Agenda and minutes

An apology for absence was received from Councillors G A Boulter, D M Carter, D A Gamble, Dr T K Khong and R E R Morris.

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'.

None.

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

By affirmation of the meeting, it was

UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED THAT:

The minutes of the previous meeting of the Committee held on 15 March 2018 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.

Report of the Planning Control Team Leader

The Committee gave consideration to the report and appendices (at pages 4 - 14) as delivered and summarised by the Planning Control Team Leader which should be read together with these minutes as a composite document. Members were verbally updated with appeals statistics from neighbouring Leicester/shire authorities.

The Committee was of the opinion that government’s 10% was an arbitrary one, particularly given that it did not take in account the relatively small number of appeals lodged overall, and that the target’s ulterior motive ultimately sought to remove local decision-making by way placing authorities into special measures.

The Committee was also of the opinion that there continued to be principled reasons upon which certain applications had been refused, yet subsequently allowed on appeal, in order to protect against the subdivision of family dwelling-houses. It was also noted that one particular appeal was allowed by the Planning Inspectorate on a fourth-attempt therefore calling into question the expediency of the appeals process.

By affirmation of the meeting, it was

UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED THAT:

The contents of the report and appendices be noted by Members.

Report of the Planning Enforcement Officer

The Committee gave consideration to the report (at pages 15 - 17) as delivered and summarised by the Planning Control Team Leader which should be read together with these minutes as a composite document.

The Committee commended the work undertaken by Officers to date. It was emphasised that the number of breaches of control in lieu of the relevant planning permission(s) was a serious matter which warranted prompt and robust action.

It was raised by the Committee, and accepted by Officers, that the statistics provided at paragraph 2.1 (at page 16) were mathematically incorrect and required updating.

It was moved by the Chair, seconded by the Vice-Chair and

UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED THAT:

(i)       The contents of the report be noted by Members;

(ii)     The meetings of the Development Control (Enforcement) Sub-Committee be herewith suspended for a further period of one-year (i.e. 12 months); and

(iii)   The proposal for the next Planning Enforcement Activity Report to be written up to cover the period up to 31 March 2019, to be approximately in line with the end of the municipal year, and repeated annually thereafter, be approved.

Report of the Arboricultural Officer

The Committee gave consideration to the report (at pages 18 - 20) as delivered and summarised by the Arboricultural Officer which should be read together with these minutes as a composite document.

The Committee expressed its concerns regarding the grant of a particular Felling Licence (FL) by the Forestry Commission (FC) affecting those trees protected at Hermitage Court in Oadby, despite successive work applications being previously refused by the Committee, and that Members had not been consulted by Officers when approached by the FC about the same.

The Committee was assured that, in the future, Members would be consulted accordingly regarding FL applications.

It was moved by the Chair, seconded by the Vice-Chair and

UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED THAT:

(i)       The contents of the report be noted by Members;

(ii)     Upon notification by the Forestry Commission to the Local Planning Authority of an application for a Felling Licence, the relevant Ward Members be consulted thereon or, if a response is required within a shorter timeframe, that the Chair and Vice-Chair be consulted.

In accordance with Rule 14.1 of Part 4 of the Constitution, a motion needs to be proposed and seconded before the Committee can debate a planning application. This is an administrative process designed to assist the Chair to manage the meeting effectively and efficiently. This is not an indication of how the proposer and seconder intend to cast their votes at the conclusion of the debate. Members can only make a decision once they have considered the content of the debate and all of the information in front of them.

Mr K Mistry, Associate Architect at SKM Design, spoke upon the application on behalf of the applicant. Since the refusal of the initial application, he stated that extensive work and consultation had been undertaken to render the application more acceptable in terms of its scale, character and design and the shared access route.

The Committee gave consideration to the report (at pages 22 - 35) as delivered and summarised by the Senior Planning Control Officer which should be read together with these minutes as a composite document.

A debate thereon was had whereby Members agreed that the application was of significantly-better scale, character and design in-keeping with the Conversation Area and commended the revised access arrangements to, from and across the site. The Committee emphasised the importance of strictly enforcing the Construction Traffic Management Plan in order to alleviate any further traffic pressures on Long Street.

The Committee was advised that each prospective owner-occupier and, or, the relevant landlord or management company, would be responsible for ensuring that the refuse storages areas were kept in a clean and tidy condition and that other regulatory controls were available to enforce upon Members’ concerns if necessary.

It was moved by the Chair, seconded by the Vice-Chair and

UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED THAT:

The application be GRANTED planning permission in accordance with the submitted documents and plans and subject to the prescribed conditions.

The Committee gave consideration to the report (at pages 36 - 41) as delivered and summarised by the Planning Control Team Leader which should be read together with these minutes as a composite document.

The Committee was advised that had the application not been a Council application, it would not have been brought before the Committee for determination.

It was moved by the Chair, seconded by the Vice-Chair and

UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED THAT:

The application be GRANTED planning permission in accordance with the submitted documents and plans and subject to the prescribed conditions.

Mr P Oliver spoke upon the application as an objector. Mr Oliver stated that the scale and bulk of the proposed development was so unacceptably large and overbearing that it would cause privacy issues for neighbouring properties and would limit his ability to effectively maintain and access his own property. He also stated that proposed design was markedly out of character with the immediate street-scene. 

The Committee gave consideration to the report (at pages 42 - 48) as delivered and summarised by the Planning Control Team Leader which should be read together with these minutes as a composite document. The Committee was also verbally updated regarding a further objection received which reiterated similar concerns.

A debate thereon was had whereby Members agreed that the application’s proposed reconstruction and enlargement was: unacceptably too large in its visual scale; it would fail to contribute positively to the overall quality of the local environment; it was not harmonious in its design, form and proposed external materials; and the overall height and visual bulk was excessive in proximity to neighbouring properties.

It was moved by the Chair, seconded by the Vice-Chair and

UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED THAT:

The application be REFUSED planning permission for the reasons as set out in the report and the foregoing minutes.

Mr G Gill spoke upon the application as an objector. Mr Gill stated that any additional new dwellings to the estate would compound problems relating to blocked drains and sewage issues. He opined that the application amounted to an unacceptable sub-division of a residential plot contrary to National Planning Policy. Mr Gill also stated that there was opposition to access being granted from Cranbourne Gardens.

The Committee gave consideration to the report (at pages 49 - 59) as delivered and summarised by the Senior Planning Control Officer which should be read together with these minutes as a composite document.

A debate thereon was had whereby Members agreed that, given the uniqueness of the estate within the Arboretum Area and the specific location of the site, the sub-division of the plot to accommodate a single, additional dwelling-house was in the circumstances acceptable. In terms of scale and appearance, the impact upon the site and its close neighbours was considered to be negligible and would otherwise sit comfortably within the existing street scene and wider surroundings. Members felt that access via Cranbourne Gardens was both practical and commonsensical.

It was moved by the Chair, seconded by the Vice-Chair and

UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED THAT:

The application be GRANTED planning permission in accordance with the submitted documents and plans and subject to the prescribed conditions.