Wards: See individual reports. Development Control Sub … A.pdf · 2015. 5. 26. · address area ward report section 21 20012081 119 barkby road e wh app 32 20011996 beaumont leys

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SUB-COMMITTEE 19TH FEBRUARY 2002

1

Wards: See individual reports.

Development Control Sub-Committee 19TH FEBRUARY 2002

REPORTS ON APPLICATIONS AND CONTRAVENTIONS

Report of the Director of Environment, Development and Commercial Services 1. Introduction The City Council has resolved that reports to any committee must address the implications of the action recommended in relation to finance, equal opportunities, policy, legal issues, sustainability and the environment and crime and disorder. This report deals with development control matters on which the recommendations must be based on material planning considerations as set out in the Planning Acts and associated regulations, circulars and central government guidance. The following implications paragraphs relate to all the recommendations in this report. 2. Financial Implications The cost of operating the development control service, including processing applications and pursuing enforcement action, is met from the Development Control Group budget which takes account of the income expected to be generated by planning application fees. Development Control decisions can result in appeals to the Secretary of State or in some circumstances legal challenges which can have cost implications for the City Council. Where there are special costs directly relevant to a recommendation these are discussed in the individual reports. 3. Equal Opportunities Implications To assist the City Council to identify the impact of planning application decisions, these are monitored by the ethnic group of the applicant. It is established policy not to identify individual applicants by ethnic origin as this would be against assurances of confidentiality. I am also unable to give numbers of applications in each group as in some cases these are so small that individual applicants could be identified. Regular reports are sent to Members giving the results of this monitoring. The following reports on this agenda were identified as having a particular impact on one or more disadvantaged group, or relate to the provision or improvement of facilities to the benefit of particular groups. APPLICATIONS WITH SPECIFIC EQUAL OPPORTUNITY IMPLICATIONS


2

App No Page Ward Address Ethnic

Minority Groups

Religious Groups

People with Disabilities

Res. Care inc.

Children and

Elderly

Non-Res. Care inc. Children and the Elderly

Children Women's Issues

4. Policy Implications Planning applications must be decided in accordance with the provision of Development Plan, principally the City of Leicester Local Plan and the Leicestershire Structure Plan, unless these are outweighed by other material considerations. The latter include supplementary planning guidance, site specific development briefs produced by the City Council, and emerging/ updated versions of the Development Plan. Individual reports refer to the policies relevant to the recommendation. 5. Legal Implications The recommendations in this report are made under powers contained in the Planning Acts. Specific legal implications, including the service of statutory notices, initiating prosecution proceedings and preparation of legal agreements are identified in individual reports. As appropriate, the Head of Legal Services has been consulted and his comments are incorporated in individual reports. 6. Human Rights Act Members will be aware that the Human Rights Act 1998 is now in force. Provisions in the Act relevant to considering planning applications are Article 8 (the right to respect for private and family life), Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) and, where relevant, Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination). In terms of reports on enforcement action, preparatory information, including details of ownership, has been sought in the light of current case law. The Head of Legal Services takes the view that obtaining such information does not relate to a trial process and so does not breach Article 6 (the right to a fair trial). The uncertainty over whether the Secretary of State can “call in” planning appeals because of potential incompatibility with the Human Rights Act has been clarified by a decision of the House of Lords. They decided that the Secretary of State’s powers to call in planning applications, or to recover planning appeals for decision by him, are lawful and do not breach Article 6. This clarification lessens the possibility of any challenge, under human rights legislation, to enforcement action 7. Sustainability and Environmental Implications The City of Leicester Local Plan has been subjected to a full sustainability appraisal. The sustainability implications material to each recommendation, including any


3

Environmental Statement, submitted with a planning application, are examined in each report. The following applications in this report are accompanied by an Environmental Statement:

Page App.

No. Address Ward Report

Section

8. Crime and Disorder Implications Issues of crime prevention and personal safety are material considerations in development control recommendations. Where relevant these are dealt with in individual reports. 9. Consultations Consultations with other departments and external organisations are referred to in individual reports. 10. Background Papers Copies of individual planning applications are available for inspection in the Customer Service Centre, New Walk Centre. Representations and consultation responses on individual applications are kept on application files which can be inspected by contacting the Development Control Group, extension 7249. 11. Officer to Contact Authors of individual contravention and application reports, via Extension 7249 or Mike Richardson, Head of Development Control, Extension 7244.


4

CONTENTS PAGE NOS.

CONTRAVENTION MATTERS - APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR REFUSAL - LISTED BUILDING CONSENTS AND CONSERVATION AREA CONSENTS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL

-

OTHER APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL 5-27 DEVELOPMENT BY THE CITY COUNCIL 28-33 OBSERVATIONS ON CONSULTATIONS FROM GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS

-

OTHER ITEMS 34-40 PLANNING INSPECTORATE APPEAL DECISIONS - PETITIONS -

19TH FEBRUARY 2002 Page Appn

Number Address Area Ward Report

Section 21 20012081 119 BARKBY ROAD E WH APP 32 20011996 BEAUMONT LEYS LANE, WOLSEY HOUSE

PRIMARY SCHOOL W BE LCC

18 20012052 BLACKBIRD ROAD, FORMER MARCONI SITE W SA APP 24 20012090 286 GIPSY LANE W RM APP 34 20011794 9-11 MARBLE STREET, 21-25 NEWARKE STREET C CA OTH 5 20001938 MOUNTAIN ROAD/BARKBYTHORPE ROAD E WH APP 14 20011929 286 NARBOROUGH ROAD W RF APP 16 20011930 286 NARBOROUGH ROAD W RF APP 28 20011917 SANDFIELD CLOSE, PRIMARY SCHOOL W RM LCC 30 20011918 SANDFIELD CLOSE, SANDFIELD CLOSE

PRIMARY SCHOOL W RM LCC

12 20011882 226 SCRAPTOFT LANE E HU APP


5

OTHER APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL 20001938 MOUNTAIN ROAD/BARKBYTHORPE ROAD 18/12/2000 AREA: E WARD: West Humberstone DEV TWO STOREY AND SINGLE STOREY DE-INKING AND PAPER

PROCESSING PLANT CLASS B2) (AMENDED PLANS 15/01/02)

RJM LPC PLC Introduction This site is “L” shaped, fronting Barkby Thorpe Road to the west and Mountain Road to the north. Barkby Thorpe Road has residential development on its northern side and industrial development (within the Hamilton Industrial Estate) to the south. There are two access roads into the industrial estate, one from Mountain Road, (which leads into the newest part of the estate via Waterside Road) and one from Cannock street, which leads into the older part of the industrial area. There is a weight restriction order in place, which prevents heavy good vehicles from using Barkby Thorpe Road. The front (western) part of the site is therefore prominent from some of the residential properties on Coleford Road and Manston Close, on the opposite side of Barkby Thorpe Road. There is a storm water detention area on the remaining land, infilling the “L”, which also fronts Barkby Thorpe Road. The other sides of the site are surrounded by industrial development. The former Metal Box building is on the opposite side of Mountain Road, to the north and the “Milords” building to the east. The site lies within a primarily employment allocation in the Local Plan. The Melton Brook runs parallel to Barkby Thorpe Road along the western boundary of the site. Background Outline consent for industrial development was permitted on this site in 1988, ref 88/0543). No reserved matter applications were made and the consent expired in 1991. This is the last remaining vacant employment site in this part of the industrial estate. The Proposal A de-inking plant is proposed in a building that has been specifically designed to house the plant. The building is 140m in length along the eastern boundary; 105m in length along the northern boundary; 55m in length along the western boundary and 48m in length along the southern boundary. It will be 12, 930 sqm in area.


6


7

The building is proposed to be 5 different heights. The highest part of the roof will be 20m to the ridge (and 14m to eaves height), in the square section of the building, which occupies the corner of the “L”, opposite the former Metal Box building. The long section of the building that fronts Barkby Thorpe Road will be 12m in height to the ridge and 8m to the eaves. The other “leg” of the building that points to the south is 13.5m in height to the ridge (12m to eaves height) and then 10m in height to the ridge (8.4m to eaves). A 9m height block of offices is proposed at the rear (east), opposite the Milords building. This was shown on amended plans dated 15/1/02. All the parts of the roof are arched, with steel feature work under the arch and at eaves height and variations in the colour of the cladding are proposed, to enhance the design of the building. Vehicular access and a 34 space car park are proposed off Mountain Road at the rear, opposite Milords. Development Plan Policies This site is an existing employment commitment identified by Policy E12,(7) -Mountain Road of the City Of Leicester Local Plan. E1 Criteria for determining planning applications for new employment uses. E4 Within Primarily Employment Areas permission normally granted for B1, B2

and B8 uses and not for changes to other land uses. Policy Considerations The criteria contained in Policy E1 of the Local Plan are :- (a) The current and future provision of public transport to and from the site; (b) accessibility for pedestrians and cyclists to and from the site; (c) provision for the needs of people with disabilities, including access to and

within the development, sanitary conveniences and parking and / or garaging facilities;

(d) appropriate access, car parking, loading and turning standards; (e) design criteria which seek to ensure a satisfactory appearance and

compatibility with the local environment. Consultations Environment Agency – no objection, subject to the conditions outlined below Representations Three letters of representation have been received, from occupants of Coleford Road and from Milords, objecting to the proposal for the following reasons:-

��Noise levels will disturb the occupants of the residential development on the northern side of Barkby Thorpe Road.

��Hours of use have potential to cause a loss of residential amenity, in

particular from lorries going to the site.


8

��The existing factories further along Barkby Thorpe Road are adjacent to the

brook and are too close to the residential properties. The proposal should not be as close and should be better screened by landscaping in front of the site, than the existing factories are.

��The site is used by the local community for recreation purposes, for children

to play on and for walking dogs.

��The additional traffic generated by the proposal (both cars and heavy goods vehicles) would add to the congestion on Barkby Thorpe Road.

��The height of the building is excessive and will block light to the existing

offices at Milords.

��Object to the storage of hazardous materials.

��The delivery of waste paper to the site will result in litter being blown around the vicinity.

��Any omissions of steam etc from the process would not be acceptable so

close to residential properties.

��It would make the houses opposite impossible to sell. Consideration An objection was originally recorded to the proposal, from the Environment Agency in February 2001, due to the site potentially being at risk from flooding from the Melton Brook. By developing this site, the proposal had the potential to reduce the flood flow conveyance and flood water storage capacity of the food plain, potentially increasing the risk of flooding elsewhere. Further investigation was therefore required, to ascertain the capacity of the brook, in order to be able to identify whether this site was within the flood plain of the brook and to ascertain whether there was a lack of storage capacity in the brook. Further information was provided to the Environment Agency, in October 2001, which satisfied them that the site could be developed without increasing the risk of flooding elsewhere. The applicant, Leicester Paper Company (L.P.C) has a large complex of buildings in close proximity to the application site, on the Hamilton Industrial Estate, which has recently been considerably expanded. The last phase of the expansion is only just nearing completion. The complex now includes the warehouse opposite the site (the former Metal Box building); two paper mills; more warehousing to the north of Valley Road and to the east of the former metal box building and the main production facility on Waterside Road. A large car park on Hilltop Road serves these buildings. The proposed building is set back by 50m from Barkby Thorpe Road and is 63m away from the nearest residential property. Its height and appearance has been discussed at length with the applicant at pre-application stage, resulting in the height of the building being reduced closest to the houses. The proposed height of 20m is required in order to be able to accommodate the necessary storage tanks within the


9

building. The part of the building at a height of 20m has therefore been kept to a minimum and has been located as far away as possible from the houses. Attention has also been given to the design of the building, resulting in the curved roof lines, feature steel work and changes in materials to help to reduce the visual impact of the building. The 20m height part of the building is therefore 110m away from the houses and a landscape buffer zone is proposed in front of the building to provide further screening from the residential properties opposite. The appearance of the proposal from the residential properties opposite is now acceptable. With regard to the potential loss of light to the offices on the front of the Milords building, lower height offices have been provided at the rear of the application site, directly opposite the Milords building, than were shown in the pre-application proposals. The proposed offices will now be 9m in height to the ridge, (7m to eaves height), except for a small raised area which is 11m in height to the ridge and 8m wide, in the centre of the office block. The proposed offices will be 35m away from the offices on the front of the Milords building and the 20m part of the building 40m away. The Milords’ offices face towards the west and do not therefore currently receive much sunlight from the direction of the application site. Although the 20m part of the proposed building will be very prominent from and is more than double the height of the Milords building, (whose offices are also 9m in height to the ridge of the roof), any loss of light which may result from the proposal, to the Milords‘ offices does not in my view warrant the refusal of the application. With regard to the parking and traffic implications of the proposal, a building of this size would require around 180 parking spaces, if it were to accommodate a typical general industrial use. However, there will only be a small work force of around 30 people, employed at the site, in a 5 shift system, with 9 people per shift. With a maximum of 2 shifts on site at any time, during changeover, only 18 employees are expected on site, for which the 34 car parking spaces would be more than adequate. The proposed levels of parking are therefore adequate for the proposed use of the building by L.P.C. However a condition has been recommended that requires that any occupant other than L.P.C, prior to occupation would be required to show that their proposed parking provision and travel arrangements would not be detrimental to the local road network. This would prevent an alternative user from taking over the building at a future date, without demonstrating that the building had sufficient parking & servicing for their needs. The weight restriction order that is in place along Barkby Thorpe Road, between Humberstone Lane and Cannock Street, will prevent heavy good vehicles (H.G.V’s) from using that route. H.G.V’s will have to exit the site via the industrial estate. No additional industrial traffic will therefore impact the residential properties opposite. The level of traffic generated by the employees is not expected to have any detrimental impact. With regard to the potential for loss of residential amenity from noise or odour, the applicants have submitted an assessment of the current background noise levels in the area and based on this information have proposed a noise limit which they are willing to comply with, which would not result in loss of residential amenity. The proposed limit is found to be acceptable and has been included in the noise limit


10

recommended by condition. A condition is also proposed to prevent any nuisance from odour. Recommendation

I therefore recommend that this application be APPROVED, subject to the following conditions:- CONDITIONS 1. The building shall only be occupied by The Leicester Paper Company,

unless the Leicester City Council as Local Planning Authority has given an alternative user prior approval in writing to their proposed parking and travel arrangements, to deal with the parking and travel demand generated, without detriment to the local road network.

(To secure adequate off street parking arrangements, in accordance with Policy T12 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.)

2. (0101) START WITHIN FIVE YEARS 3. (0302) MATERIALS TO BE AGREED (FOR; %) (de-inking plant; E1) 4. The parking area off Mountain Road, that is shown on the submitted plans,

shall be surfaced and marked out in accordance with the submitted details before the development is occupied and shall be retained and not used for any other purpose.(To ensure that parking can take place in satisfactory manner.)

5. Noise from the installation and associated activities shall not cause the

following levels expressed as 5 minute LAeq to be exceeded: 55db on Mondays to Saturdays between the hours of 0730 and 1800 measured at any point 1m from the facade of any residential dwelling; 45db on Mondays to Saturdays between the hours of 1800 and 2200 measured at any point 1m from the facade of any residential dwelling; 37db at any other time measured at any point 1m from the facade of any residential dwelling. (In the interests of residential amenity and in accordance with Policy E1 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.)

6. Before any machinery is installed or operated or any processes is

undertaken, a scheme for a suitable arrestment system for odour and fumes shall be agreed in writing and installed as agreed with the City Council as Local Planning Authority.

(In the interests of the amenities of nearby occupiers, and in accordance with policy E1 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.)

7. Before any extraction system is installed, details of the location of the

proposed equipment of the filtration and ventilation equipment shall be agreed in writing with Leicester City Council as Local Planning Authority.

(In the interest of the amenities of nearby occupiers). 8. (0205) PROVISION OF FOOTWAY CROSSING(S) (%) (T29)


11

9. (0201) SIGHT LINES TO ACCESS (%) (T29) 10. Sufficient turning space to enable vehicles always to enter and leave the

site in a forward direction, shall be kept available within the site. (In the interests of highway safety, and in accordance with policy T20 of the

City of Leicester Local Plan.) 11. A Travel Plan relating to the development , which shall identify modal splits,

proposals, targets, objectives, time scales and monitoring techniques, for discouraging the use of private cars to and from the development and encouraging the use of alternative means of travel, including the increased use of public transport, shall be submitted to and agreed by the City Council as the Local Planning Authority, prior to the occupation of the development.

The Travel Plan shall include provision for transport mode and travel

pattern surveys to be conducted every two years or at intervals to be agreed , for a minimum period of 5 years, or until 2012, whichever is the later, from the first occupation of the development and shall examine the contribution that can be made by walking, cycling, public transport, car sharing and the provision and control of car parking.

The plan shall identify a person as co-ordinator and as a contact for the

purpose of the plan. The Travel Plan shall be carried out as approved. (In the interests of a sustainable transport system and in accordance with

Policy T18 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.) 12. (0903) PLANS AMENDED (AMENDED BY; RECEIVED ON) (plans;

15/01/02) 13. (0903) PLANS AMENDED (AMENDED BY; RECEIVED ON) (plans;

15/01/02)


12

OTHER APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL 20011882 226 SCRAPTOFT LANE 16/11/2001 AREA: E WARD: Humberstone DEV TWO STOREY EXTENSION AT REAR AND SINGLE STOREY

EXTENSION AT SIDE(AMENDED PLANS) FJD D A & J M SIBLEY

Introduction The application relates to a detached house located on the north side of Scraptoft Lane within a primarily residential area as defined in the City of Leicester Local Plan. The Proposal The original plans showed a two storey extension at the side and a single storey extension at the rear. However, the plans have been amended to show a single storey at the side and two storey extension at the rear. The single storey extension would extend 3.7 metres from the rear wall of the and would have a mono-pitched roof 3.5 metres high. The two storey part would have a depth of 5.7 metres, a width of 6.5metres and a flat roof. Development Plan Policies EN18 Extensions to houses should normally match the existing house in

materials, roof form, scale and proportion of openings. H6 Within the Primarily Residential Areas, permission normally granted for

residential development, subject to criteria. Policy Considerations


13

Further guidance is contained in appendix 5 of the City of Leicester Local Plan and the approved Design Guide for House Extensions and states that two storey extensions may be acceptable on semi-detached and detached houses provided that they do not intersect a line taken at 45 degrees from the nearest point of ground floor windows on adjoining or adjacent houses. Consultations None Representations Occupiers of adjoining properties were notified of the application. One letter has been received from the occupiers of no.228 who objected to the original scheme but still wish for the comments to be noted. They stated that the sole window to their dining area is located on the side and a two storey extension would seriously affect light into and outlook from this room. They also state that they have a kitchen window which would be overshadowed by the extension. Consideration The original position of the two storey extension would have severely affected light into and outlook of the side window of the dining area of the adjoining bungalow 228. As a result of this the applicant has amended the plans to show a single storey extension only at the side and a two storey extension at the rear. The single storey extension would not have an unreasonable impact on the side window of the bungalow and there are no windows at the rear, which would be affected either. With regards to the two storey extension a 45 degree line taken from the nearest point of the ground floor dining room window of no 224 does conflict with the extension, although it is marginal. I have asked the applicant to reduce the depth of the two storey extension by 300mm to comply with local plan guidelines. I have also asked that a hipped roof is used on the extension rather than a flat roof. The applicant has agreed to reduce the depth of the extension and will also consider the use of a hipped roof. I am currently awaiting revised plans and will report the matter at your committee. SUBJECT TO SATISFACTORY AMENDED PLANS I recommend APPROVAL subject to the following conditions: CONDITIONS 1. (0101) START WITHIN FIVE YEARS 2. (0305) WALLS AND ROOF TO MATCH (%) (EN18) 3. (0903) PLANS AMENDED (AMENDED BY; RECEIVED ON)


14

OTHER APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL 20011929 286 NARBOROUGH ROAD 26/11/2001 AREA: W WARD: Rowley Fields COU CHANGE OF USE OF GROUND FLOOR FROM RETAIL

(CLASS A1) TO MASSAGE PARLOUR (NO USE CLASS) SSB H E ZUERNER

Introduction This application was deferred at the last meeting on 5th February 2002. The application site is a two-storey shop with retail use on the ground floor and living accommodation at first floor. The site lies on the edge of the local shopping area and is currently vacant. It adjoins other terrace houses on the southern side. The northern side has an A3 use operated as a Chinese take-away. To the rear of the premises are more residential properties. The Proposal The application is for the change of use of the ground floor to a massage parlour (120m²) and the flat at first floor level is to be retained for the employees or as an independent flat. The premises are to be used from 11.00 hours to 22.00 hours and no external alterations are proposed other than the addition of a sign, (see application (20011930). The first floor has a separate access via the rear yard facing Mountcastle Street which is primarily residential in character. There is no off street parking provision and none can be provided. Development Plan Policies None Policy Considerations


15

There are no specific policies within the CLLP relating to massage parlours. However, supplementary policy guidance (SPG) can be found in the adopted ‘Planning Policy for the Location of Sauna and Massage Parlour’ (February 1996), which states the criteria that should be applied for massage parlours within defined shopping areas. These include the need to take into consideration traffic and amenity issues. Representations Councillor’s Metcalfe and Garner object to the proposal because they feel that there is a “over-subscription” of such uses on Narborough Road. Three other objections and a petition signed by five local residents have been submitted suggesting the proposal is likely to be detrimental to the amenity of the local area and would also cause additional noise, traffic and parking problems. It is also suggested that this is not a retail use and as such is not suitable to a shopping area. Consideration The site is located on the edge of the shopping area and also adjoins residential properties on the side and the opposite side of Narborough Road. The key issues are potential loss of amenity, traffic and parking implications. I do not consider that there is a proliferation of such uses which is likely to prove detrimental to the effective functioning of the local shopping centre, particularly as the premises have been vacant for some time. In terms of amenity and traffic implications I do not consider that the proposed use is likely to be significantly worse that than the existing use, ie that of a shop. The shop could potentially be open all hours and generate a greater demand for parking than the proposed use. The site is located within the local shopping centre and is accessible by foot or public transport, the use is unlikely to result in or aggravate congestion in the area. Therefore the use of the premises as a massage parlour is unlikely to result in any significant loss of amenities to nearby occupiers. Supplementary Guidance also directs such uses to recognised shopping areas. But I do however consider that adequate sound insulation needs to be provided to protect all adjoining residents. I consider the proposal to be acceptable and recommend APPROVAL subject to the following conditions: CONDITIONS 1. (0101) START WITHIN FIVE YEARS 2. The premises shall be closed for business outside the hours of 1000 to

2200 Mondays to Saturdays and 1000 to 1800 hours on Sundays. (In the interests of residential amenity.) 3. (0502) INSULATION SCHEME (%) (for sauna and massage parlour)


16

OTHER APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL 20011930 286 NARBOROUGH ROAD 26/11/2001 AREA: W WARD: Rowley Fields ADV EXTERNALLY ILLUMINATED FACIA SIGN SSB H E ZUERNER

Introduction This application was deferred at the last meeting on 5th February 2002. The application site is a two-storey shop with retail use on the ground floor and living accommodation at first floor. The site lies on the edge of the local shopping area and is currently vacant. It adjoins other terrace houses on the southern side and the northern side has an A3 use operated as a Chinese take-away. The Proposal The applicant proposes a fascia sign, at fascia level, externally illuminated with seven 50W halogen lights with the inscription “THAI SAHBYE” in red on the frontage of 286 Narborough Road. The sign measures approximately 1 X 6.5m in size. Development Plan Policies EN26 Consent not normally given for signs which do not relate well to the building

or to the surrounding area. EN27 Consent not normally given for advertisements which display an excessive

amount of illumination. Policy Considerations Additional criteria are contained in Appendix 5 of the City of Leicester Local Plan. Representations Councillor’s Metcalfe and Garner object to the proposal because they feel that the sign would be detrimental to visual amenity.


17

Consideration The proposal complies with the City of Leicester Local Plan policies and is acceptable in size, design and level of illumination. The sign is over 30 metres away from residential properties across the road, it is not externally illuminated and the level of illumination proposed is not excessive. I therefore consider that the proposed sign would relate well to the site upon which it is fixed and the surrounding area. Hence it is unlikely to be detrimental to the amenity of the area and is not be contrary to the objectives of Local Plan policies I recommend EXPRESS CONSENT be granted subject the following conditions: CONDITIONS 1. (0909) MAXIMUM ILLUMINATION (CD/SQ.METRE) (750) 2. (0910) SOURCE OF ILLUMINATION NOT VISIBLE FROM HIGHWAY


18

OTHER APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL 20012052 BLACKBIRD ROAD, FORMER MARCONI SITE 13/12/2001 AREA: W WARD: St Augustine's DEV REALIGNMENT OF ACCESS ROAD TO ANSTEY LANE AND

OTHER AMENDMENTS TO PART OF PLANNING APPROVAL20001967 FOR TWO-.THREE-,AND FOUR STOREY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND ASSOCIATED ROADS, CAR PARKING AND OPEN SPACE.

RAW BLOOR HOMES

Introduction In March 2001 the Development Control Committee resolved to approve application 20001967 for 2, 3 and 4-storey development comprising 269 dwelling units on the whole site formerly occupied by Marconi. The resolution was subject to conditions and subject to the applicant entering into a section 106 agreement in respect of off-site affordable housing and contributions to the improvement of Alderman Richard Hallam School. The Agreement was concluded later in the year and planning permission issued. Condition 4 of the permission required the developer to agree the following works with the Highway Authority:(1) a toucan crossing near the junction off Anstey Lane, (2) alterations to the junction of Anstey Lane/Blackbird Road/Ravensbridge Drive, (3) alterations to the junction of Cornwall road/Blackbird Road/Exmoor Avenue, (4) traffic calming measures in Cornwall Road The Proposal The application seeks consent for amendments to the western part of the approved scheme. The changes from the previous proposal are the slight realignment ( 7m westwards) of the access road to Anstey Lane: new house types on the plots each side of the access road: changes to house plots and house types on plots 244-249 and 226 –231 to provide 14 rather than 12 dwellings: and changes to plots 202-206 to provide


19

6 rather than 5 new houses:changes to plots 21 & 32 to introduce 1 feature house G. Development Plan Policies


20

H6 Within the Primarily Residential Areas, permission normally granted for residential development, subject to criteria. �

H8 New residential development density should normally be compatible with the area. Higher densities may be appropriate in some cases.

T18 Permission not normally granted for development if unacceptable amount of traffic generated.

Policy Considerations The main policy considerations relate to whether the amended scheme satisfies the City Council’s Highway Standards for New Development, and also the guidelines for space standards between houses. Representations Councillor Walker has queried the need for a Toucan Crossing along Anstey lane rather than a pedestrian refuge. He considers than an extra set of lights along Anstey Lane would increase delays for drivers, encourage increased rat-running along Colwell Road/Buckminster Road/ Brading Road or alternatively Colwell Road/ Medina Road, cause extra enforcement problems when the lights fail, and the extra capital costs for a toucan crossing could be used to improve safety elsewhere. He hopes the revised planning application can be used as an opportunity by the City Council to reconsider the relative merits of a Toucan and a pedestrian refuge at this particular location. Consideration There are no objections in principle to this application in view of the previous consent which is already being implemented. I have no objections to the revised housing design and there are no objections from the Highway Authority to the realignment of the access Road to Anstey Lane. The highway works referred to in condition 4 of 20001967 are still required.The capital costs of all the works are to financed by the applicant and not the City Council. The toucan is justified in this location because the Traffic Impact Assessment identified that the majority of traffic would enter/ leave the development off Anstey Lane. The existing traffic volumes along Anstey Lane are high, therefore a controlled pedestrian crossing is required which would facilitate a safer crossing point across Anstey Lane for both pedestrians and cyclists. A pedestrian refuge island is an informal crossing and not controlled and can in some cases cause a pinch point for cyclists when cars attempt to overtake them. There are also schools on Anstey Lane, and a Toucan crossing will encourage cycling to school and hence help to achieve a more sustainable development. However the toucan is subject to details which will determine whether it can be accommodated on site given the existing constraints regarding trees and access to drives. If a toucan cannot be accommodated then consideration will be given to a pedestrian refuge island on Anstey Lane. I recommend APPROVAL subject to the following conditions and note to applicant: CONDITIONS


21

1. (0101) START WITHIN FIVE YEARS 2. (0913) LANDFILL GAS SURVEY/MEASURES 3. The site shall contribute to the affordable housing required by condition 3 of

planning approval 20001967, and this approval is also subject to the Section 106 planning agreement attached to planning approval 20001967( to contribute towards a satisfactory level of affordable housing and in accordance with policy H3a of the City of Leicester Local Plan, and to secure a satisfactory development)

4. The following details shall be agreed with the City Council as Highway

Authority: (i) a Toucan crossing near the junction off Anstey Lane (ii) alterations to the junction of Anstey Lane/Blackbird Road/ Ravensbridge Drive including advanced stop cycle lanes and pedestrian phases (iii) alterations to the junction of Cornwall Road/Blackbird Road/Exmoor avenue (iv) traffic calming measures in Cornwall road. These works shall be implemented before the first house is occupied. (in the interests of highway safety and in accordance with policy T30 of the Local Plan).

5. (0201) SIGHT LINES TO ACCESS (%) 6. (0203) PEDESTRIAN CROSSING POINTS (%) 7. (0205) PROVISION OF FOOTWAY CROSSING(S) (%) 8. (0207) REINSTATE REDUNDANT FOOTWAY CROSSINGS/FOOTWAY 9. (0302) MATERIALS TO BE AGREED (FOR; %) 10. (0401) LANDSCAPING TO BE AGREED & CARRIED OUT: VERSION 1

(%) 11. (0403) LANDSCAPING TO BE PHASED WITH DEVELOPMENT (%) 12. Details of measures to secure the protection of street trees alongside

Anstey Lane during engineering and construction operations shall be agreed with the City Council as Local Planning authority before developmnent commences and implemented( in the interests of protecting trees of amenity value and in accordance with policies EN55-EN61 of the Local Plan).

13. A scheme for the management, maintenance and enhancement of the

areas of vegetation to be retained shall be agreed before development commences and implemented ( in the interests of visual amenity and in accordance with policies EN55- EN61 of the Local Plan).

14. (0703) NO BINS IN FRONT YARD/GARDEN (%) 15. (0806) PETROL/OIL INTERCEPTOR TO BE PROVIDED


22

16. (0810) PARKING AREA SURFACED AND MARKED OUT (%) 17. (0813) PARKING SPACES TO BE RETAINED 18. (0912) NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS/ALTERATIONS (CLASS; %) OTHER APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL 20012081 119 BARKBY ROAD 19/12/2001 AREA: E WARD: West Humberstone COU CHANGE OF USE FROM LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (CLASS B1) TO

STORAGE (CLASS B8) RJM MILORDS INTERNATIONAL LTD

Introduction This is a 1720 sqm existing industrial building within the Barkby Road Industrial Estate. It fronts Barkby Road and backs onto housing on Padstow Road. Background Consent was approved for a change of use from a cash and carry warehouse (B8 Use Class) to a light industrial use (B1 Use Class) in 1982, which was implemented (82/0968). A two storey extension was approved (83/1804) across part of the front in 1983. Two single storey extensions (84/1087 & 85/1197) were subsequently approved, a two


23

storey front extension was approved across the remainder of the front (85/1968 which was not implemented) and a new entrance (91/0625). Consent was approved (93/0236), for a limited period, which expired in May 1994, to change the use from light industrial use (B1 Use Class) back to a cash and carry warehouse (B8 Use Class). Consent 93/0374 again approved a two storey front extension across the remainder of the front (renewal of 85/1968). A fire escape was approved to the front office extension 94/0188. Application 94/0191 to renew the limited period approval for a change of use to a cash and carry warehouse (B8 Use Class) was subsequently withdrawn. The Proposal It is proposed to change the use from light industrial use (B1 Use Class) to a warehouse/distribution use (B8 Use Class). The use is proposed on a 24 hour basis. The site lies within a primarily employment allocation in the Local Plan. Development Plan Policies E2 Criteria for determining planning applications for the development or

expansion of employment uses. Policy Considerations The criteria contained in Policy E2 of the Local Plan are :- (a) the effect on the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties caused by

hours of working, noise, emissions, street parking; (b) the effect on the character of the local environment; (c) the generation of traffic. Representations One letter of representation has been received, objecting to the proposal for the following reasons:-

��The garden backs onto the application site and is open to receiving rubbish, etc from the factory;

��A fire was previously started in the cardboard boxes that had been left around

the car park at the rear;

��The appearance of the area is greatly damaged by the factory;

��Based on 30 years experience of living close to the factory, the proposal is considered to be cause for concern.


24

Consideration There is no general policy objection to the change of use proposal. The 1993 consent for use as a warehouse with ancillary cash & carry, had conditions including those which restricted the use of the car park at the rear to between 0800 & 1800 hours on Monday to Saturday and limited access to the property to the Barkby Road frontage only between 1800 hours and 0800 hours. I have recommended similar condition, which allow 24 hour working, but restrict loading and use of the car park after 1800 hours. Subject to these conditions, the proposal should not have an adverse effect on the amenities of the occupiers of the nearby properties caused by hours of working, noise, emissions, traffic generation or street parking. The appearance of the building will not be altered. The proposal will not affect the character of the local environment. Recommendation

I therefore recommend that this application be APPROVED, subject to the following conditions:- CONDITIONS 1. (0101) START WITHIN FIVE YEARS 2. The parking/service area shall be retained and kept available for use. (To ensure that parking/servicing can take place in a satisfactory manner;

and in accordance with policies T12 & T20 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.)

3. (0811) LOADING AND UNLOADING WITHIN SITE 4. The car park at the rear shall not be used outside the hours of 0800 to 1900

hours Mondays to Fridays and 0800 to 1400 hours on Saturdays, nor at any time on Sundays or officially recognised public holidays.

(In the interests of the amenities of nearby occupiers, and in accordance with Policy E2 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.)

5. No deliveries shall be made to or from the premises outside the hours of

0800 to 2200 hours Mondays to Saturdays, nor at any time on Sundays or officially recognised public holidays.

(In the interests of the amenities of nearby occupiers, and in accordance with policy E2 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.)


25

OTHER APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL 20012090 286 GIPSY LANE 19/12/2001 AREA: W WARD: Rushey Mead COU VARIATION OF CONDITION 2 TO PLANNING PERMISSION

19990580 TO PERMIT HOURS OF USE BETWEEN 1600-2300 HOURS ON SUNDAYS

AB MRS B.KAUR

Introduction 286 Gipsy Lane is located within a terrace of similar commercial properties between the junction at Catherine Street/Barkby Road and Oliver Road. It adjoins a hairdressing salon at 288 and a driving school offices at 284 Gipsy Lane. It is within part of the Gipsy Lane Local Shopping Centre defined in the Local Plan and the Replacement City of Leicester Local Plan. To the south, across the other side of Gipsy Lane, is an area allocated for primarily employment uses which is occupied by a large industrial premises. Background In July 1999 consent (19990580) was granted for a change of use of a former solicitor's office (class A2) to use as a hot food take-away (class A3) with provision for a new ventilation flue and a single storey extension to the rear. Condition 2 attached to that consent stated that: ''The premises shall be closed for business outside the hours of 0930 to 2300 Mondays to Saturdays and not open at all on Sundays.'' In June 2000 I received a complaint concerning noise and vibration disturbance from the flue. Investigations revealed that it had not been installed correctly. Appropriate measures were taken and the matter was resolved soon afterwards.


26

I understand that in April of last year the premises changed hands and were leased to the present applicant. In November 2001 I received a complaint alleging that the premises were trading outside the authorised hours of use and that there were problems of noise and disturbance form the ventilation flue and a potato peeling machine. In response the applicant stated that the premises had been open between the hours of 11.30 to 2330 Mondays to Saturdays and 11.30 to 22.00 hours on Sundays in contravention of the authorised hours of use. However, the authorised hours of use would now be observed pending the outcome of an application to extend the hours of use as permitted by planning permission 19990580. The present application has therefore been submitted in response. The Proposal The applicant is now applying to open between 16.00 hours to 23.00 hours on Sundays. She has also submitted a petition in support of her application which has been signed by approximately 286 local residents and customers of the shop. Development Plan Policies S12 Outside the Central Core, restrict opening hours for A3 (Food and Drink)

except where no detriment to residents. Policy Considerations The premises are within a defined local shopping centre and I consider that the proposal therefore falls to be considered on its likely effect on the amenity of local residents. Consultations None. Representations The occupiers of nearby properties were informed and the application has been advertised by site notice. I have received one letter of support for the application from Councillor Piara Clair who points out that a considerable number of residents have petitioned in favour of Sunday trading and that the shop is within a shopping centre and away from residential homes. I have also received one letter of objection from the occupier of the adjoining property at 288 Gipsy Lane. This is a hairdressing salon with living accommodation over and the objector lives on the premises. Grounds of objection refer to the following; Parking difficulties: - Gipsy Lane is a major road and there are double yellow lines prohibiting waiting outside both properties. However, this does not seem to deter some customers who park on the double yellow lines regardless thus causing an obstruction and a safety hazard Litter: - customers often eat their food and leave litter outside the premises; Nuisance: - the operation of the take-away and associated machinery causes noise and disturbance which is audible next door; in addition customers congregate on a


27

doorstep outside his property obstructing access and their presence can be intimidating; Passing people: - the premises attract customers from a nearby public house who are often drunk and noisy in behaviour which only adds to the general disturbance and nuisance caused by the above; at present Sunday is the only time that there is some relief from these problems. It is also alleged that the premises have failed to observe the existing hours of use condition and have been trading previously up to 02.00 hours in the mornings, including Sundays. Consideration The property is within part of an established shopping centre and the block that it is within extends from 282 on the corner of Barkby Road to 304 Gipsy Lane which adjoins a private club on the corner with Oliver Road. Several of these shops have flats or living accommodation over apart from that of the objector's and there are also two houses in the block at 302 and 304. There is an existing class A3 use at 290 Gipsy Lane which operates as a sandwich shop/café and is open between the hours of 07.00 to 14.30 from Mondays to Saturdays. Other class A3 uses in the vicinity include a public house on the corner of Barkby Road and Kerrysdale Avenue, a hot food take-away at 30 Barkby Road, and at 188 Gipsy Lane and a restaurant at 347 Catherine Street. The latter has authorised opening hours on Sundays up to 22.30 with no serving of food after 23.00 hours. However, this adjoins another shop and is relatively isolated form nearby housing. 188 Gipsy Lane is permitted to open until 22.00 hours on Sundays whilst 30 Barkby Road is permitted to open between 10.00 and 18.00 hours but is within a primarily residential area notwithstanding it is within a small group of other shops. The property is on a major traffic route through the City where a certain amount of noise and disturbance from vehicular and pedestrian traffic can be expected throughout the day, irrespective of whether these premises are open on a Sunday or not. I therefore consider that it would be unreasonable to resist Sunday opening here in principle. Whilst I appreciate that there are flats and living accommodation over some of the shop premises in this block, the properties are within an area allocated for primarily shopping use and these flats can, in some circumstances, change to shop use and back again as permitted development. However, whilst a certain amount of activity can be expected at weekends in such a location it would also be reasonable to expect this to be limited on Sunday evenings. I therefore consider that the proposed closing time of 23.00 hours is excessive and should be reduced to 22.00 hours to reflect closing times of similar premises in the area. I therefore recommend that this application be APPROVED for a limited period in the first instance and subject to the following condition: CONDITION


28

1. (1008) EXTENDED HOURS - LIMITED PERIOD (HOURS; EXPIRES; %) (16.00 to 22.00 on Sundays; 28/02/2003; S12)

DEVELOPMENT BY THE CITY COUNCIL 20011917 SANDFIELD CLOSE, PRIMARY SCHOOL 11/01/2002 AREA: W WARD: Rushey Mead LA3 RETENTION OF THREE RELOCATABLE CLASSROOMS AB LEICESTER CITY COUNCIL

Introduction The school is sited to the east of Sandfield Close which serves a small, local shopping centre off of Nicklaus Road. There is housing to the north and south of the site and a large area of open space to the eastern boundary. The school site is allocated for community, education and leisure purposes in the Local Plan. Background The application relates to three existing double mobile classrooms which are sited to the south of the main school building. These are subject to various limited period consents which were originally approved in 1979, 1981 and 1986. However, the last of these expired in July 1995 and I have no further records of these consents being submitted for renewal. The matter came to light during consideration of another application for a double mobile classroom which was approved under delegated powers in May 2001 (20001950). This is sited adjacent to a footpath to the north of the main school building.


29

The current application has been submitted in conjunction with another for temporary lavatory facilities building (20011918) which is included elsewhere in this report. The Proposal The application has been submitted for the retention of three double mobile classrooms which are sited to the south of the main school building. Development Plan Policies C10 The replacement or extensions of primary schools within existing school

curtilages will normally be permitted. EN38 Limited period permissions for temporary buildings only granted where

there is a local need or environmental benefit. Policy Considerations Policy C10 permits the erection of temporary buildings for primary schools subject to Policy EN38. EN38 states that temporary buildings will only be permitted where there is a local need or an environmental benefit. I understand that there are no immediate plans to replace these mobiles which are still required for the foreseeable future. Consultations None. Representations The application has been advertised by site notice and the occupiers of nearby houses were notified. I have received two letters of objection in response. These are both from residents of Lyle Close which is on the western boundary of the school site. Whilst they make no objection to the proposal as such, subject to there being no adverse effects on light and amenity, concern is expressed that the proposal will exacerbate existing problems of vehicular and pedestrian traffic congregating in a resident's parking area at the end of the Close which is adjacent to a pupil's entrance point on the western boundary. Consideration The classrooms are painted white and appear to be in reasonable external condition. They are sited approximately 35 metres away from the western boundary to Lyle Close and I consider are unlikely to have any significant effect on the light and amenity to houses in the Close. The problems relating to traffic congestion in Lyle Close refer to the use of a pedestrian access point which is used in addition to the main vehicular entrance from Sandfield Close. I understand that this arrangement has been in place since the school opened in the 1970's and therefore do not consider that it is relevant to the present application. I therefore recommend that this application be APPROVED for a further limited period subject to the following conditions:


30

CONDITION 1. (0604) LIMITED PERIOD BUILDING(S) (EXPIRES; %) (28/02/07; EN38

and C10) DEVELOPMENT BY THE CITY COUNCIL 20011918 SANDFIELD CLOSE, SANDFIELD CLOSE PRIMARY SCHOOL 11/01/2002 AREA: W WARD: Rushey Mead LA3 RELOCATABLE LAVATORY FACILITIES BUILDING AB LEICESTER CITY COUNCIL

Introduction The school is sited to the east of Sandfield Close which serves a small, local shopping centre off of Nicklaus Road. There is housing to the north and south of the site and a large area of open space to the eastern boundary. The school site is allocated for community, education and leisure purposes in the Local Plan. Background The application has been submitted in conjunction with another application (20011917) for the retention of three double mobile classrooms which is included elsewhere in this report.


31

Consent was given for another temporary mobile classroom in May 2001 (20001950) which is now sited to the north of the main school building. The Proposal The proposal is to site a temporary toilet block to the south of the main school building. It will be approximately 9.6 metres in length by 3 metres in width and will be sited close to the existing three mobile classrooms which adjoin a hard surfaced playground area. Development Plan Policies C10 The replacement or extensions of primary schools within existing school

curtilages will normally be permitted. EN38 Limited period permissions for temporary buildings only granted where

there is a local need or environmental benefit. Policy Considerations Policy C10 permits the erection of temporary buildings for primary schools subject to Policy EN38. EN38 states that temporary buildings will only be permitted where there is a local need or an environmental benefit. I understand that there is a need for the proposal at the present time in conjunction with the need for the other temporary mobile classrooms on site. Consultations None. Representations The application has been advertised by site notice and the occupiers of nearby houses were notified. I have received two letters of objection in response. These are from residents of Lyle Close which is on the western boundary of the school site. Whilst they make no objection to the proposal as such, subject to there being no adverse effects on light and amenity, concern is expressed that the proposal will exacerbate existing problems of vehicular and pedestrian traffic congregating in a resident's parking area at the end of the Close which is adjacent to a pupil's entrance point on the western boundary. Consideration The proposed building will be sited approximately 25 metres from the western boundary and I consider are unlikely to have any significant effect on the light and outlook to nearby houses in Lyle Close. It has been sited in this position in order not to conflict with a nearby sports pitch on the southern end of the site. The problems relating to traffic congestion in Lyle Close refer to the use of a pedestrian access point in addition to the main vehicular entrance from Sandfield Close. I understand that this arrangement has been in place since the school opened in the 1970's and therefore do not consider that it is relevant to the present application I therefore recommend that this application be APPROVED subject to the following condition:


32

CONDITION 1. (0604) LIMITED PERIOD BUILDING(S) (EXPIRES; %) (28/02/07; EN38

and C10) DEVELOPMENT BY THE CITY COUNCIL 20011996 BEAUMONT LEYS LANE, WOLSEY HOUSE PRIMARY

SCHOOL 04/12/2001 AREA: W WARD: Belgrave LA3 SINGLE STOREY EXTENSION TO SCHOOL (CLASS D1) AB LEICESTER CITY COUNCIL

Introduction The school is situated on the eastern side of a disused railway embankment alongside which its has a vehicular access form Beaumont Leys Lane. The school adjoins allotments to the north and south whilst the eastern boundary adjoins residential properties on Abbey Lane, Hobson Road and Orton Road. Pedestrian access is taken from the ends of the latter two streets. The site is within an area allocated for community, education and leisure uses in the Local Plan. Background The proposal will provide additional classroom space adjacent to the existing nursery classroom.


33

The Proposal The original school building is based on a hexagonal plan layout. The site of this application is on the north eastern elevation between two of these hexagonal units where the intervening diamond shaped recess is open sided but has a projecting flat roof giving shelter to two entrance doors, one to the nursery and one to a store room. It is proposed to enclose this area to form an additional classroom. The proposal is a relatively small extension with both elevations being approximately 4 metres in length and built in materials to match the existing school. Development Plan Policies C10 The replacement or extensions of primary schools within existing school

curtilages will normally be permitted. Representations The occupiers of neighbouring houses in Orton Road and Hobson Road were notified and I have received two letters of objection in response. One is from a resident of Hobson Road and the other is unsigned but apparently from an occupier of Orton Road. Both letters refer to existing problems of traffic congestion at the ends of these roads when parents deliver and collect their children in the mornings and in the afternoons. These problems are compounded by the narrow width of both streets and the lack of turning facilities at their ends. It is considered that the addition of another classroom will only add to these problems. Consideration The proposal is relatively small and will result in an increase in floorspace of about 26 square metres. It is about 35 metres from the nearest house which is on the site boundary in Orton Road. I consider that the proposal will not have any significant effect on additional traffic or to the amenities of any nearby houses. Details of the proposal are satisfactory and I therefore recommend APPROVAL subject to the following conditions: CONDITIONS 1. (0101) START WITHIN FIVE YEARS 2. (0303) FACING BRICKS TO MATCH (%) (C10)


34

OTHER ITEMS 20011794 9-11 MARBLE STREET, 21-25 NEWARKE STREET 08/01/2002 AREA: C WARD: Castle DEV 5, 6 AND 7 STOREY BUILDING WITH 48 CLUSTER-FLATS

AND 2 STUDIO FLATS (CLASS C3): LAUNDRY ROOM; COMMON ROOM; OFFICE/RECEPTION; CAR PARKING; CYCLE/BIN STORE (AMENDED)

AW SOWDEN GROUP

Introduction The site is in a City Centre Primarily Employment Area and also the Old Town Priority Investment Area of English Partnerships’ Leicester Investment Strategy. It consists of: the site of The Magazine public house; the site of a factory, now partly used as a car park; 3–storey business premises on Marble Street, with parking. Opposite are: 3-storey buildings on Newarke St, occupied by De Montfort University; Phoenix Plaza and Theatre; 3 and 2-storey buildings on Marble St, used as a pre-school nursery, offices, and residential accommodation Adjoining are: 4-storey building on Marble St, with bedsits on upper floors and offices on ground floor; 4-storey building with flats to the rear; a temporary car park on Newarke St. The Proposal The application is for a residential development of 48 cluster flats in a 5, 6 and 7 storey building. There would be a pedestrian access off Marble Street and a pedestrian/vehicle access off Newarke Street. A courtyard would contain 10 parking


35

spaces and covered cycle and bin storage. There would be a common room, laundry room and administration office for the intended student occupants. Development Plan Policies EN1 In areas of character, development should reinforce established pattern of

built form, spaces and movement routes. EN3 Development adjoining public spaces or thoroughfares must provide

positive and attractive built frontages. EN4 No permission for poor quality or inappropriate designs. High quality design

expected in City Centre and Conservation Areas. EN5 High quality modern design normally permitted where existing surroundings

have been taken into consideration. EN6 The Council will seek to preserve the City's archaeological heritage. EN41 Make provision for access for disabled people in new public buildings and

where possible in existing buildings. EN42 Permission not given for development which is potentially unsafe,

particularly for women, children and elderly people. H8 New residential development density should normally be compatible with

the area. Higher densities may be appropriate in some cases. H10 Within the City Centre, a high priority will continue to be given to the

principle of development for residential purposes. H14 Permission normally granted for new flats and conversion to self-contained

flats, flatlets or cluster flats, subject to criteria. T12 Permission not normally granted unless adequate provision for parking of

vehicles including cycles off the highway. T13 Car parking areas shall provide extra wide spaces for disabled drivers. T14 Surface-level car parks shall be appropriately landscaped and surfaced,

and satisfactorily provide for pedestrians. T15 Permission not normally granted for car parking where safety provision

inadequate, including pedestrians and vehicle security. T16 Specified provision for the parking of bicycles for employees and users of

facilities will be expected in new developments. T17 Bicycle parking facilities to be provided in a form and location allowing

surveillance, improving security for cycles and people. T19 Developers may be expected to contribute to the cost of improvements to

the transport system to enable development to take place. T29 Development shall create a safe and convenient environment for

pedestrians on paths within the site and on footways alongside. H3a The Council will encourage a variety of housing types and densities to meet

all needs, and the provision of affordable housing. H3b The Council will encourage the provision of access housing, normally close

to shops and public transport and on level ground. Policy Considerations Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance 2000 Resolution of 3 December 2001 Cabinet meeting:

A moratorium on affordable housing requirements to apply to planning applications within the St. George’s, Frog Island and Old Town areas, to operate until 31st march


36

2003 subject to the applications having obtained formal planning approvals and commenced works on site for the full development agreed in their planning approval within 18 months of that approval Consultations City Archaeologist: no objection in principle, but a desk based assessment of the site should be carried out before consent is granted. Leics Constabulary Crime Prevention Officer: concerned about bin lorry access to site; external lighting should be applied to main entrances, fire-exits and courtyard Representations Three letters from property owners/occupiers on Marble Street/Chancery Street have been received, raising the following objections: ��The building is too big and does not relate well to the size of buildings around the

site, creating a tunnel effect on Marble Street ��Reduction in light to buildings on Marble Street would be devastating ��The number of flats and rooms on site would be overdevelopment; together with

occupants being students this would impact on viability of use of adjoining buildings

��Noise and quality of life for adjacent occupants would be harmed ��External appearance of the building is very simple and does not relate well to

surroundings ��Number of occupants would create a traffic hazard on Newarke Street ��Visualisations are misleading Consideration Principle of development: Most of the site has been vacant for several years and occupies a prominent position in the City Centre. It’s regeneration would improve the appearance of Newarke Street. I consider residential use acceptable as it would meet Government and Local Plan policy objectives of providing residential accommodation in the City Centre and redeveloping brownfield land. The site is in the Archaeological Alert Area. The applicant has already completed a desk based assessment of the site, which is acceptable. The development could commence subject to satisfying archaeological investigation conditions. Standard of accommodation and impact on surroundings: The intended occupants are students but, potentially, the flats could be occupied as a single household by anyone. The density of development is high at 316 flats per hectare. Since these are cluster flats the density of people on the site would be very high, with 232 rooms provided. However, the site is very close to shops and leisure facilities in the City Centre and is on the edge of the Phoenix Quarter, where higher than average levels of activity are expected. I consider that such an intensive level of activity on the site would be compatible with the surroundings. The site is opposite De Montfort University facilities and very close to the heart of the main campus. It therefore consider it suitable as a site for student


37

accommodation. Individual occupiers will always potentially be the source of anti-social behaviour. However, as a student site it would be managed and therefore be subject to stricter control of occupant behaviour than would be the case with other occupants. I therefore do not consider that the intended occupants or their numbers would have a significant adverse impact on neighbouring uses. As the number of flats is over 24 consideration needs to be given towards the development contributing towards affordable housing. Student housing counts as affordable housing. Therefore, as long as students would remain as the occupants no contribution would have to be assessed: a condition can be used to this effect. However, the affordable housing moratorium affects this site. Therefore, a condition restricting future change away from student occupation would not need to be applied if the terms of the moratorium are met. I consider it necessary to ensure that a contract for development has been signed as the condition for accepting that the proposal has commenced within the terms of the moratorium. The standard of the flats and the room sizes is acceptable. Adequate access standard accommodation is provided at ground floor level and all floors are accessible by disabled persons. Adequate bin storage is provided. The impact of noise and pollution from traffic on Newarke Street is a concern. However, the scheme has been amended to ensure no ground floor bedrooms face Newarke Street. Upper floor rooms that do can be provided with mechanical ventilation and acoustic glazing. This would be consistent with the approach taken for other residential accommodation recently approved on Newarke Street. Parking and access: The site is easily accessed by public transport and cycle. It is also very close to the Phoenix multi-storey car park. I am therefore satisfied that the provision of 10 car parking space on site, two of which would be for disabled persons, is adequate. Surrounding streets also have very tight controls on on-street parking; where this is allowed it is metered. I therefore do not consider it necessary for any special controls to be applied to minimise the number of occupants who might bring a car with them. Ample cycle parking facilities would be provided. The site vehicle access was originally proposed off Marble Street. To reduce the site’s impact on the narrow side streets the application was amended to provide an access off Newarke Street. I consider this acceptable, subject to agreement of measures to manage vehicle entry/exit. The provision of a pedestrian only access on Marble Street helps to ensure this street frontage has a reasonable level of activity. A bin lorry would not be able to turn around on site so would not enter the site, waiting on Newarke Street instead. This is preferable to a bin lorry blocking Marble Street during collections and already occurs for other properties on Newarke Street. The only pedestrian crossing points on Newarke Street are at either end, 250m away from the site access. I am concerned that many students will attempt to cross Newarke Street directly by the site. This has the potential to cause significant highway safety and inconvenience problems. The City Council is formulating plans for improvements to Newarke Street, which include a pedestrian crossing adjacent to this site. I therefore consider it appropriate for the development to make a contribution towards the cost of a pedestrian crossing by the site.


38

The developer has indicated that work would commence on the scheme very quickly, but no date has been programmed for the provision of a pedestrian crossing. A condition preventing occupation until the works could be done is therefore not appropriate. However, with a contribution the crossing would be likely to be completed soon after occupation of the building. The contribution could be done by a S.106 agreement or the applicant could make a direct payment under the Local Government Act 1972. Design and appearance: The height of the building is a significant concern. 3D visuals were produced by the applicant, but were inaccurate. I remained concerned that the development would be too high, having detrimental impacts on properties to the rear and on Marble Street, and not relating well to the character and appearance of Newarke Street. The applicant has re-measured the height of surrounding buildings and stated that the eaves of the block on Marble Street would be the same height as the adjoining building. This is still a significant height for such a narrow street. The impact on light reaching the street and buildings opposite will be significant. However, I do not consider that the level of light would be inadequate. Also, the building line of the proposal gives a wider Marble Street at it’s junction with Newarke Street than the original shorter building on the site did. I therefore consider this height acceptable subject to the receipt of acceptable revised drawings. The courtyard block has a single aspect looking into the yard. I do not consider that its being built right up to the boundary of the adjoining temporary car park will inhibit building options for that site. It presents its narrow 7.5m wide gable end to the flats to the rear, but these are only 5.8m m away. I therefore considered that the top (5th) floor should be set back, which the applicant has agreed to do. I consider this acceptable subject to the receipt of acceptable revised drawings. The block facing Newarke Street presently wraps 14m around onto Marble Street. The corner is curved and heavily glazed. As a corner feature the top of it is lacking in visual interest and I have requested the applicant improve this situation. The height of the Newarke Street facade is a significant concern. Four industrial/office storeys (the equivalent of about six residential storeys) is the maximum height of buildings along Newarke Street, to eaves level. I have been concerned that the proposed taller building (7 storeys to the eaves, with an 8th storey in a steep roof with dormers) would have a detrimental impact on the appearance of Newarke Street. I have also been concerned about the design of the façade, which lacks significant visual interest and detailing. I have therefore had extensive discussions with the applicant about the height of the Newarke Street block and its design. A solution being put forward is a more contemporary design, particularly at roof level. A key change being put forward is variation in the height: the majority of the frontage to Newarke Street would be 6 storeys, whilst the corner with Marble Street would be 7 and 8 storeys. The 8th storey would be set back from the Newarke Street frontage and extend 14m down Marble Street and the corner would no longer be curved (but still largely glazed).


39

This higher corner would be more dominant, but would respect its focal point location at a road junction half-way along Newarke Street. I consider the principle of this revision to be acceptable, subject to the receipt of acceptable revised drawings. I therefore recommend APPROVAL, subject to: ��RECEIPT OF ACCEPTABLE REVISED DRAWINGS, ��A CONTRIBUTION BEING MADE TOWARDS A PEDESTRIAN CROSSING

THROUGH A S.106 AGREEMENT OR THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972, ��and subject to the following conditions: CONDITIONS 1. (0101) START WITHIN FIVE YEARS 2. The flats shall only be occupied by students enrolled on full-time courses at

De Montfort University or Leicester University, unless: (a) the development has commenced within 18 months of this consent,

and (b) the City Council as local planning authority is satisfied in writing that a

contract has been made for the full development of the site in accordance with the planning permission.

(To enable the City Council to assess any continuing need for the site to contribute towards affordable housing in the City, in the event of changes to tenancy that would not qualify as affordable housing, as required by Policy H3a of the City of Leicester Local plan and Supplementary Planning Gudiance: Affordable Housing 2000, unless development commences in accordance with the terms of the City Council's moratorium on affordable housing to facilate regeneration.)

3. The sight lines on each side of the vehicular exit shall be provided at the

time of development and shall be retained. (In the interests of the safety of pedestrians and other road users, and in

accordance with policy T29 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.) 4. (0202) STREETWORKS TO BE SATISFACTORY (%) (T29) 5. (0206) ALTERATIONS TO FOOTWAY CROSSING(S) (%) (T29) 6. (0207) REINSTATE REDUNDANT FOOTWAY CROSSINGS/FOOTWAY 7. (0810) PARKING AREA SURFACED AND MARKED OUT (%) (T15) 8. The entry and exit of vehicles from the new access shall be controlled by

features installed before the first use of the car park, and their details shall have been previously agreed in writing with the City Council as local planning authority.

(In the interests of the safety and convenience of all highway users, and in accordance with Policies T15 and T29 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.)

9. (0812) TURNING SPACE WITHIN SITE (%) (T14)


40

10. Cycle parking spaces, as shown on the approved drawings, shall be installed before the occupation of the flats and shall be retained, unless alternative provision has been previously agreed in writing with the City Council as local planning authority.(In the interests of occupant amenity and sustainability, and in accordance with policies T12, T16 and T17 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.)

11. (0301) MATERIALS (WALLS AND ROOF) TO BE AGREED (%) (EN1,

EN3, EN4, EN5 and H14) 12. Before the development is begun details of the design and materials for all

windows shall be agreed in writing between the applicant and the City Council as local planning authority. Details for windows to Newarke Street shall include a specification for acoustic insulation.

(In the interests of visual amenity, and in accordance with policies EN3, EN4, EN5 and H14 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.)

13. Bins shall only be stored in the bin storage area shown on the approved

drawings, which shall be provided at the time of development and retained for such use only, unless alternative provision has been previously agreed in writing with the City Council as local planning authority.

(In the interests of amenity, and in accordance with Policy H14 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.)

14. Before the flats are occupied external lighting for the, pedestrian and

vehicle accesses, fire-exits and courtyard shall be installed in accordance with details previously agreed in writing with the City Council as local planning authority. No other external lighting shall be installed on the development unless details have been previously agreed in writing with the City Council as local planning authority.

(In the interests of residential and visual amenity and in accordance with Policies EN4, EN42 and H14 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.)

15. (0915) ARCHAEOLOGY - DETAILS TO BE SUBMITTED 16. (0916) ARCHAEOLOGY - PROGRAMME TO BE AGREED 17. (0902) AMENDMENTS (RECEIVED ON; PLAN NO)

Documents

Wards: See individual reports. Development Control Sub … A.pdf · 2015. 5. 26. · address area ward report section 21 20012081 119 barkby road e wh app 32 20011996 beaumont leys