Agenda item

Report(s) of, and to be Presented by, the Planning Control Team Leader and the relevant Planning Control Officer(s).

1.     Application No. 16/00575/OUT - HM Young Offenders Institute Glen Parva, Tigers Road, Wigston, Leicestershire, LE18 4TN

 

Mrs Caroline Sutton spoke upon the application on behalf of those residents living in the immediate (unadopted) private-estate adjacent to the application site as an objector. Mrs Sutton raised concerns as to the removal of the courtesy fence and its relocation nearer to the estate stating that space was needed for replanting and to avoid tree root damage to closeby drains, roads and houses. She insisted that the existing fence be repaired and remain in situ and that additional screening was essential to lessen noise and light pollution. Mrs Sutton also stated that any vehicular parking and access to/from the site should be via Tigers Road only.

 

Mr Nick Hardy, Ministry of Justice (MoJ) spokesperson, spoke upon the application on behalf of the applicant. He explained that the application formed part of a £1.3bn programme aimed to transform the estate to support prisoner rehabilitation, to modernise and make prisons safer and more efficient and to create jobs. Acknowledging residents’ concerns, he said that full details of the boundary treatment were to be worked up and agreed at the next stage of the planning process. He stated that the Transport Assessment prepared by Atkins (“the Atkins TA”) concluded less traffic generation, that no vehicular access from Crete Avenue would be permitted and that ample parking provision for staff and visitors was to be provided on-site. It was said that the old buildings were to be demolished and new buildings set further back from the boundary to improve residential amenity.

 

In response to questions put to Mr Hardy by Members, he advised that the Atkins TA was carried week commencing 25 October during school term-time, that in discussion with Blaby District Council (“the lead authority”) the preferred access route was Tigers Road to protect and preserve green public open-space land and that the choice of consultation venue (within the city’s boundary) was taken upon considerations of suitability, capacity and convenience to all affected stakeholders.

 

The Committee gave consideration to the application (at pages 33 - 58), the agenda update (at pages 1 - 4) and a further e-mail dated 14 June from Leicestershire County Council as Highways Authority (HA) (a transcript of which is filed at the end of these minutes) as delivered and summarised by the Planning Control Team Leader (“the Team Leader”) which should be read together with these minutes as a composite document. It was added for clarity by the Team Leader that proposed conditions 6, 9 and 15 operated prior to demolition and conditions 11, 17 and 21 operated after demolition but for information thereon was to be received thereafter.

 

A debate thereon was had whereby although it was acknowledged that the scope for consideration was duly limited to access and scale, the Committee sitting as a panel of elected Members considered it their collective duty to best protect the interests of the Borough and its residents as far as reasonably practicable. In doing so, the Committee believed that, on balance, not enough information on material aspects of the application had been provided which possibly justified a deferral and, or, a tightening up of the proposed conditions was essential for residents’ protection.

 

In relation matters regarding access, the Committee raised concerns in respect to possible increased traffic generation to/from the application site and the wider impacts on the highway network. Members were also somewhat sceptical of the conclusions drawn by the Aktins TA and critical of the HA’s dismissal of traffic data collected by residents due to the alleged and invalid methodology used.

 

Members also felt that the structural integrity of the sole access route via Tigers Road was not fully established over alternative access options and that, if it was to be used, additional safeguards were required to ensure that construction traffic did not enter or exit the site via the private-estate’s roads. The Committee too emphasised the need for appropriate hours of construction. The Team Leader advised that little information as to the road’s structural integrity had been received from the HA but could be addressed as part of the traffic management plan (condition 9). A new condition could be added to prohibit construction traffic from the using private-estates’ road and construction hours were limited (condition 19).

 

In relation to matters regarding scale, the Committee agreed that a continuous solid boundary with adequate planting or other screening was required along the eastern site boundary to preserve security and residential amenity. In providing so, Members insisted that the existing boundary structure was to remain in situ until, and replaced at, the latter end of construction. In particular, this was said to deter inconsiderate parking and improper access to the application site from the private-estate. The Team Leader so advised that such requests were possible (conditions 2, 6 and 7).

 

In reaching a decision, Team Leader offered assurances that with robust conditions, as set out and to be added and amended as above, both residents’ and Members’ concerns could be allayed. The Legal Advisor reassured Members’ that planning permission would fall if the planning authority was not satisfied by the information, or lack thereof, received by way of condition. The Committee was further reminded of a prospective appeal directly to the Planning Inspectorate by the applicant for a decision should it be minded to defer the application without substantive reason(s).

 

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

 

RESOLVED THAT:

 

The application be GRANTED planning permission in accordance with the submitted documents and plans and subject to the prescribed conditions as to be added to and, or, amended under delegated authority accordingly.

 

Votes For                  8

Votes Against          2

Abstentions             0

 

2.     Application No. 17/00084/FUL – Nautical William, Aylestone Lane, Wigston, Leicestershire, LE18 1BA

 

Mr Andrew Endall spoke upon the application as an objector. Mr Endall stated that although he did not object to the development of the site in principle, he did object to the height and size of the proposed building. He said it was not in-keeping with the street scene, it would dominant the corner of the junction and invade adjacent residents’ privacy with views from the proposed balconies and large glass installations. He further raised concerns as to ratio of car parking spaces to proposed dwelling-flats and therefore the potential for overspill onto the busy junction.

 

Having declared a non-pecuniary interest and having been cautioned by the Legal Advisor, Councillor Mrs H E Loydall voluntarily left the Chamber at 8:58 pm and took no part in the debate on the item of business and voting thereon save as to reiterating similar concerns as a Ward Councillor before leaving the Chamber.

 

The Committee gave consideration to the application (at pages 59 - 64) and the agenda update (at pages 4 - 7) 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 by Members whereby it was agreed that the application represented an overdevelopment of the site. The Committee shared concerns in respect of the dominate scale of the three-storey proposed building and, consequently, the detrimental impact on the existing street scene and skyline. The proposed building was said to present opportunities of overlooking onto the north side of Aylestone Lane impacting on residents’ privacy and residential amenity and, particularly, an unacceptable loss of light and outlook to 67 Rolleston Road. Complications arising from the potential re-location of the nearby bus stop and insufficient parking provision were also cited as additional concerns.

 

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

 

UNANIMOUSLY DEFEATED THAT:

 

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

 

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

 

UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED THAT:

 

The application be REFUSED planning permission for the foregoing reasons.

 

Councillor Mrs H E Loydall returned to the Chamber at 9:23 pm.

 

3.     Application No. 17/00109/COU - 134 Station Road, Wigston, Leicestershire, LE18 2DL

 

Councillor M H Charlesworth spoke upon the application as Ward Councillor for the Wigston All Saints Ward who relayed concerns raised by local residents as to the perceived demeanour of those occupants likely to be housed in the hostel.

 

The Committee gave consideration to the application (at pages 65 - 69) 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 acknowledged the importance of homelessness provision within the Borough and the statutory duty of care owed to those people who were increasing and more often that not unintentionally finding themselves homeless. Acknowledging the legitimate concerns of residents, Members offered assurances that given the location of the proposed hostel, the Council was best placed to closely monitor and deal with any incidents promptly. In reaching a decision, the Committee was advised that prospective occupants would be housed under a licence, as opposed to a tenancy, agreement which could be terminated at any point upon immediate relief sought by a mandatory order from the courts. 

 

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.

 

4.     Application No. 17/00115/FUL – 17 Granville Road, Wigston, Leicestershire, LE18 1JQ

 

Mrs P Dunckley and Mr J Pugh each spoke upon the application as objectors who raised similar concerns regarding the close proximity of the proposed extension to their respective property boundaries and the resultant loss of privacy, light and amenity. They further objected to the size, layout and density of the extension.

 

The Committee gave consideration to the application (at pages 70 - 75) 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 by Members whereby it was agreed that the application represented an overdevelopment of the site and would impact significantly on neighbours’ privacy, residential amenity and access to light. As such, it was requested that further conditions to be added to restrict any permitted development rights in relation to the dwelling and to insist that the gap between the proposed extension wall and the boundary of 19 Granville Road be at least one metre.

 

Some Members were of the opinion that the added conditions were not sufficient to allay their or the neighbours’ concerns, that the proposed extension was not in-keeping with the main dwelling and, therefore, could not support the application.

 

It was moved by the Chair, seconded by the Councillor B Dave and

 

RESOLVED THAT:

 

The application be GRANTED planning permission in accordance with the submitted documents and plans and subject to the prescribed conditions as to be added to and, or, amended under delegated authority accordingly.

 

Votes For                  5

Votes Against          3

Abstentions             2

 

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

 

UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED THAT:

 

In accordance with Rule 21.1 of Part 4 of the Constitution, Rule 9 of the same Part be suspended to allow the meeting to continue beyond three hours for the purposes of disposing of the remaining item of business at this meeting.

 

5.      Application No. 17/00151/FUL – 253 Aylestone Lane, Wigston, Leicestershire, LE18 1BE

 

Mr R Moore spoke upon the application as an objector. Mr Moore stated that the footprint of the two ground floor flats provided inadequate levels of amenity to future occupants, that the development was not in-keeping with the existing street scene and there were insufficient parking spaces to effectively service three additional dwellings thus impacting on the adjacent properties and small slip-road.

 

The Committee gave consideration to the application (at pages 76 - 78) as delivered and summarised by the Planning Control Team Leader (“the Team Leader”) which should be read together with these minutes as a composite document.

 

A debate thereon was had whereby Members felt that the applicant had not gone far enough to revise the size, layout, quality and density of the (previously refused) application to render it acceptable at the present time. In particular, there were shared concerns that the proposed internal layouts of the dwelling-flats provided for inadequate levels of living-space and amenity. The reported poor brickwork of the extension was also said to not match the existing building which, as advised, could not be rectified nor enforced by condition. There was also a general consensus that a serious need existed for family homes to be retained and built within the Borough.

 

It was moved by the Chair, seconded by Councillor F S Broadley and

 

DEFEATED THAT:

 

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

 

Votes For                  2

Votes Against          7

Abstentions             1

 

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

 

RESOLVED THAT:

 

The application be DEFERRED.

 

Votes For                  9

Votes Against          1

Abstentions             0