Agenda and minutes

An apology for absence was received from Councillor G A Boulter and Mrs S Z Haq.

To appoint substitute Members in accordance with Rule 4 of Part 4 of the Constitution.

None.

Members are reminded that any declaration of interest should be made having regard to the Members’ Code of Conduct. In particular, Members must make clear the nature of the interest and whether it is 'pecuniary' or ‘non-pecuniary'.

Councillors G A Gamble and B Dave declared a non-pecuniary interest insofar they had attended a meeting previous to listen to concerns raised by residents of the Oadby Woodlands ward in respect of planning application number 16/00313/FUL.

The Members confirmed that they attended the meeting without prejudice and with an open mind.

To read, confirm and sign the minutes of the previous meeting in accordance with Rule 17 of Part 4 of the Constitution.

Members are advised that the Minutes of the Development Control Committee held on Thursday, 25 August 2016 shall be received in a Supplementary Agenda Update issued ahead of the meeting of the Committee in due course.

RESOLVED THAT: 

The minutes of the previous meeting of the Committee held on 25 August 2016 be taken as read, confirmed and signed.

To receive any Petitions and, or, Deputations in accordance with Rule 24 of Part 4 of the Constitution.

None.

Members are advised that the Report of the Planning Control Manager shall be received in a Supplementary Agenda Update issued ahead of the meeting of the Committee in due course.

1.   Application No. 16/00313/FUL - 9 Palfreyman Lane, Oadby, Leicestershire, LE2 4UR

Mr Terence Vasey spoke upon the application as an objector.

Mr Vasey stated that, if the application was permitted, the proposed 2.3m high wall (“the boundary wall”) and the additional car parking spaces to the property’s frontage would reduce the visibility of oncoming traffic along the internal bend of the cul-de-sac and, therefore, posed highway and pedestrian safety implications. He further raised concerns as to the future use of the recently converted ‘granny’ annex for non-residential purposes (i.e. a hair and beauty salon), the irregular size of annex’s windows and their potential for over-looking onto the nearby children’s play-area.

Mr Bharat Patel spoke upon the application as an objector.

Mr Patel stated that, if the application was permitted, the proposed boundary wall would cause a loss of outlook and openness on the cul-de-sac. It was said that the difference in materials used and the size of the annex’s windows was inconsistent with the street scene. With reference to a diagram tabled at the meeting, he stated that the boundary wall would reduce visibility along the bend by upto 8m and that it was not comparable to the wall adjacent at 6 Palferyman Lane (“No 6”).

The Committee gave consideration to the report as set out in the supplementary agenda update (at pages 6 - 13) as delivered and summarised by the Interim Planning Control Manager which should be read together with these minutes as a composite document.

The Interim Planning Control Manager advised that the Highways Authority did not support the concerns raised in respect of the speakers’ suggested risk(s) to highway and pedestrian safety. In an e-mail dated 20 September, it was said that the applicant was agreeable to reduce the height of the boundary wall and use like-for-like materials to the wall adjacent at No 6. In a further e-mail to the dated 21 September, it was said that the applicant clarified that the annex was to be used to accommodate extended family members of limited mobility and not for any other non-residential purpose for which planning permission would otherwise be required.

The Chair moved for the application to be debated by the Committee.

Councillor Mrs H E Loydall seconded the Chair’s motion.

Councillor B Dave reiterated the concerns raised as to the reduced visibility for vehicles entering/exiting the application site presented by the proposed boundary wall. He further requested clarification as to what permission was being sought by the applicant (given that the annex’s conversation had since been completed), if Officers had confirmed whether the materials used were compliant (as conditioned) and whether the use of the annex for non-residential purposes could be enforced.

The Chair sought advice as to whether delegated authority could be given to Officers to determine the height of the boundary wall and the materials to be used if Members were minded to grant planning permission.

The Legal Advisor advised that the applicant was permitted to erect a 1m fence along  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.