Nicholas Circle. I therefore consider that the scheme is compatible with the creation of a mixed and inclusive community in the area. Also, there is no policy requirement, either nationally or in the local plan, for making student accommodation providers justify a need for the accommodation. In this respect, I have, in any case, taken account of the fact that the current capacity of high density student schemes is still significantly short of the number of full-time students enrolled at the two universities. Furthermore, whilst there was an indication that some of the recently completed schemes struggled to fill themselves when they first opened, there is now little spare capacity left. That is, schemes which struggled initially seem to have had few problems in their second year of opening and beyond. I have noted with concern the problems with student behaviour and parking highlighted by many of the objectors: I shall deal with parking issues below. The alternative to managed, high density accommodation within walking distance of the campus is the spreading of students over a wider area in lower densities, in properties owned by many different landlords. The ability to coordinate between a manager and the University is greatly enhanced in a high density scheme. The ability to influence and control student behaviour is therefore greatly enhanced too. I therefore do not consider that refusal on of the scheme on the grounds of the potential for anti-social behaviour are appropriate in this instance. I consider the principle of student accommodation on this site to be acceptable. Design. The design of the scheme and its visual impact on its surroundings are key considerations. I have been principally concerned about the proposed height and impact on the setting of the St Mary De Castro Church, as viewed from St Nicholas Place. I have held discussions with the applicant on this and have been assured that changes to the scheme to reduce its mass, and especially to reduce its impact on views of the church, will be forthcoming. These are likely to include the lowering of the central part of the building to retain views of the Church from St Nicholas Place, and adjustments to the massing of the corner element, again with regard to views of the Church but also to make improve the strength of the corner. I will report on these revisions at the meeting. With regard to privacy, access to light and overshadowing, I am satisfied that the distance and orientation with respect to adjacent properties means there would be


47

no significant adverse impact on the amenities of adjoining occupiers, including those on Castle Street. I do not consider that the proposal affects the setting of any other listed buildings or the adjacent Castle Gardens Conservation Area. Parking. The advantages of management in high density schemes I have cited above apply also with respect to parking. Recent approvals for student accommodation have included requirements for tenancy agreements to discourage car owning students and include undertakings for them not to park their cars within 500m of their accommodation, effectively removing the incentive to have a car. Unfortunately there was no such provision on the existing accommodation here. Whilst this proposal would be managed with it as a single site, I think such a condition can be imposed on this part of it alone, and have therefore recommended one. I have also been concerned to read about the problems of enforcing parking restrictions in Castle Street. However, it remains a fact that parking controls are available in the area. I do not consider that the development would result in on-street parking problems sufficient to warrant a refusal and conclude that the parking provision for the students will be acceptable. The City Centre location means the site also has good access to public transport. Indeed, there is a multi-storey car park across the road, used by many commuters and workers in the area. I consider the lack of on-site parking for the commercial unit to be acceptable because of this. Overall, subject to some of my recommended conditions, I do not consider that there would be any significant adverse impact on highway safety and convenience. Other matters. I consider the standard of the accommodation, bin storage facilities, and means of access to be acceptable. There is space for cycle parking in the courtyard and the applicant has stated his willingness to provide this to an acceptable standard. I have recommended a condition requiring its provision. The trees on the site are not protected by any Tree Preservation Order. They have been inspected and for, a variety of reasons, including the small size of some, lack of future prospects (eg. because of proximity to buildings and services) and poor condition, none are considered worthy of retention. Archaeological work has already been progressing on the site. What has already been revealed is some of the best archaeological deposits in Leicester. A thorough and detailed excavation of the site will be needed to ensure that the scheme will not cause unacceptable harm to the deposits. The developer has already indicated his willingness to undertake such work and I have recommended conditions in this regard.


48

The provision of commercial floorspace on the Southgates corner is welcome because it provides an active frontage on a prominent corner that would not be suitable for residential accommodation at street level. However I am concerned about the potential impact of an A3 use in this location, because of the proximity to residential uses and the existence of other bars and a club nearby. Also, no case has been made for the provision of retail space in this location, which is outside of any designated shopping areas. It is therefore unacceptable. I consider an office use within Class B1 to be appropriate for the location: again, the size of the unit means that it would not undermine policies directing large office developments elsewhere. I have recommended a condition clarifying that retail and food and drink uses could not be implemented. S.106 Agreement. I have also to conclude discussions with the applicant about a potential S.106 agreement. I consider that the only matter that would need to be covered by this would be a contribution to open space provision. More specifically, I think contributions are needed for the maintenance and enhance of Castle Gardens, as an amenity space, and Rally Park, in terms of recreational facilities available there, which the students might be expected to use. The maximum figure that might be required will vary if the applicant’s changes to the scheme reduce the number of rooms available. I will therefore report my recommended contribution levels at the meeting. I therefore recommend APPROVAL, subject to the receipt of satisfactory revised drawings, subject to a S.106 Agreement securing open space contributions, and subject to the following conditions: CONDITIONS 1. (0101) START WITHIN FIVE YEARS 2. The flats shall only be occupied by students enrolled on full-time courses at

De Montfort University or Leicester University, or students working as student nurses, doctors or other medical practice in the University Hospitals of Leicester.

(To enable the City Council to assess any continuing need for the site to contribute towards affordable housing in the City in the event of changes to non-student tenancy, which would require assessment of such provision, and to ensure that student occupation is related to studies undertaken in Leicester.)

3. The accommodation shall not be occupied until a Student Admissions and

Management Strategy (SAMS) has been submitted to and agreed in writing with the City Council as local planning authority. The SAMS shall include details of admissions and management policy for the students, and shall include provisions for:

(a) advice, warnings and sanctions regarding anti-social behaviour on and immediately adjacent to the site;

(b) first preference being given to students who undertake not to bring a car with them whilst residing at the site; and


49

(c) students to undertake not to park a car within 500m of the site, if they do bring a car with them whilst residing at the site, unless it would be parked in an off-street public car park.

Amendments to the agreed SAMS shall be agreed in writing with the City Council as local planning authoirty before being implemented.

(In the interests of the amenities of neighbours and highway safety and convenience, and in accordance with policy H14 of the City of Leicester Local Plan and Policy H05a of the Replacement City of Leicester Local Plan.)

4. (0410) TEMPORARY ARRANGEMENTS DURING BUILDING

OPERATIONS (%) (EN10, H14 and T29) 5. (0401) LANDSCAPING TO BE AGREED & CARRIED OUT: VERSION 1

(%) (EN55) 6. Cycle parking spaces shall be installed before the occupation of the flats

and shall be retained, unless alternative provision has been previously agreed in writing with the City Council as local planning authority. Details of the cycle parking to be provided shall first be submitted to and agreed in writing with the City Council as local planning authority.

(In the interests of occupant amenity and sustainability, and in accordance with policies T12, T16 and T17 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.)

7. Bins shall only be stored in the bin storage area shown on the approved

drawings, which shall be provided at the time of development and retained for such use only, unless alternative provision has been previously agreed in writing with the City Council as local planning authority.

(In the interests of amenity, and in accordance with Policy H14 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.)

8. Before development commences, a scheme for acoustic glazing and

mechanical ventilation shall have been agreed in writing with the City Council as lcoal planning authoirty for all habitable rooms facing Southgates and St Nicholas Circle. The agreed scheme shall be implemented as part of the development and retained.

(In the intersts of the amenities of the future occupants, in accordance with policy H14 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.)

9. The approved development shall not be occupied until drainage works for

the disposal of both surface and foul sewage have been carried out in accordance with details to be submitted to and agreed in writing by the City Council as local planning authority.

(To ensure the development is provided with a satisfactory means of drainage.) 10. Before the flats are occupied external lighting for the pedestrian and vehicle

accesses, fire-exits and courtyard shall be installed in accordance with details previously agreed in writing with the City Council as local planning authority. No other external lighting shall be installed on the development unless details have been previously agreed in writing with the City Council as local planning authority.


50

(In the interests of residential and visual amenity and in accordance with Policies EN3, EN4, EN10, EN42 and H14 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.)

11. Before the development is begun the materials to be used on all external

elevations and roofs shall be agreed in writing between the applicant and the City Council as local planning authority. The agreement shall be dependent upon inspection of a sample panel or panels of proposed materials constructed on site.

(In the interests of visual amenity, and in accordance with policies EN1, EN2, EN3, EN4, EN5, EN10 and EN14 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.)

12. (0812) TURNING SPACE WITHIN SITE (%) (T14) 13. (0810) PARKING AREA SURFACED AND MARKED OUT (%) (T12, T13,

T14 and T15) 14. (0915) ARCHAEOLOGY - DETAILS TO BE SUBMITTED 15. (0916) ARCHAEOLOGY - PROGRAMME TO BE AGREED 16. (1204) DISABLED PERSONS PARKING (CAR SPACES) (1) 17. Notwithstanding any detail shown on the approved drawings, the approved

commercial unit shall be only be used as office floorspace within Class B1 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1995.

(No evidence has been submitted to support the porvision of a retail Class A1 unit in this location, which is outside any designated shopping area in the City of Leicester local plan, and because a Clas A3 use would be likely to detrimentally affect the amenities of future and existing residential occupants of the area.)


51

OTHER ITEMS 20041141 JARROM STREET, HAVELOCK STREET, CLARENDON

STREET 17/06/2004 AREA: C WARD: Castle DEV FOUR TWO STOREY HOUSES (CLASS C3) TO CLARENDON

STREET; FOUR TO SIX STOREY BLOCK OF FOURTEEN FLATS (CLASS C3) TO HAVELOCK STREET; THREE AND FOUR STOREY BLOCK OF SIX FLATS (CLASS C3) TO JARROM STREET; CAR PARKING AND LANDSCAPING; (AMENDED SCHEME) (SUBJECT TO A S.106 AGREEMENT)

AW ALBION HILL PROPERTY

Introduction This application was considered at your meeting on 16 November 2004, when it was deferred for a site visit. The application site is a 1850m2 ‘L’-shape, with street frontage to Clarendon Street, Havelock Street and Jarrom Street. It formerly contained a warehouse, which was demolished over a year ago, and the site is now wholly used as a car park. Adjoining the site are:

• on the southeast boundary, industrial buildings; • on the northwest boundary, a small modern housing court (on the corner of

Clarendon Street and Jarrom Street), a small row of shops (facing Jarrom Street), all of which are 2-storey, and a small landscaped area owned by the City Council.

Opposite the site:


52

• on Clarendon Street is a 2-storey Victorian housing terrace and on Jarrom Street are 3 and 4 storey student accommodation buildings for De Montfort University (these are within a Primarily Residential Area , as designated in the Adopted local plan and RLP);

• on Havelock Street are a car workshop and a children's’ nursery. Havelock Street is one-way for vehicles and has a contra-flow cycle lane alongside the site. Clarendon Street is a no-through-road for vehicles, but pedestrians can walk through to the recently redeveloped St Andrews estate and beyond. Shops on Walnut Street and Thirlmere Street Gardens, containing a ball-court and children's’ playground are just over 200m from the site. Hazel Street Primary School is about 550m from the site, to the south. Background A retrospective application (20030591) was submitted for the temporary use of the site as a car park. This was refused by the City Council on 15 May 2003 and enforcement action was subsequently taken to cease the use. This action was appealed against and the appeal was allowed on 23 August 2004, subject to conditions. One of these means consent is temporary until August 2005 and another restricts the parking to short-stay, so that it should not operate as a commuter car park. An earlier application for the site (20021313), for 55 flats in buildings ranging from 3 to 6 storeys, was withdrawn by the applicant. The Proposal The proposal is for 3 blocks of residential buildings, providing 24 units in total:

• Block A (corner of Havelock Street/Jarrom Street), ranges from 3 storeys, adjacent to the shops, to 4 storeys on the corner, contains six 3-bed flats, has a pedestrian entrance off Havelock Street and a private court for one of the ground floor flats at the rear;

• Block B (facing Havelock Street) ranges from 4 storeys at the rear to 6 storeys at the front. It would contain eight 3-bed flats and six 2-bed flats. The rear part sits above parking; there is a pedestrian entrance off Havelock Street and a private court for one of the ground floor flats at the rear.

• Block C would contain four 2-storey 3-bed houses on Clarendon Street, replicating the terrace housing opposite. Each house would have a rear garden and rear parking space, the latter accessed off Havelock Street.

A parking area serving all the blocks is accessed off Havelock Street, between blocks A and B. It contains 18 spaces for the 20 flats, with 4 spaces provided to disabled standard. All of the above is based on an amended scheme. The scheme does not propose student accommodation, although the previous application for the site did. Development Plan Policies EN2 In areas of little character, development should give stronger identity

through the layout of buildings and new spaces.


53

EN3 Development adjoining public spaces or thoroughfares must provide positive and attractive built frontages.

EN4 No permission for poor quality or inappropriate designs. High quality design expected in City Centre and Conservation Areas.

EN5 High quality modern design normally permitted where existing surroundings have been taken into consideration.

EN19 Design and layout of new housing development should satisfy criteria. EN41 Make provision for access for disabled people in new public buildings and


particularly for women, children and elderly people. EN55 New developments should have a high standard of landscaping. Full and

accurate details should be submitted. H3b The Council will encourage the provision of access housing, normally close

to shops and public transport and on level ground. H8 New residential development density should normally be compatible with

the area. Higher densities may be appropriate in some cases. H10 Within the City Centre, a high priority will continue to be given to the

principle of development for residential purposes. H14 Permission normally granted for new flats and conversion to self-contained

flats, flatlets or cluster flats, subject to criteria. E14 Permission normally given for development providing improved employment

opportunities in the Potential Development Areas. R1 Applications for residential development only permitted where open space

provided and related to the development. R10 In residential developments, play and amenity open space to be provided.

Conditions or Agreements may be used to secure provision. T14 Surface-level car parks shall be appropriately landscaped and surfaced,

and satisfactorily provide for pedestrians. T16 Specified provision for the parking of bicycles for employees and users of

facilities will be expected in new developments. T17 Bicycle parking facilities to be provided in a form and location allowing

surveillance, improving security for cycles and people. T19 Developers may be expected to contribute to the cost of improvements to

the transport system to enable development to take place. T29 Development shall create a safe and convenient environment for

pedestrians on paths within the site and on footways alongside. RLP_ST05 Criteria will be used to assess planning applications which concern the

amenity of existing or proposed residents. RLP_ST06 Proposals which may pollute air, ground or water will not be permitted

unless the health and amenity of users, neighbours and the wider environment can be assured.

RLP_ST08 Within the Strategic Regeneration Area (SRA) planning permission will only be granted where a comprehensive and coordinated approach to development can be demonstrated.

RLP_ST11 Criteria will be used to enhance the relationship between different land uses and transport linkages.

RLP_UD11 Criteria for the design and layout of corner buildings in new development.

RLP_CL02 New housing development should provide or make a financial contribution towards community and leisure facilities and improvement or extension of existing facilities.


54

RLP_AM02 Planning permission will only be granted where the needs of cyclists have been incorporated into the design and new or improved cycling routes should link as direct as possible to key destinations.

RLP_AM13 Levels of car parking for residential development will be determined in accordance with the standards in "Vehicle Parking Standards".


RLP_UD14 New development must include planting proposals unless it can be demonstrated that the scale, nature and impact of the development or character of the area do not require them.

RLP_UD15 Development proposals will require maintenance and replacement of existing and new landscape for the first ten years.

RLP_H05 Criteria for the development of new flats and the conversion of existing buildings to self-contained flats.

RLP_SPA08 Planning permission normally granted for residential development within the Central Shopping Core, the Central Office Core and Central Commercial Zone.

RLP_UD05 List of net densities required for residential development sites. Policy Considerations The site is in a Potential Development Area in the adopted local plan. In the Second Deposit Replacement Local Plan (RLP) the site is part of a Community Education and Leisure Uses designation that also includes the De Montfort University campus, the Central Commercial Zone and the Strategic Regeneration Area. Policy UD05 of the RLP requires a minimum density of 30 dwellings per hectare for sites of this size. This is in line with the current nationally set minimum density for all housing development, as set out in Planning Policy Guidance Note 3: Housing. This policy also requires the density of new developments to be ‘compatible’ with their surroundings, which echoes Policy H8 in the adopted local plan. Policy H8 also requires high densities in the City Centre and close to public transport routes. Policy AM13 of the RLP is used in conjunction with the Vehicle Parking Standards Supplementary Planning Guidance (adopted September 2002). The site is in Zone 2, which allows a maximum of 1 car space per flat or house. Supplementary Planning Guidance for Open Space Provision in Residential Developments (Draft, April 2003) applies to the scheme. For the maintenance and enhancement of existing facilities this suggests maximum contribution levels of £1467 for 3-bed units and £1174 for 2-bed units. This would lead to a maximum contribution of £33450 for this scheme. Consultations Leicestershire Constabulary – no objections; the layout offers good surveillance; adequate lighting of communal areas should be provided.


55

Representations Four letters of objection have been received. Three are from residential neighbours, who have cited the following grounds:

• Damage to property and traffic problems during construction • Parking problems would be made worse • Too many students in the area, with anti-social behaviour a problem • Loss of temporary parking use on the site • Overlooking of residential properties • the scheme is not dissimilar to one rejected earlier in 2004.

The fourth letter, from the Leicester Civic Society, cited the following grounds: • Lack of public amenity space • Strain on existing roads and traffic patterns, with congestion around the

Leicester Royal Infirmary • Loss of light and privacy to existing housing

Councillor Kitterick has requested that the application be considered by the Development Control Committee for the following reasons:

• the proposal is an overdevelopment of the site • grave concern about potential traffic disruption caused by the development

Consideration The current proposal has reduced by more than half the number of units in the scheme withdrawn earlier this year. However, because the applicant withdrew that application it is not now a material consideration. Proposals Maps Designations and Policies. Unlike in the Replacement Local Plan (RLP), the designation of the site in the adopted Local Plan as a Potential Development Area (PDA) does not carry with it any priority or other preferred land uses. Instead, the policy for PDA’s in the adopted Local Plan (E14) simply states:

• “Planning permission will normally be given to schemes for the development, regeneration and/or refurbishment of [a] Potential Development Area….which provide improved employment opportunities and other benefits.”

The supporting text makes it clear that the Council intends to operate a flexible approach to PDA’s to “facilitate regeneration” and that residential uses “will be acceptable”. This approach is supported by Policy H10, that states:

• “Within the City Centre…a high priority will continue to be given to the principle of development for residential purposes.”

I therefore consider the proposed use to be compatible with adopted policy. In the RLP, the site has been included within an area designated on the Second Deposit Proposals Map as Community, Education and Leisure Uses, which also includes, in this instance, the De Montfort University campus. Unlike other ‘land use’ designations on the Proposals Map, there is no generic policy presumption in favour of community, education or leisure uses in areas designated as such. There are, instead, more specific polices that protect known proposals for such uses and protect existing such uses. In this case, none of these uses exist on or are proposed for this site. What the designation does carry is a presumption in favour of such uses on this site, if proposals were to come forward. The development of a non-


56

community/education/leisure use on this site is therefore not contrary to the emerging RLP. Furthermore, the RLP also contains policies encouraging regeneration on sites such as this, including ST08 (Strategic Regeneration Area) and SPA08, which states:

• “Within the….Central Commercial Zone….planning permission will be granted for residential development where an appropriate living environment can be provided…”

I consider, subject to some of the conditions I have recommended, that an appropriate living environment could be provided for residents on this site. I therefore conclude that residential development on this site is acceptable in principle. Density. The density of the scheme is slightly higher than the prevailing density of the terrace housing in the Jarrom Street area. It has a higher density than the recent housing developed to the south of the site (the St Andrews estate), but less than the net density of student accommodation opposite the site on Jarrom Street. I consider the proposed density to be compatible with the surroundings, in principle, especially because of the central location, with good access to a range of facilities by foot and cycle, and good access to public transport. Parking. The amount of car parking is marginally below the maximum allowance for this use in this location. Given the proximity of the site to city centre facilities and public transport I consider this provision to be acceptable. I consider it necessary, though, to require the parking spaces for the proposed houses to be retained for their benefit, as they are integral to the plots. The scheme has the advantage of releasing the frontage on Clarendon Street, which is presently restricted for loading purposes relating to the former use of the site, for additional street parking. All the houses and ground floor flats are capable of storing their own cycles. Flats on the upper floors of the proposed Blocks A and B need their own dedicated cycle storage, for which there is space on the ground floor of each building. I have recommended a condition requiring agreement of details. The existing use of the site as a car park is temporary. The redevelopment of the site is compatible with this and will produce a long-term benefit to the area in terms of improved appearance, better 24-hour surveillance of adjacent streets as a result of having residential use, and reduced traffic intrusion into the area. Given all of this, I am satisfied that the completed scheme shall not cause any detriment to highway safety and convenience. Design. Adequate bin storage facilities are provided and I consider the standard of each flat and their on-site amenities to be acceptable. Indeed, the floorspaces for most of the flats and the houses are quite generous and could encourage family use. I consider this to be welcome in this area, which does contain family orientated facilities, such as children's’ nurseries, a park, and a primary school, and it helps to maintain an appropriate community balance, given the presence of a large number of students in the area.


57

The proposed houses on Clarendon Street would look just like those opposite, but they would be bigger inside. The orientation of all the proposed blocks together with the space between them and existing buildings is such that I consider that there would be no detriment for existing neighbours or future residents from loss of privacy, loss of light or over dominance. The scale of buildings varies in the area. The houses will be the same size as existing housing opposite on Clarendon Street. The corner block will be of a similar scale to buildings on the opposite side of Jarrom Street and only slightly taller than adjoining premises on Jarrom Street. The Havelock Street Block, at 6-storeys, will be the tallest building on that side of Havelock Street. However, it will not be substantially taller than the proposed corner block on one side of it, and the existing adjoining factory on the other side. Furthermore, hospital buildings that are even taller and much bulkier are not far away on the other side of Havelock Street. I consider the scale and design of the buildings to relate well to their surroundings. In particular, I consider the use of brick as a principle material to be appropriate, and that the quality of the contemporary design of Blocks A and B is acceptable. The ground floor flats can be provided to the City Council’s Access Standard, which will further enhance the range of accommodation available in the area. Designated parking for these units (four in all) can be secured within the site by condition. Other matters. I have recommendation a condition requiring agreement of details relating to the construction phase. This is in order to help minimise the potential disruption that arises from any development. In particular, I have recommended that no construction vehicle access into the site be available off Clarendon Street. Because of the potential for families to use the site and to take account of the likely needs and impact of future residents on local facilities, I consider that contributions should be made by the scheme to the following matters:

A. Maintenance and enhancement of Thirlmere Street Gardens and the facilities within it

B. Enhancement of cyclist and pedestrian facilities at the junction of Jarrom Street and Havelock Street

C. Maintenance and enhancement of community and education facilities at Hazel Street Primary School and Community Centre

D. Maintenance and enhancement of the amenity space adjoining the site on Jarrom Street.

The applicant has agreed to a total figure of £75,000, which would include a maximum of £33,450 for item A, in accordance with the Open Space SPG. I consider that the securing of that maximum amount would be appropriate, with the provision of £10,000 for item B, £26,550 for Item C and £5,000 for Item D. I therefore recommend APPROVAL, subject to a S.106 AGREEMENT for contributions to:

• Thirlmere Street Gardens, • pedestrian/cyclist facilities at the Havelock Street/Jarrom Street junction, • Hazel Street Primary School and Community Centre, and • the amenity space adjoining the site on Jarrom Street;

and the following conditions:


58

CONDITIONS 1. (0101) START WITHIN FIVE YEARS 2. Phased commencement of the development shall only take place in

accordance with a written methodology that shall have been agreed in writing with the City Council before any part of the development is started. The methodology shall take account of requirements in conditions below and provide details of interim site surfacing and boundary treatments, which shall be implemented within one month of the occupation of any one block if any other block has not been commenced.

(To secure a satisfactory form of development and in accordance with policies EN2, EN3, H14, T19, and T29 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.)

3. The cycle storage shown on the approved drawings for blocks A and B shall

be provided before any of the flats are occupied. This storage shall be retained unless alternative provision elsewhere within the site has been previously agreed in writing with the City Council as local planning authority.

(To secure the satisfactory development of the site in the interests of sustainability and to accord with policies T16 and T17 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.)

4. All bin storage facilities shown on the approved drawings shall be provided

before any of the flats that would use them are occupied. They shall be retained unless alternative provision within the site has been previously agreed in writing with the City Council as local planning authority.

(In the interests of amenity and to accord with policy H14 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.)

5. Dropped kerbs and ramps, suitable for wheelchairs and prams, shall be

provided at the time of development in the footways at the junction of the site access with Havelock Street, in accordance with details to be agreed in writing with the City Council as local planning authority.

(For the safety and convenience of pedestrians including disabled people and pram and wheelchair users; and in accordance with policy T29 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.)

6. The development shall not be occupied until all redundant footway

crossings on Clarendon Street and Havelock Street, together with damaged or altered areas of footway or other highway, have been reinstated to the satisfaction of the City Council as local planning authority.

(For the safety and convenience of pedestrians and other road users, and in accordance with policy T29 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.)

7. Before the development is begun details of the materials to be used on all

external elevations and roofs shall be agreed in writing between the applicant and the City Council as local planning authority. Details shall include the construction of sample panels on site.

(In the interests of visual amenity, and in accordance with policies EN3, EN4, EN5, EN19 and H14 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.)


59

8. The gardens at the rear of Block C and private court at the rear of blocks A and B shall be retained for the use of the occupants of the adjoining houses and flats only, and shall not be communal spaces for the site.

(In the interests of the amenities of the occupants adjoining the rear gardens and private courts, and in accordance with policy H14 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.)

9. Before the development authorised by this permission is begun, a detailed

landscaping scheme showing the treatment of all parts of the site which will remain unbuilt upon shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the City Council as local planning authority. This scheme shall include details of:

(i) new tree and shrub planting, including plant type, size, quantities and locations;

(ii) means of planting, staking, and tying of trees, including tree guards; (iii) other surface treatments; (iv) fencing and boundary treatments; (v) any changes in levels; and (vi) the position and depth of service and/or drainage runs (which may affect

tree roots). The approved landscaping scheme shall be carried out within one year of

completion of the development. For a period of not less than 10 years from the date of planting, the applicant or owners of the land shall maintain all planted material. This material shall be replaced if it dies, is removed or becomes seriously diseased. The replacement planting shall be completed in the next planting season in accordance with the approved landscaping scheme.

(In the interests of amenity, and in accordance with policies EN55, EN3, EN19 and H14 of the City of Leicester Local Plan of the City of Leicester Local Plan.)

10. (0403) LANDSCAPING TO BE PHASED WITH DEVELOPMENT (%) (EN3,

EN19, EN55 and H14) 11. Before each phase of the development is begun, a scheme shall be agreed

in writing with the City Council as local planning authority indicating details of temporary site entrances, temporary storage areas for soil and other materials, and the placing of plant and site huts to be adopted during building operations for each phase, and shall be implemented in accordance with the agreed details. Construction vehicles shall not enter or exit the site off Clarendon Street.

(To ensure the satisfactory development of the site, in the interests of the amenities of neighbouring residents, and in accordance with policies H14 and T29 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.)

12. No business or commercial activities nor any vehicle breaking operations

shall be carried on from the parking spaces or vehicle circulation areas within the site.

(In the interests of residential amenity, and in accordance with policy H14 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.)

13. Windows on the street frontages of Blocks A and B, which for the avoidance

of doubt includes the Jarrom Street elevation of Block A, shall only be installed in accordance with an acoustic specification that shall have first


60

been agreed in writing with the City Council as local planning authority, and shall be retained as such.

(In the interests of the amenities of future occupants, and in accordance with policy H14 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.)

14. Details of measures to be adopted to prevent the transmission of noise

through the party wall of the industrial building adjoining Blocks B and C to the adjoining units in those blocks, shall be agreed in writing with the City Council as local planning authority before the commencement of works on those blocks and shall be implemented in tandem with the construction of those blocks.

(In the interests of the amenities of future occupants and in accordance with policy H14 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.)

15. At the same time as the remainder of the development, all parking areas

shall be surfaced and marked out in accordance with details which shall first have been agreed in writing with the City Council as local planning authority, and shall be retained and not used for any other purpose.

(To ensure that parking can take place in a satisfactory manner, and in accordance with policy T14 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.)

16. (0812) TURNING SPACE WITHIN SITE (%) (T14 and T29) 17. The parking spaces shown on the approved plans shall be provided at the

time of development and shall be retained. (To secure adequate off-street parking provision in the interests of highway safety

and convenience.) 18. The gated parking spaces shown on the amended site layout plan shall be

provided before the approved dwellinghouses are occupied, and shall be retained for the benefit of each house.

(In the interests of the amenities of the occupants of those houses, and in accordance with policy EN19 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.)

19. Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved drawings, the ground

floor flats shall be provided only in accordance with the City Council's Access Housing Standards, and the details of such shall have been previously agreed in writing with the City Council as local planning authority. The disabled standard parking spaces shown on the approved drawings shall be retained available for the benefit of these flats only.

(In the interests of meeting the needs of disabled people, and in accordance with policies H3b and EN41 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.)

20. (0912) NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS/ALTERATIONS (CLASS; %) (A, B, C,

E and G; EN19 and H14) 21. Before the development is begun details of the finished floor levels in

relation to the existing ground levels shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the City Council as Local Planning Authority.

(In the interests of visual and residential amenities and in accordance with policies UD01 and H05 of the Replacement Local Plan (2nd Deposit Draft)


61

22. This consent shall relate solely to the amended plans received by the City Council as local planning authority on 14 October 2004 and 12 November 2004 (plans referenced 99552.01c and 99552.04c).

(For the avoidance of doubt.) NOTES FOR APPLICANT 1. REASON FOR APPROVAL. In the view of the City Council, the proposal

complies with the relevant criteria in the City of Leicester Local Plan policies and replacement local plan policies listed in this decision, which supersede those in the adopted plan, and there are no material considerations which outweigh these policies. The City Council considers that any harm to visual amenity, residential amenity, the street scene, and highway safety and convenience can be overcome by the attached conditions.

2. (1310) ACCESS INFORMATION 3. (1319) FURTHER EXTENSIONS/ALTERATIONS (RE CONDITION) 4. (1323) AGREE HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION/CONTRACTOR DETAILS

(CONDITION) (5 and 6) 5. This development may have an impact on the public highway during

construction. This may require a Temporary Traffic Regulation Order (TTRO) to enable the works to continue safely. These normally take six weeks to process, so the developer should allow adequate time for this before work starts. A TTRO will not be granted unless the developer meets the following conditions:

(A) a workable traffic management plan should be agreed with the highway authority and implemented before work starts; and

(B) residents and business in the area should be informed before a TTRO is agreed and implemented, to enable any valid concerns to be addressed.

Further information and guidance on this matter can be obtained from the Traffic Operations Team in the Transport Systems Section, on 0116 299 5678.

PLANNING INSPECTORATE APPEAL DECISIONS 20048016A HAVELOCK STREET, SITE OF REGAL CINEMA 01/04/2004 AREA: C WARD: Castle ENF UNAUTHORISED USE OF LAND AS CAR PARK SB1 MR H POPAT

Location


62

The application site is an area of vacant land between Havelock Street and Clarendon Street. The site is surrounded partly by residential uses and partly by employment uses. Two major land uses – Leicester Royal infirmary and De Montfort University – are about half a mile away. The main Royal Infirmary visitors' car park is further down Havelock Street. The car park has a capacity of up to 88 cars and has an entrance and exit from Havelock Street. Site History Following a complaint In March 2003 that the land was being used as a car park, a planning application was submitted for this use on a temporary basis. The application was refused in May 2003. However, the use continued, and in February 2004 an Enforcement Notice was issued requiring cessation of the use as a car park. A planning application (ref. 20041141) for redevelopment of the site for residential use is also on the agenda for this Committee. The Breach and Appeal The appeal was against the Enforcement Notice, not against the planning refusal. The City Council argued that the car park would lead to increased traffic congestion in the area, particularly on Havelock Street; and that the provision of a new stand-alone car park not associated with new development is contrary to City Council policy and to Government Guidance.

The Council also argued that because of the pricing structure, the site is used as a long-stay commuter car park, and thus does not assist visitors to the hospital. The Council also pointed out the existence of Travel Plans for both the Infirmary and DMU, which are implementing alternative measures for dealing with the parking situation. The appellants argued that the car park was needed in order to relieve parking problems at the Infirmary; that the Granby Halls car park created a precedent; and that the car park does not create undue congestion. The Appeal Decision The Inspector allowed the appeal and granted temporary consent up to August 2005. Commentary The Inspector accepted that the car park is contrary to council policy and also accepted that the majority of parking, because of the pricing structure, is long-stay commuter parking. However the Inspector concluded that there were material


63

considerations which outweighed the conflict with policy. These were that there was no evidence that the car park caused traffic congestion; the need for extra visitors’ parking at the Royal infirmary; and the fact that the site would be in use pending redevelopment rather than left vacant. The Council’s requested conditions were imposed. These deal with fencing and sightlines, and also require a require a new pricing structure to be put in place which will encourage short term use and discourage long term commuter parking.

development control committee 30th november 2004 … apps.pdf · rlp_ud08 planning permission will...

Documents