Agenda item

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 applicant was keen to avoid any delays due to the limited window of opportunity in terms of the scheme’s funding.

The Planning Control Manager summarised the contents of the report for agenda item 8 (pages 16 - 32). The proposal was a scheme of 56 dwellings incorporating a number of design features from the conservation area to remain in-keeping with the same. A number of visual elevations were presented to Members to demonstrate the design’s consistency with Kirkdale Road. It was said that a number of amendments had been made in consultation with Conservation Officers, most notably in respect of the dwellings’ canopies. The amended siting of properties on a hip to the rear of Kirkdale Road was a helpful amendment in terms of planning to alleviate the impact on visual neighbouring residential properties.  The design did not reflect the parking arrangements of a traditional housing estate resulting in a number of parking-court areas, designed and sited to prevent overlooking. It was noted that a balance was recognised between the need for adequate parking in modern-day terrace properties and retaining the area’s character. In respect of the acoustic-fencing, the proposal was to install the fence along the identified boundary to ensure the acoustic levels were acceptable to prospective residents’ living standards: although noted as not an ideal solution, the fencing would not been seen in the public domain. The concept was said to evolve in terms of later planning and noise mitigation.

The Planning Control Manager informally updated Members as to the comments received back from consultations since the drafting of the report. County Highways was said to have reiterated the overall theme of the conditions outlined. A s 106 agreement contribution was also to be sought in respect of the real-time provision of travel/tracking-information in relation to bus-stops which were forming part of the negotiations to ensure compliance with the civil regulations. It was noted that discussions had not been forthcoming with the Police regarding the report’s reference to their respective contribution. Members were invited to delegate to Officers the authority to progress and negotiate the above under the appropriate delegated powers. The Police were reported to have objected to the application as it did not provide for their required mitigation on policing impacts to which the Planning Control Manager did not agree for reasons outlined in the report. The figures in the report regarding the CCTV have been deemed unsuitable by the Police for reasons of insufficient funding. However, according to the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations, it was noted that the developer should not contribute more than was necessary in planning terms: the Police’s suggestion was said to go above and beyond the need arising from the development and a recommendation was put to Members to agree to the original contribution in the report.

The Chair advised Members to consider the matters before them, to the exclusion of an earlier reference made to prospective access to Bennett Way.

A Member stated that is was unacceptable for Highways to submit a late letter and expected future compliance within the prescribed timescales. He approved of the application, describing it as well-designed and affordable housing scheme on a brownfield site and commended the applicant’s considerable efforts to remain in-keeping with the conservation area. The Member moved the proposal in favour of the recommendation.

The Planning Control Manager advised Members that there had been an ongoing dialogue with Highways and a number of responses had been received over a period of time during negotiations before a formal reply.

A Member was in favour of regenerating a brownfield site. He enquired as to whether the applicant experienced any difficultly in sourcing a suitable green as the trees onsite appeared more mature than those intended to be planted. He requested a landscaping plan be implemented involving Members and Tree Wardens. It was asked as to whether some sound-deadening provision could be additionally installed to protect prospective residents from noise generated from the Leicester-to-Birmingham railway line. The use of a suitable brick colour was also raised so to be in-keeping with the street-scene on Kirkdale Road. He enquired as to whether Leicestershire Country Council would be taking ownership of the highways within the dwelling-complex.

The Chair confirmed that it was acceptable for Members to be involved in such a landscaping plan given their appropriate training. It was noted that the noise emanating from the railway line would have been minimised had the decision of central government gone ahead to electrify the trains/lines.

The Planning Control Manager made reference to the architect’s plans, citing the three green circles as indicative of the landscaping scheme forming part of the recommendation. The railway line had been acknowledged in the report as a noise-source of concern and a package of window-glazing was to be installed to ensure acceptable living standards for prospective residents. The railway line was noted to be the Southern freight-line with only a few trains passing during the day-time only. He advised Members that the development required red-brick materials in terms of maintain a consistency with the character of Kirkdale Road, controlled by planning conditions. The main access highways were to be of an adoptable standard and adopted as such, with the exclusion of three identified roads best maintained through site management.

A Member agreed with the landscape planning. He enquired as to whether the adopted highways would have street-lighting and if the dwellings’ design incorporated slate/slate-like roofing and chimneys to complement the surrounding street-scene. He opined that the proposal was of a poor and monotonous design, noting that every street in the area had its own design peculiarity. A major concern was raised regarding access arrangements from Kirkdale Road and Station Street, stating that rear-access from Bennett Way was more commonsensical: he expressed his unwillingness to endorse any development sited on the proposed juncture. It was said that the area ought to be developed but in sympatric way and therefore, for the reasons also aforementioned, the Member felt unable to support the application.

The Planning Control Manager advised Members that in respect of chimneys, the proposal was a modern development in a conservation area that is predominately unseen. He stated that he could not disagree in principle with the Member’s suggestion and was willing to negotiate with the applicant to explore the possibility of the front block of dwellings incorporating chimneys: there would be some reluctance to go beyond that as the statutory test had been met in terms of the area’s character vis-a-vis improvement proposed.

The Chair stated that access via Bennett Way was not before Members.

The Planning Control Manager advised that there had been some historical discussions concerning traffic-flow and access. He confirmed that Kirkdale Road and Station Street was an existing highway access-point and a non-discretionary view of the same had been taken by Highways. It was advised that there was no theoretical difference in the traffic-flow at either access point and presented the same highway benefit. It was re-iterated that Bennett Way did not form part of the application which must be considered on its sole merits: however, it was added to reassure Members that access via Bennett Way was predominantly under the control of the Council and discussions had been held with the developers to explore this subject-matter.

The Chair stated the proposal would be consistent with the Member’s earlier that every street in the area had its own design peculiarity insofar as the proposed development itself was of also of a comparatively distinct design. The Member disagreed with this statement for the reasons aforementioned.

The Member raised a concern as to the adequacy of vehicle-parking spaces provided for prospective apartment residents (i.e. 1.25 spaces per apartment) and sought clarification as how any overflow would be accommodated.

The Chair enquired as to whether this was a town-centre development.

The Planning Control Manager advised that, in terms of parking availability, the development was not considered to be a town-centre site but was in walking distance of the same so was a material consideration. The apartments were noted to be smaller than the one-bedroom units and, as such, of a commensurate vehicle-parking generation. The availability of parking spaces was considered appropriate given the site’s location and access to nearby amenities and transport links.

The Member stated there was insufficient parking availability Kirkdale Road and Station Street which would worsen due to the intended highway access.

The Planning Control Manager advised Members that the Highway Agency had recommended that the highways in the site were to be subject to a Traffic Regulation Order (i.e. double yellow lines) to ensure fluid access, adding it would have neither a positive nor negative effect of existing residential properties. It was said that the choice of roofing-materials formed part of the conditions and, whilst noting the Member’s suggestion above, that an eclectic mix of materials had been used on existing terraced properties. Slate/slate-like roofing was considered to unnecessary. The choice of roofing-materials was said to be crucial, with the possible use of mock clay tiles suggested.

The Member suggested that brick-detailing be introduced to enhance the exterior appearance of the dwellings, with no cost incurred to the applicant.

The Planning Control Manger stated that discussions could be held with the applicant but did not consider this a proper ground to withhold permission, adding that brick-detailing was not a consistent feature in the street-scene.

A Member stated the proposed application had the potential to be a good development contingent on the quality of the workmanship, referencing the intended stone cills around the windows and the separation of brickwork on the first floor levels. A concern was raised as to unlit areas on the ends of the unadopted roads and the potential risks and vulnerabilities presented to members of the public. An analogy to the development at Two Steeples Square was cited where residents were said to be concerned about accessing the rear of their properties in unlit areas. It was also enquired as to who would be responsible for maintenance to the lighting on the unadopted roads.

The Planning Control Manager understood the concern raised and advised that a simple scheme of low-level lighting in the unlit areas could be approached through a condition. The unadopted areas would be maintained through a maintenance management company, inclusive of any lighting.

A Member said that the initial concerns the Member had in respect of the consultation process and overall design had been addressed, citing a final paragraph from the report (at page 21) insofar as the applicant had given due consideration to conversation. The Member enquired as to whether the recommendations of the Bat Survey had been brought to the applicant’s attention in accordance with the report (at page 17).

The Planning Control Manager confirmed that the recommendations had been brought to the applicant’s attention who had consulted on it. It was reiterated that there was a low potential for bat roosts and the applicant was aware of that response if terms of their protected species status.

The Chair seconded the proposal in favour of the recommendation and summarised the intended condition in respect of: landscaping; negotiations in terms of s 106 agreements, contributions, highways and chimneys; delegations to Officers; and lighting for unadopted roads/areas.

RESOLVED THAT:

Planning permission be granted subject to conditions, with ten votes in favour and one abstention from Councillor G A Boulter.