Agenda and minutes

Apologies received from Councillors E Barr, F S Broadley, Mrs S Z Haq and R F Eaton.

None.

Councillor Mrs H E Loydall declared in respect of application 4/00538/FUL and the references made in the report to the Police, that her son is employed by the Police Constabulary in the Loughborough area.

None.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the previous Committee meeting held on Thursday 28 May 2015 be taken as read, confirmed and signed.

Mrs S B Morris spoke on behalf of residents as their request to speak in person had been denied. It was stated that residents had chosen to move to south-side properties on Marstown Avenue due to the rear-view of the land in respect of the trees and wildlife within. The trees were reported to provide an effective sound-barrier to the noise generated from the railway line and screening from the properties adjacent. The Forestry Commission was cited in that the removal of trees may cause subsidence from the movement of trains. The high-water table upon which the properties were sited was said be at risk due to the stability provided by the trees in the clay grounding. The Forestry Commission attended the site to inspect on three occasions and concluded the site was worthy of protection, recommending tree management as opposed to felling. They warned that the removal of trees may affect the railway embankment and the structural integrity of the properties. She claimed that the residents’ insurers had advised a claim would be instigated against the Council to remedy any damage caused insofar as not retaining the trees and confirming the TPO, as a recent local precedent dictated. The resident’s thanked Members for their consideration. Mrs Morris summarised that the site provided a public amenity to residents either side on both Marstown Avenue and Kirkdale Road and invited Members to confirm the TPO for the reasons aforementioned.

A Member enquired as to why the residents were not permitted to speak in person at the meeting. The Chair advised that such a granting of permission was contrary to the Standing Orders in respect of consideration of TPO’s.

A Member sought a point of clarification from the speaker as to the precedent cited in her report. It was confirmed that the precedent referred to was an historic claim against the Council for subsidence in the said area of land.

The Chair advised Members that the issue before them was whether to confirm or otherwise the TPO and not the process or reasons for delays for which the report was put before Members for their due consideration.

The Planning Control Manager summarised the contents of the report for agenda item 6 (pages 10-12). He directed Members attention to a site visit that took place some six weeks ago. The site was described as a now unkempt, former builders’ yard. The TPO was originally made during the Christmas period at which time work was being undertaken. He referred Members to the report, citing that representations had been received for and against the confirming of the TPO (at page 11). The Council’s arboriculturist had attended the site and had not recommended the making of a TPO due to the tree’s poor quality or low public amenity value (at page 12). The oak tree positioned to the east of the site had since been removed due to its adverse structural impact on the courtyard of garages positioned nearby: this tree alone was considered sufficient  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.

The Planning Control Manager summarised the contents of the report for agenda item 7 (pages 13-14). He reported that two s. 211 Tree Notifications were received for the felling of multiple trees onsite to which the arboriculturist’s advice was sought. A provisional Tree Protection Order (TPO) was made for reasons of public amenity value. The arboriculturist was not able to gain entry to the site since to complete a more detailed inspection of the trees. The recommendation was to confirm the TPO as provisionally made given the timescales involved. There had been no change in circumstances.

A Member enquired as to why access to the site in question was not possible and/or granted.

The Planning Control Manager advised Members that dealings had been ongoing with the proprietor’s agent and that, despite several attempts to request access to the site, no permission was forthcoming.

RESOLVED THAT: 

The recommendation that the Tree Preservation Order (TPO) made on the 28 January 2015 be confirmed.

1.    14/00538/FUL - Wigston House, 183 Kirkdale Road, Wigston, Leicestershire, LE18 4SU

The applicant’s agent, Mr L Wiggins, spoke on behalf of Wesley House Partnership. He spoke of the applicant’s delight in the application securing recommendation for approval, stating the proposal sought to provide a well-designed housing scheme that was both attractive and in-keeping with the conservation area. It proposed redevelopment on a brownfield site for housing in a predominately residential area recognised, in principle, to fulfil the regeneration master plan for the area in accordance with policy three of the adopted core-strategy. It was acknowledged that the proposal if brought-forward formed a significant part of the Council’s wider regeneration scheme objective which the applicant fully supported. The proposal was said to not preclude the development of the bus depot nor the land off Bennett Way, with provisional access to the latter being facilitated. The noise generated by the depot was noted as an issue for adjoining plots and that concerns regarding the appearance of a high-acoustic fence should be allayed due to it being out-of-sight from the road and the potential for the fence’s height to be reduced once the noise-source was removed. The scheme was said to adopt the design-principle of providing strong frontages on the back-edge of the footpath, with staggered groups of dwellings further into the site away from the traditional terraced street-pattern. All of the dwellings were said to be provided with two, off-street vehicle-parking spaces, with the exception of the smaller apartments with a 125% division to cater for residents and businesses. All houses are to include private rear gardens of an appropriate size, with the occupiers of the apartments sharing a communal garden area.

He noted the concerns raised during the determination of the application and stated that they had now been resolved as confirmed in the report. The four dwellings proposed on plots 10 to 13 to the north of Kirkdale Avenue was said to have a minimal impact to the level of light enjoyed by those occupiers. The closest dwellings to the east were to be positioned to the gable-end of the rear-elevation/s to ensure no over-looking and the minimum amount of disturbance from noise and lighting. It was reported that there would be no discernible impact from the noise generated from passing traffic once onsite. The amount of traffic and its impact on the highway network had been assessed by the applicant’s partner and praised by the Highways Authority with no objections raised. The applicant was said to be aware of the presence of Japanese knotweed on the western-side of the site and gave assurances that the necessary steps would be taken to eradicate it. It was reported that the applicant had a proven track-record in delivering affordable housing locally and that it was their desire for the 56 proposed dwellings to accommodate local families in housing need as soon as practicably possible. It was anticipated that work would commence onsite immediately once the pre-commencement conditions were discharged and the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23.