Agenda and minutes

An apology for absence was received from Councillors Mrs L M Broadley, F S Broadley, B Dave, G A Gamble and R H Thakor.

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

UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED THAT:

Councillor D M Carter assume the Vice-Chair for the duration of the meeting only.

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'.

The Chair declared a non-pecuniary interest in respect of planning application number 18/00258/FUL insofar as he has shown a sustained interest over the years in realising the construction of a footbridge over Ervins Lock in Wigston.

The Vice-Chair declared a non-pecuniary interest in respect of planning application number 18/00405/COU insofar as he had been lobbied by interested parties and considered himself to have pre-disposition towards the same.

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 30 August 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 Head of Finance, Revenues and Benefits

The Committee gave consideration to the report and appendix (as set out at pages 6 - 12) which asked it to recommend the proposed Scale of Fees and Charges for 2019/20 to the Policy, Finance and Development Committee for approval.

The Committee was advised that, subject to the prescription of fees as set externally from the Council, the proposed Scale operated on a full cost-recovery basis.

It was moved by Councillor Mrs H E Loydall, seconded by the Chair and

UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED THAT:

That the proposed Scale of Fees and Charges for 2019/20 (as set out in Appendix 1) be recommended to the Policy, Finance and Development Committee for approval.

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.

Mr R Chan spoke upon the application on behalf of the applicant. A copy of the agent’s representations is filed together with this minute at Appendix 1.

The Vice-Chair spoke upon the application. A copy of the Vice-Chair’s representations is filed together with this minute at Appendix 2.

Having declared a non-pecuniary interest, the Vice-Chair left the Chamber and took no part in the debate on the item of business and voting thereon.

The Committee gave consideration to the report (as set out at pages 39 - 49) which asked it to determine a planning application for a change of use from a shop (A1) to a laundrette (sui-generis) and use of a first floor for service washes.

A debate thereon was had whereby Members agreed that, on balance, the regenerative impact of the proposed change of use would positively contribute to the town centre’s vitality and viability insofar as it was hoped to facilitate, amongst other things, a service that would promote net additional visits to The Parade, encourage more in-town centre living and avoid the prospect of a dead frontage. It was also acknowledged that the commercial viability of the applicant’s proposed use was not a material planning consideration to which the Committee could have due regard.

In reaching its decision, it was reported that no residential properties were located in close proximity of the unit, it had not been proposed that a dry-cleaning operation was to be carried out and that the service-wash element of the business was to primarily operate via the unit’s rear entrance. As such, no justifiable need was apparent, or capable of being enforced, to either limit further the laundrette’s opening hours, to regulate any noxious emissions or to control the unit’s access and egress respectively by condition(s): in any case, if related concerns did materialise in the future, it was said that these could be dealt with by statutory nuisance or other regulatory enforcement measures. The Committee was also advised that, if it was minded to permit planning permission, this could not be granted in personam.

To mitigate other concerns as raised by Members, it was further agreed that, by way of condition, the ground floor of the unit was to incorporate an appropriate window display or applique to the frontage glazing in order to screen the visible appearance of laundry machinery within the unit and, by way of a note, it be recommended that the applicant ensured that the building’s structure was adequate to support the static and dynamic loads arising from the installation and use of laundry machinery.

It was moved by the Chair, seconded by Councillor J Kaufman and

UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED THAT:

(i)       The application be GRANTED planning permission in accordance with the submitted documents and plans and subject to the prescribed conditions (as amended);

(ii)     A planning condition be added requiring that prior to first occupation of the ground floor of the premises, details of an appropriate window display or applique to the frontage glazing shall  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32a

The application was WITHDRAWN from consideration at this meeting.

The Chair spoke upon the application. He stated that whilst he acknowledged the reservations made by the Canal and River Trust (CaRT) in relation to the proposed brick pillar supports, irrespective of the end specification of the footbridge, a simple yet cost-effective means of crossing the waterway was of the upmost priority in order to allow access to one of the longest recreation corridors in the Borough.

Having declared a non-pecuniary interest, the Chair left the Chamber and took no part in the debate on the item of business and voting thereon.

The Committee gave consideration to the report (as set out at pages 14 - 23) which asked it to determine a planning application for the construction of a steel footbridge spanning Ervin's Lock (Grand Union Canal) to provide access from the northern residential area to the canal towpath.

The Committee also gave consideration to a letter received from the CaRT dated 24 October 2018, a copy of which is filed together with this minute at Appendix 1.

A debate thereon was had whereby Members unanimously agreed that, given the weight to the design of the proposed footbridge which acknowledged its canal-side location, and in considering the clear and demonstrable public benefits arising from the proposal by way of better public access across the canal and improved usage and appreciation of the heritage asset, planning permission ought to be granted.

In respect of end specification, Members agreed that, on balance, the proposed footbridge, specifically incorporating the brick pillar supports, was of a far more superior design and build insofar as it was more consistent with traditional canal bridge design, it would be in keeping with the character of the Conservation Area in being surfaced in natural materials and would provide for better longevity.

In reaching its decision, the Committee was advised that whilst some change in ground levels were necessary to accommodate the towpath, and although this was within the root protection area of the adjacent hedgerow, it is not considered that the works would affect the principal root structure of the hedge, in addition to there being comfortable provision to cut the hedgerow back in such manner to ensure growth and affording the necessary towpath width within the CaRT’s requirements.

It was moved by the Chair, seconded by Councillor J Kaufman and

UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED THAT:

The application be GRANTED planning permission in accordance with the submitted documents and plans and subject to the prescribed conditions, and to the design specification incorporating the brick pillar supports.

The Chair returned to the Chamber.