Agenda and minutes

An apology for absence was received from Councillors Mrs L M Broadley, F S Broadley, B Dave, D A Gamble and Dr T K Khong.

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'.

In respect of planning application number 18/00205/FUL, Councillor Mrs H E Loydall declared a pecuniary interest insofar as her residential property was deemed to be within the application area of the site.

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 24 May 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.

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.

In accordance with Rule 7.3 of Part 4 of the Constitution, the Chair moved for the order of business to be altered and taken in the order as reflected in the minutes.

By affirmation of the meeting, it was

UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED THAT:

The order of business be altered accordingly.

It was moved by the Chair, seconded by Councillor G A Boulter and

UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED THAT:

The application be DEFERRED.

The Committee gave consideration to the report (at pages 7 - 12) as delivered and summarised by the Planning Control Team Leader which should be read together with these minutes as a composite document.

It was reported that no further objection or comment had been made by the Highways Authority in relation to the specific location of the digital media screen following concerns raised as to a potential loss of vision at the mini-roundabout.

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 Councillor Mrs H E Loydall and

RESOLVED THAT:

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

Votes For                  6

Votes Against          1

Abstentions            0

The Committee gave consideration to the report (at pages 21 - 31) as delivered and summarised by the Planning Control Team Leader which should be read together with these minutes as a composite document.

Councillor Mrs H E Loydall spoke upon the application as the Ward Councillor. She noted that improvements had been made on the previous application. She stated that the raised-roof area along part of the Rolleston Road frontage was overly dominant by, in effect, creating a third-story. She considered the two balconies to the Aylestone Lane frontage to be unacceptable in terms of the impact upon privacy and the bulk of the building on the north western corner remained too prominent. Concerns were also raised regarding traffic hazards resulting from the location/use of the bus stop and overspill into the highway resulting from insufficient parking. She was hopeful that the proposed development would meet national private amenity space standards.

Having declared a pecuniary interest, Councillor Mrs H E Loydall left the Chamber and took no part in the debate on the application or the voting thereon.

A debate thereon was had by Members whereby, although concerns similar to those mentioned by the Ward Councillor were raised, it was agreed that, on balance, there were insufficient material planning grounds upon which a refusal of planning permission based on the same could be reasonably held. It was also acknowledged that significant improvements had been made on the previous application which mostly addressed Members’ earlier concerns regarding scale, character and design. 

In reaching its decision, the Committee was advised that the proposed development comprised of dwelling-units primarily aimed to serve as “starter” or retirement homes which could comfortably accommodate a single or dual occupancy. It was advised that the minimum “back-to-back” distance(s) between the proposed building and existing dwellings nearby were sufficient enough not to pose any affront to outlook and privacy. It reported that neither of the two buildings’ frontages would be set any further forward than the existing established building line. It was also confirmed that all the dwelling-units met national private amenity space standards.

It was moved by Councillor G A Boulter, seconded by Councillor J Kaufmann and

DEFEATED THAT:

The application be refused planning permission.

Votes For                  0

Votes Against          4

Abstentions             2

It was moved by the Chair, seconded by Councillor D M Carter and

RESOLVED THAT:

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

Votes For                  4

Votes Against          0

Abstentions             2