Transcript

Committee with me as Chair, so welcome. I'm going to ask the members to introduce themselves in a few minutes, but first can I welcome officers and the supporting committee, and can I ask officers to introduce themselves going around the table on my left. Good evening everybody, Grant Bushworth, Head of Planning. Becky Ladnan, Planning Lawyer. Justice Skidmore, Government Support, I'm taking the minutes. Sharife Joudry, Government Services. Stuart Shaw, Planning Officer. Rob Barks, Senior Planning Officer. Isabella McKnight, Transport Planner for Highways. Councillor Theresa Aldridge, Vice Chair of Planning, and I'd like to declare an interest in one of the items, which is the Mayflower, because my mum lives very close to that item, so I'm going to remove myself from the meeting. Councillor Ted Cassidy, no declaration. Councillor Lynn Moore, no declaration. Ms Scott to cut it out, no further declaration. Councillor Paul Westley, nothing to declare. Thank you, are there any apologies to load? Apologies have been received from Councillor Prichard. And so just to declare that Councillor Westley is substituting on behalf of Councillor Sintep. We also probably need to report Councillor Modwadia was planning to attend the meeting, but somebody hadn't done the training so he's unable to take his seat. Okay. I have no interest, so as nobody else has declared an interest, we'll carry on. The minutes of the previous meeting have been provided to all members of the committee. Those of you that are here, if you could confirm that they have a correct record. Thank you, Councillor. Okay. So the next item of business is planning applications and contraventions. Please note that for each process, it will be as follows. I'll check any registered public speakers and/or non-committee members who intend to speak and invite them to stand by. The planning officers will present the report. I'll then invite any public speakers to give their five-minute submission in this order. Applicant or representative, public speakers, Councillors or members of the committee, and I'll ask any officer comments on the speakers' submissions. I'll then ask each committee member in turn if they have comments or queries, and they'll be followed by a debate by committee members with responses from officers. When a recommendation is moved, it will need to be seconded by another member, and I'll put the matter to a vote, which will then be by raising hands. We'll introduce ourselves, so I think we can carry on. So the first item on the agenda is the Mayflower pub on Jervis Road. So can I-- so, sorry, yes, to note that the item on the advice of officers has been withdrawn is the Kirkwell Crescent item, so one less today. Thought that might be happy. Okay. So can I invite the speakers to the table for the Mayflower, please? Can I invite the officer? Thank you, Stuart. Okay, Councillor Osman, I believe you have five minutes to speak. After the presentation. Thank you, Chair. Application 2024-0076 relates to a vacant public house on the corner of Jervis Road and Ocean Road, known as the Mayflower. The application site is outlined within the red boundary as shown on screen. Public house sits in the centre of the site with curtilage to each side. To the north is Jervis Road with community shops on the other side of the road. To the west is Ocean Road. To the south is the rear of residential properties on Ocean Close. And to the east is the sides and rear of residential properties on Jervis Road. The current slide shows the front elevation of the pub taken on Jervis Road. Also in shot is the access from Jervis Road, shown the dropped curb at the right-hand side of the screen there. This current photo shows the east elevation of the public house and the side curtilage of the site. The photo is looking south and the rear elevations of houses on Ocean Close are seen in the background. This photo is now taken from the west on Ocean Road, looking east, showing the south elevation in shot on the left-hand side and looking across in the distance to the rear of houses on Jervis Road with the rear of houses on Ocean Close shown on the right-hand side as well. And a further view of the side and rear elevations of the building. A further view looking north towards the community shops across the road on Jervis Road distance. Also in shot at the very left-hand side of the screen is a further access of dropped curb on Ocean Road into the site. So to move on to the plans submitted with the application. The application proposes a change of use from the public house to a place of worship with ancillary community and education space. The location plan again shows the site outlined in red. The existing ground floor plan shows the lounge and bar within the current vacant public house. And the existing first floor shows that there was space for an ancillary residential flat with lounge space and three bedroom spaces as well. So the proposed ground floor plan includes places of worship and multi-purpose halls on the ground floor with men's area and ladies area as well as ancillary reception and bathrooms. The first floor shows three classroom spaces and a conference room with ancillary office and staff room spaces as well. When in use as the place of worship, main hours of use would be Monday to Friday 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. and Saturday Sunday 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. The three full-time staff members and five part-time. 30 worshipers will be expected to attend regular prayers and up to 75 students are expected to attend evening classes during the week. There's also a basement in the site as well, which will be used as a storage and plant room. As part of the change of use, there would be alterations to the car park and curtilage layout. Of notice on the left hand side, there would be an entrance from taken from Ocean Road with a one-way system imposed towards the exit onto Jarvis Road with no entry and no exit signage to be installed at both accesses respectively. There'd be a separate pedestrian access as well, also from Ocean Road. There would be 23 parking spaces laid out along with ancillary cycle stands in close proximity to the building. There would be an area for waste recycling as well. The recommendation is for conditional approval. I would also like to draw the attention to the addendum report as there's been representations received since the committee report. Firstly, there was a correction to the initial report which stated there was 15 general comments and 41 objections. However, this was a typing area and there were in fact 16 general comments and 42 objections at the time of writing. However, the content within all comments and objections have been fully summarized in the report. Further comments were received from the highways authority. They stated that they agree with the consideration within the committee report in terms of amendments that were submitted by the applicant on the 15th of May. However, they note whilst the proposed level of parking would be sufficient for day-to-day use of the site, more details are requested and management of additional parking at peak times and a further travel plan condition is requested. On the basis of the highways authority comments, a further condition is recommended in addition and in relation to traffic management. So notwithstanding the submitted travel plan, a further travel plan would be required to be submitted to and approved in writing by the city council and the plan shall assess the site in terms of transport choice for all users. Consider measures to promote more sustainable modes of transport such as walking, cycling, car sharing, public transport. Identify marketing and promotion schemes for sustainable travel. Provide details on how additional parking will be provided and managed during peak times including the peak times themselves. Showing how additional parking will be arranged within the site when required, how the use of the parking spaces will be stewarded and managed, how the flow of vehicles into the site will be efficiently stewarded so vehicles can enter the site unhindered. How off-site parking will be monitored and discouraged and how route through the site will be maintained for emergency access. Also included would be a provision for monitoring travel modes for a minimum of five years from the first occupation of the development. Further representations have also been received since the committee report was published. Four further objections were received either by the planning portal or to the planning service. Issues raised included concerns in terms of parking congestion, safety of pedestrians, the site being near too busy junctions and also in terms of the principle of development including preference for housing to be built on the site. Preference for youth center to be built on the site and also concerns in terms of publicity requirements and support of the application. Further comments were also received from the planning agent including notes on proposed timings of use including 4 to 11 o'clock in summer and 6 to 9 o'clock in winter with exceptions for Ramadan. It was also suggested that an additional 15 on-site parking spaces could be provided during prior times of stewards managing the site. There would be noise protection, soundproofing and the applicant will work closely with local businesses and residents to address points raised in the report. So in response to these further representations, it's considered that again the high number of objections on highway grounds are noted and the nature of the surrounding roads are noted. As noted in the original report, the existing use of the pub could already attract significant numbers of visitors and hosts social events on a regular basis. And given the forest space, the 23 parking spaces would be considered to be policy compliant. Additional traffic management and highways layout conditions would assist with ensuring traffic impacts remain acceptable in planning terms. In relation to points regarding the principle of development, it's once again considered that planning applications must be assessed on their own merits and as places of worship in this location would be considered an acceptable use in principle. There's no planning grounds to consider or require alternative uses or to refuse the development on principle of too many similar uses in the area. In relation to other issues raised, it had also been noted that there was previous works taking place in site. However, I do not consider that any of works requiring planning permission have taken place prior to this application, so this application can be considered on its own merits. And the required statutory publicity requirements have all been carried out in terms of neighbor notification and site notice placed adjacent to the site. The areas of use proposed are proposed to be controlled as per the recommended condition, and this remains appropriate given consultations with noise pollution officers and the initial noise assessment submitted. Further points are all noted, and the full consideration on highways is provided in the committee report. As such, the application is still to be recommended for approval, subject to the one additional condition regarding the travel plan. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Stuart. Can I invite Councillor Osman to speak? You've got five minutes and grant all the time you've... Ready. Thank you, Chair. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak. I think this application has been lingering around for a very, very long time. And I know that it's taken a considerable amount of time to be able to get here, because there's been a lot of concern in the community and members of the community in my ward that want to see a site that's been derelict. It's been an eyesore, it's been vandalized, and we've had fire on the actual property itself since the pub shut down a very long time ago. And I know that there was previous application on this in relation to wanting to build housing on there, which is addressed in the report. I know we've had a couple of ward meetings where we've had mixed concerns in relation to the application itself, in relation to the development. But I think, overall, there's been evidence of the fact that there's been a majority of the people want to see some sort of development on there. And I'm glad to be able to see that some application in relation to a community facility and a religious place of worship is actually being put on the table and recommended for approval. In relation to some of the comments, and I note that I did support the application, other members of the communities that I've spoken to and knocked on doors in and around the area have had mixed concern, but favorably to wanting to see it developed. And I see the development of it after a very, very long time. Now, if you see the actual photos on the presentation, they actually evidence and showed there wasn't a traffic issue in the area. We haven't got a massive traffic issue in that area. It's a very, very quiet area in terms of a ward. It's not the inner urban wards that I've represented in the past. And having gone out there, I've been there on a number of occasions, and once there was police called in when there was a lot of crime happening in the area and young people were actually vandalizing the whole building. One of the issues that I have is I know everything's been submitted from the applicant in relation to travel plans and all the rest. I can't see the point of having an additional travel plan. Now, what the difference of an additional travel plan will make, I'm not too sure, because I know having spoken to the applicants currently over the last few days, they said that if you look at the site, there's an entry where you come in from the west and you go out the other way, and they've provided sufficient car parking. But there is land on that site to be able to provide additional and on-street parking. All places of worship, as we know, obviously have on-site parking and off-site parking. And obviously, members of the public will, living in the area, be walking, cycling, using public transport and all the rest of it. So that's one of my concerns. The other one is in relation to if it is going to be a place of worship. The timing of the whole proposal in terms of putting a condition of Monday to Friday different to Saturday and Sunday closing at 5 o'clock. A community centre or a place of worship closing at 5 isn't going to serve the purpose of the religious community that it's going to serve. Because we've got, you know, places of worship in the whole city of Leicester, it's a diverse city with granted applications in the past. And I don't know where the plan, local plan or the strategic plan stipulates that we strict the opening hours of this. Because that's going to make a massive difference to the applicant who are going to be able to use it. So I think that's one of my concerns. But in overall, I think I would ask members of the committee to obviously take into account that it is a place of worship. It is something that we use. And I know St Peter's Church, for example, opens and we can hire it out till 10, 11 o'clock. Where mosques within the city, temples with wars and all the rest of it use it early in the morning up until late in the evening. So overall, I think the Mayflower Park is going to be historical in relation to the change of use and would welcome a community facility where we lack in fair court community facilities. And I think this is going to add value to the area. Thank you, Chair. Excuse me. Thank you, Councillor. Do you have any response? Thank you, Chair. The comments on the support and the due to the nature of the current derelict sites are noted. I think I'll ask Esi to comment on the highways condition in a minute. In terms of the hours of use, the travel plan document suggested that the main hours of use would be 95 Monday to Friday and excuse me, 99 on Monday to Friday and with reduced hours on Saturday and Sunday. And that was as assessed by noise pollution officers as well. And in terms of additional hours of use, it would be important to note that there are residential properties and very close proximity to the south and east of the site. So we would recommend that the hours of use, as suggested. Just to clarify, so the hours as recommended were as submitted to us. And I think we had an email from the applicants talking about different hours. I think we received it, what, 1030 on Monday evening. So we haven't had a chance to consult with the environment health officers. We haven't had a chance to properly consider that. What I would say, though, is that it is open to the applicants to apply to vary the hours. And I think that's that does give, I guess, committee some comfort that once the use is established, we would obviously be willing to consider an application to vary the condition and that would allow reconsideration of the impacts upon upon at that time. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Yeah, just to respond to that point on the additional travel plan condition again through the correspondence submitted to planning on Monday evening. And the applicant has indicated that they would accommodate for the parking within the site to deal with times when it is busier with the proposed use. And whilst we agree that the proposed level of parking is sufficient to cope with day to day use and accommodating additional parking within the site would be welcomed to minimize offsite parking at busier times. What we would like further detail on is how that would be managed to ensure efficient flow into the car park and how that parking would be arranged, because those details haven't been provided. And the travel plan submitted for the application we were satisfied with. But the condition includes specific requests for details covering the management of the car parking and the monitoring of it for the duration of the travel plan. That's very helpful. And just to clarify, as far as I said, this opportunity for another education to make the extended hours. OK. If I can come to committee members, if you have any questions, Councillor Cassidy. Thank you, Chair. I'm trying to I don't know this area, so perhaps a site visit would have been useful in looking at it. But is it in is that building in the middle of a residential area? That's what I'm assuming. If you can just highlight if you if you show just if you just show the the shops opposite thing. So can you can you see the mouse so that you go? So those are those are shops on the opposite side of the road. And then there are residential properties around. If you just come around, this is just indicate. Can you see that there? And there's also residential properties to the to the south as well, isn't there? So it's a mixed area. There's a commercial frontage and a residential frontage. So the next question would be is how many others? First question should be. It says that 30 worshipers will be expected to attend regular prayers with higher numbers on Fridays. That's very vague. Could be 5000. What's that mean? Shall I ask all my questions and then they can be answered? Probably easier. So that's that is quite key. And I couldn't find it anywhere in the document, although I've had to read it online because of the problem of not having the papers sent to us. But that that's been dealt with this. The question that follows is are those worshipers going to come from the immediate area or from all over the city, which has transport traffic implications? So I'm not sure I've got that from this report or whether those issues were considered. So and the bit I couldn't understand from the pictures is there's a car park and then and that seems to be proposed to be managed very properly with an in and out. But then there would be extras grassy areas, which wasn't clear on the pictures where people would come in and where they'd go out and how how that would be constructed. So I think in general, it's good to see a former pub that's been derelict for some time being used for community purposes. That that is very good. But is it for the local community or really is it just happened to be a place which is available, which could be used by people from all over the place? Really, how much of it is a community is is the idea that this is for community use for the local community? Thank you. We'll take some more questions if that's OK. We'll come back to you, sir. And can look up. Good evening, everyone. This property has been. It's been closed down for a very, very long time. I would say it's good to use these sort of property for this education purpose because it's got good surrounding area, which is very quiet. As comes to us, one said it's not very traffic area or something. And and these been. I would say, you know, just lots of other places they use for the study purpose, which is quiet in the city and next to the housing. This is a place for the works and studying, although education, religious education places. I, I, I, I recommend this place is that place for the thank you. Any questions because Wesley's a question. Yes, thank you. One, I have a place of worship in my ward and when it was originally came before planning, I ask exactly the same questions. We have had no trouble whatsoever and people come from afar. It only has a small car park, but a lot of the local residents use it. So that's why I welcome it and, you know, all over Leicester. I'm not going to nitpick. I see the residential, the few residential. But what I also found, it was good for the local economy because it's new shops. And like mine is a local shopping area that went down there were now it's buoyant to gain because of the place of worship going in. It was the old neighbourhood centre, but it's come back to use. So I, you know, I would assure residents around there there's nothing to worry about. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Moore. Thank you, Chair. Good questions. I know that there's on the first floor, it was a residential unit. So we've lost one new housing unit, haven't we, by this development in a situation where we need as many houses as we can get. But that's beside the point. My question is really, it's echoing the other questions. What's the catchment for worshippers? Is it local? Is there a demand locally for a mosque because we have many, many Muslims who want to worship in this locality? Or is this something that's kind of almost opportunistic? Here's an empty building and somebody has decided that they would like to buy it up and develop it and open a mosque. Is there a demand for more mosques? Have we got a shortage in the city of mosques? Really, that's my question. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. First of all, I'd like to open with, I do have some sympathy with the part of what Councillor Osman's statement was when I first started as campaigner years ago. One of my first campaigns was to do with derelict public house in the areas, as Ted might recall, Councillor Cassidy. So I have sympathy with the current state of the building if it has had antisocial behaviour. And looking at the photos that we've got, we've got a similar situation. The building has now, in this particular case, not been used for seven or so years and is in its current state. Likewise, as the committee colleagues have said, where is the catchment area for the worshippers? Is it just local? Is it further within the community centre? Is it local again or is it a wider constituency or citywide building? But I do have a slight reservation on the timings and also the proposal of the transport plan. As we've just said a few months ago, the catchment area of the worshippers, if they're local. Yeah, cycling, walking, that is going to be easy to understand. However, if in the secondary papers received this afternoon and what was received by yourselves officers at half past 10 on Monday, the agent now has made some brief notes of the timings that can be considered for the summer of four o'clock to the 11. Assuming that's in the evening, twenty three hundred hours and for the winter of six hundred to nine o'clock. I suggest surmising that is twenty one hundred hours. If we're using public transport. I'm not aware of any buses that run at about half past three in the morning. So that is my main reservation on an amended. Timings of use of building, but also with the previous use of the building. It was a public house and we know that public housing licensing hours, even on a Sunday, would go up to 10, 11 o'clock in the evening. And here with the recommendation, it's again only nine o'clock in the morning till five o'clock on paper. Is should it be equalized? Is one question I would ask. Thank you. Can I come to the offices for response, please? Yeah. Yeah. Thanks for the comments. Yeah, I think. Yeah, I'd be happy to clarify a few few points. I think in terms of hours of use, I'll refer to page excuse me, refer to page twenty three of the committee report. So it is acknowledged that the site could be brought back into use as a pub at any time with noise impacts and neighboring residential properties and social hours. And the proposed use as a place of worship would also have the potential for noise impacts if there were social events or functions taking place or more generally from raised voice and music in the building. The noise impact assessment did conclude that there would be limited noise impacts on neighboring residential properties from congregational noise within the building. And the noise pollution officer was satisfied with this. However, it was also concluded that comings and goings and the use of outdoor areas for events associated with the place of worship could occur more frequently than sort of use associated with the public house. And so conditions are recommended to ensure the hard standing around the site and the grass there to the south shall not be used for any formal scheduled activities. And furthermore, as the previous first floor use was as a flat, it is considered that there would be an over increase in floor space use for activities at the site that could increase the comings and goings to and from the building in terms of numbers population based on increased floor space. And as such conditions recommend limiting the areas of use to the 9 to 9 Monday to Friday and 9 to 5 Saturday to Sunday, which was as stated, as I say, in the travel plan when the main areas of use would be. And so this was the conclusion that was come to the noise station and in terms of impacts on parking. So obviously, of course, there aren't any buses and the middle of the night. But of course, the hours of use would control for that. So excuse me, in terms of the catchment area of the application, the design and access statements states that the proposal is primarily for the local community. And the majority of users would attend on foot due to the relatively modest scale of the site and the fact that the site is in a primarily residential area. It would be fair to surmise that the majority of users would be likely to come from a relatively close proximity. And we were satisfied that this would be likely to be the case in practice in terms of excuse me. Yeah, in terms of the number of worshippers and the fact there would be potentially higher numbers that wasn't clarified, the applicant did submit as well as a travel plan, also a transport statement. And this produced trip generation rates based on similar uses in the city. It did suggest that based on travel survey results out of a total of 75 students, 33 may be likely to walk, 24 may be likely to come by car with nine car sharing, seven sites and two by public transport. So it would be considered that the majority would come via sustainable transport methods rather than private car. And yes, that would be sometimes a couple of points that I think the point about the numbers is actually, I think, experience that we've had with a large number of applications like this is that the scale of the building tends to limit the numbers and I think the nature of the travel plan that we're recommended through the additional condition allows that impact to be monitored. And that would give you some, I guess, a clear indication of the I guess there's the breakdown and the modes of travel that hopefully should reassure us about the about those percentages that Stuart referred to. So one of the reasons we're recommending the additional conditions to give you that ability to monitor it through ongoing surveys. And I guess the other thing I'd say is that the point about demand and trying to establish is the demand local, is the demand from a wider scale from a planning point of view, it's actually very difficult to establish that. I think you've maybe you can draw some conclusions from the nature and level of support and representations. But again, we're not in a position to be able to say to be excluding people from facilities just because they don't happen to live nearby. So I think you've got it. You've got to, I guess, rely on the recommendation in respect of monitoring the nature of the traffic impacts and travel impacts has been a proxy for that demand. And again, we're not in a position to be able to define what an appropriate level of place of worship provision in a particular area is effectively. We have to respond to the demand that's demonstrated by the applications that come forward. Sorry, there was one other clarification which is important. There's a condition recommended, no amplified call to prayer or oral announcement of activities to place within the building. Isn't the problem maybe the external noise? So I couldn't work out what whoever wrote that was trying to say. That was on page 18 of our papers. Stuart, do you want to come back on that? Yeah. So on page 18, that's what you've just read out there, what the members just read out there. That was the recommendation from the noise pollution control officer. That has -- that particular sentence was amended through the actual condition recommended which is on page 26, which reads no amplified call to prayer or oral announcement of activities shall take place at the site at any time. So with that, maybe it's time for later. [ Inaudible Remark ] There's no further questions. Given the applicants have the opportunity to apply for the additional hours and officers haven't had the time to consider that as yet, I'm going to move that we-- oops, that was quick. Sorry, Ted. Can you let-- finish the motion first 'cause we need to pick up the amendment. I'm going to move subject conditions that we approve this application and do I have a second? I'm sorry, subject, sorry. Subject. Subject to the addendum recommendation of the additional condition just to be clear, yeah, thank you. Second, OK. I'm going to now ask members to indicate their vote by raising their hands. So those in favor. You got a second? Yes, Ted. Ted. Those in favor, please raise your hands. [ Inaudible Remark ] OK, so that's carried. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Osman. [ Inaudible Discussions ] [ Noise ] [ Inaudible Discussions ] [ Noise ] [ Inaudible Discussions ] [ Noise ] [ Inaudible Discussions ] [ Noise ] Just wait for Councillor Wesley to come back and we can continue. [ Noise ] [ Inaudible Discussions ] [ Noise ] OK, thank you. The next item on the agenda then is item 4B which is 190 London Road. And if I could invite Mr. Wilkinson to speak for five minutes and-- [ Inaudible Remark ] Oh, sorry, after the office, I keep forgetting that bit. After the report and grant what time you have. [ Inaudible Remark ] Thank you, Chair. The application before you is for 190 London Road, application 20212876. The proposal is for the construction of a detached three-story building to provide eight flats, two studio flats and six two-bed flats. The provision of soft and hard landscaping, car and bicycle parking, bin storage, drainage infrastructure and boundary treatment, including removal of some trees on site and alterations to the existing access and boundary wall frontage. Just to note that the access and boundary wall frontage as in the description is no longer part of the application. So those changes are no longer made. The application site is bounded in red on the aerial photograph. So you've got the application site at 190 London Road here at the front, the south of the site. And then existing outbuildings to the rear that is a green area to the rear of the site and also a scrub land, which is also forms part of the application site to the south west of the site is Victoria Park. To the north west of the site is 188 London Road, which is a block of flats and beyond the block of flats is Victoria Terrace here. And then to the north of the site is Oxford Avenue and Evington Footway and beyond that is Evington Road. All of those are residential properties. And then to the to the east of the site is a veterinary surgery at 190 London Road. And the old horse public house is into the land to the rear to the east, which bounds the scrub land. This is a photo of the of the access roads proposed, which runs alongside the existing property at 190 London Road to the left in the photograph. This is a photograph of the rear grassed area at the rear of 190 London Road, showing the properties at Oxford Avenue in the centre of the photograph. The proposed building is on this grassed area here. This is a photograph of the land to the rear of the site facing south towards the existing building at 190 London Road and the outbuildings show here. This is a photograph of the site from the same location facing northwest towards Victoria Terrace in the centre of the photograph there. And also some trees shown on the site and also on the site adjacent. This is a photograph taken from the same location from the land to the rear of the existing building and is facing west towards the flats at 188 London Road. This is a photograph taken from the land to the rear of the flats at 188 London Road facing the application site with the existing properties at Oxford Avenue to the left there. This is a photograph of the scrubland to the east of the site with properties at Abington Road to the rear and Abington footpath running behind. This is another photograph taken from the scrubland looking towards the flats at 188 London Road and the application site at 190 London Road. So moving to the plans, this is the existing site plan showing the trees on site and the existing building. This is the proposed site plan, so we have access from London Road running alongside the existing building which is in use as offices and will be retained that way. Further turning space is proposed along with car parking shown in black, cycle parking and bin storage shown just behind the existing property at 190 London Road. And then the proposed block of flats adjacent to Oxford Avenue alongside with the frontage facing here and then the rear facing towards the lands to the west. So this is the proposed block of flats, as you can see it's three stories with accommodation within the proposed roof space. This is the proposed northern elevation facing Oxford Avenue. This is the proposed western elevation facing the land to the rear of 188 London Road. This is the proposed southern elevation facing the rear of 190 London Road. And this is a proposed street scene showing the building in context. This is the proposed block of flats next to the existing houses at Oxford Avenue to the left and the existing building at 190 London Road to the right. So, moving on to the floor space schedule so in total there are eight flats proposed on the ground floor. There's one studio and two two bed flats on the first floor, again one studio and two two bed flats. And on the second floor to two bed flats, all of which meet the nationally described space standards. This is the proposed ground floor plan showing each interval, individual flats in a different color. This is the proposed first floor plan, showing, showing the same three flats, and the proposed second floor plan, showing the two two bed flats. This is the roof plan, showing a dormers and cables to the front, rear, and then a flat, flat roof to the center. So, moving to the proposed landscaping scheme. A number of trees are proposed to be removed, which are shown with dotted dotted lines. The replacement trees are located to the rear of the site with in the proposed residential immunity area. I'll also draw your attention to the tree at the front of the site which is now proposed to be retained rather than removed, as per the original report. And here is a tree retention and removal plan, which shows the trees proposed to be removed in in dotted line in green. This is this tree at the front is to be retained. So, in light of previous applications discussed at committee, we've provided photographs of the trees that are supposed to be removed. So, this tree is at the front of the site. Although it says it's, it's to be removed in the report, the agenda report will cover conditions for that to be retained so that tree is now being retained as part of the proposal. This is tree to which is to be removed, as it's close to the, the proposed block of flats. And that is the same case for trees four and five, which are supposed to be removed. There's the trees on the near side of the wall. So this tree, this tree. One tree within group two is proposed to be removed and that is the closest tree and the photograph and for trees within group one ought to be removed, and they are the closest to London road here. And the application is proposed is recommended for approval subject to conditions. I'll draw members attention to the, the agenda report. As I mentioned, there are some changes to the conditions. I'll move through the conditions. After the summary. So, in terms of the further considerations that we've, we've made after the officers report recommendation were finalized. It was established that the tree t nine at the front of the site, shown to be removed as a result of the development could be retained. The tree is at the front of the site and provides a high mean see value for the surrounding area as such the wording of conditions, 11, and 12 are proposed to be amended to allow for the additional details in relation to the retention and protection of the tree to be submitted prior to commencement of the development condition 13 is also supposed to be amended for clarity to ensure that 15 trees, the 15 trees shown on the proposed landscaping plan is secured within the condition. A new condition condition 16 is proposed to be added to ensure that the boundary treatment from to London road is retained, and to ensure the character and appearance of the path conservation area is maintained. And with the introduction of the new condition. The plans condition which was previously noted as condition 16 is now amended to condition 17. So, in terms of the conditions. So, just in terms of a summary, the approved notwithstanding the approved plans and agricultural impact assessment, a revised agricultural impact assessment shall be carried out and submitted to the local authority and include provisions for the protection of treaty nine, and all the other measures outlined in the submission. And notwithstanding the approved condition 12 will be amended to notwithstanding the approved plans tree protection plan revised tree protection plan showed the treaty nine to be retained. Should be submitted, and showing provisions of the retention of T not treating nine. In addition to measures detailed in already do detailed in submission, and then condition 13 would just introduce the 15 replacement trees to compensate for for the loss of trees. And then condition 16 will be added to ensure that the boundary treatment at the front of the site is retained. And condition 16 has been changed to condition 17 so no other changes with that condition. Thank you. If I could invite Mr Wilkinson to speak you've got five minutes on the table. Thank you. My name is Peter Wilkinson landmark planning limited. This is a high quality scheme in the heart of Leicester, in the having 10 footpath conservation area. The principle of the development is supported by the conservation area panel. The location height massing and roof line is well integrated with the neighboring properties on London road. Some James road, Abingdon road, and Oxford Avenue. The scheme is consistent with the urban grain of the area. We've been working very closely with your offices, including since the committee report was produced as you've just heard the further amendments proposed are supported by my clients to further enhance the scheme. Indeed we welcome the retention of tree t nine at the front, which was originally removed because highways that asked for it to be gone. Now, we're retaining it we actually is a preference for the scheme. That's all I really want to say and thank you very much for your time. If I can come to members for any questions. Thank you chair. I absolutely welcome this. As we know, crosses, well the old country, housing's in a crisis. And I've always said we need more social housing built but any accommodation while the government makes its mind up is welcome. And I'm so glad to see it's not too high rise. Because in my ward. We've got the leaves which is 15 stories, and the complaints I have with families being on, say a top floor, and the lifts are out, having to drag their push to down 15 flights is just not acceptable, and I will never, ever, again, support high rise buildings. It's bad on the community is bad on the tenants that have to live in these, and I'm glad that is spacious, because the studio flats I've seen even in my ward also crump, you know, like rabbit touches. Developers majority are decent chair, but the developers want a quick money, get out quick, and they're not bothered how what's left for people to live in, and that's got to stop. Thank you, Chair, and pleasing to know that the applicants have worked with the offices, and we come to cancel Cassidy, please. Thank you, the. You had a picture earlier, where cars go in a long London road was that correct entrance. Is that two way in and out. Just for clarity. Yeah, I'm trying to get. Thank you, counselor. So, the access to this, the proposed flats will be from London road. It's existing to in out access for the, the existing offices on site. So, the, the existing in access would then solely be for the, the office space, and then the, the access to the flats is shown to the, to the bottom of the plan that would be solely for the, the proposed flats. So there will be a slight change. It's hard to picture it didn't look very wide to me. You've got people is this is an existing entrance. So, it doesn't change it. Thank you. So, the existing access is around 4.5 meters in with the, it is currently used as an exit for the offices, but the amount of vehicle movements generated by the proposal. Development would be very small and perhaps even a slight reduction to the current use. So, whilst it would change to a two way. And it's not considered that that would form an adverse highway impact on highway safety. So, the use of the access is two way it's not considered that that will have an adverse impact on highway safety. You may just be able to see on so that I think just to the left of that photograph the foreground there is the office access. Have we got another one showing the access to the, on the other side of the tree rather another photograph, no photograph. I'm not sure. Highway people are saying both ways. So, just clarify the accesses would operate separately. So, the current access use as an entrance will serve just the office use on the current exit will serve as a sole access for the residential use. So, the two uses will have separate access points, and we consider that the use of those access points would operate safely with the amount of vehicles for this level of development. Sorry, I might be not as proud as I used to be, but I'm trying to work out from you, you're showing some sort of alleyway, if you like, which you're saying is wide enough for cars. And is it the same entrance and exit, or is there an exit somewhere else on the site? I think the proposal is that access is the entrance and exit, both the entrance and the exit for the flats and highways are happy with it. Is that correct? I think the photograph in the presentation is the access which is set further back into the site, past the driveway. So, Rob just brought up the street view to clarify that the access, the vehicle access from the highway is this one to the right hand side for the residential and the vehicle access for the offices is the one on the left hand side there. And we consider that those accesses would be appropriate for the level of development proposed as part of this application. Thank you, Izzie. Thank you, Councillor Cassidy. Councillor Morley, do you have a question? Yeah, I have one question, one comment, ticks all the boxes for me, good design, plenty of space for residents, noise insulation, so that looks really good. I've just got a question about the archaeology, the Via Divana, is there going to be an archaeological survey before building starts? I'd hate to think that we're destroying any valuable Roman remains, thank you. Rob? There might be a bath house or a villa lurking under the surface. Rob's at a bit of the disadvantage as he didn't deal with the application, could he indulge through the applicant, Pete, was there an assessment done? There was an assessment done and unfortunately I can't remember exactly what was resolved in it, forgive me. The hypothesis is if we do discover Roman remains, that's going to hold everything up, isn't it? And to do the excavation, to decide how to, whatever, protect them. It's just a thought, thank you. Thank you. Councilor? It's just a comment really, Chair, I'm just really pleased to see it in front of me, the application, because whereas we've got two bedrooms, I'm quite joyed to see it, because we've got so many families in the city and hotels, what need homes, so I really welcome it, because it's nice to see two bedrooms and it looks quite a nice development when it's done, so I really welcome it. Councilor? Thank you, Chair. As much as the committee is, I think, in agreement, yes, looking at the plans, it's nice to see a design that also offers a lot of light, which on some applications we've seen in the past, when you look around some of the cities, not much light there and so forth, but that does look light, it looks airy. Mr. Wilkinson has said that the height will be in line with other buildings in close proximity. Looking at the photographs that were presented this evening, now we've seen it in a different light compared to what was written in black and white on paper. Looking, there's only probably one property that stood out in the photograph along Oxford Avenue, where it may have been considered to be overlooked. But again, that's a little box ticked. In terms of the trees, unfortunate, but it's nice to see the main one on the entrance of the property on London Road in the report to be kept. Thank you, if there's nothing else, then. I'm going to move to approve subject to the conditions in the amendments in the addendum, and do I have a seconder? Yeah. Okay. So can I ask members to vote? All those in favour? Thank you. And thank you, Mr. Wilkinson. So the final item on the agenda today is 42 Clearfield Road. If I can invite officers to speak, please. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Chair. And the application 2024-01-75 relates to a semi-detached dwelling known as 42 Clearfield Road. The application site is outlined in red on the screen. The application shares a party wall with number 40 Clearfield Road to the south, and to the west is number 20 Nevinthon Road. Properties on a corner plot between Nevinthon Road and Clearfield Road, and has side and rear and front curtilage. Across the street on Nevinthon Road are a parade of shops with residential accommodation above. So the photo shows the front elevation of 42 Clearfield Road, next to number 40 on the left-hand side, with a front drive, front garage, and front curtilage. Front and side elevations of the application sites, further area for a car on the right-hand side there. Rear elevation of the property, with accommodation for two stories. And facing south towards the shared boundary with number 40, and the rear elevation of number 40 shown as well. And photo showing the garden of the application site, and looking towards 20 Nevinthon Road to the west. The side elevation of number 20 shown on the left-hand side there. And the northern side boundary, which contains a large hedge. The application proposes a change of use of the residential dwelling to become a residential care home. The care home would provide 24-hour care and assisted living for two individuals aged between 7 to 18. Would be staff on site that would work shifts. Visiting hours would be 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., with up to two visitors at a time. This is the existing floor plans of the residential dwelling with living accommodation at ground floor, and bedrooms, and an office space at home office at first floor. So there'd be some internal changes to accommodate the change of use to the residential home, residential care home. With the garage being converted to storage and a shower room on the ground floor, and the first floor would remain unchanged with the two bedrooms and an office space. And for completeness, the elevation drawings were provided by the applicant as well. These would all remain unchanged with no external amendments. There is one piece of planning history at the site. Application 2020-0-8 was approved, subject to conditions that was an application also for a change of use from dwelling house to residential care home. So the application was approved in 2020, but it wasn't implemented. And now this is a similar application to renew the previous permission. So our conditional approval is recommended. Thank you. Before I invite members. I know when we've had applications like this before committee before. Maybe the neighbors in the area have been quite concerned, particularly about noise, about traffic, going, parking, etc. So could I just understand a bit more about the impact on the direct neighbors, please. Excuse me, sir. Starting out, I'll refer to some of my notes in the committee report. The main considerations in this case were the principle of the developments. In accordance with core strategy policy CS06, which is the adopted plan for last year, the city council aims to facilitate the provision of a range of accommodation to meet the housing needs of all city residents. And as such, the principle of use is in accordance with the aims of this policy. The amenity of neighboring residents was also a main issue within the consideration. In this case, the proposal is to raise managed care for two young people with care is always present for professional oversight and supervision. The application was accompanied by a noise impact assessment, which sets out that an independent wall lining systems at light wall lining system could raise the insulation. I mean, even varied loud noises in the proposed house would not cause significant noise impacts to the neighbor and the noise pollution control officers satisfied with the reports. As such, a condition is recommended in terms of installation of the wall lining in accordance with the reports. That's condition two in terms of highways and parking as a main issue. The local plan calls for one parking space per four bedrooms for these types of properties. As such, the application is policy compliant in terms of parking. The site is close to bus stops and Hinkley Road and Glenfield Roads, meaning that sustainable transport methods are available. Overall, the proposed use would not be considered to attract a significant high number of comings and goings as it would have a level of similarity to the existing family home use. Thank you. Can I invite members to ask any questions? Councillor Moore and then Councillor CASSIDY. No questions. I just want to say I'm getting a sense of David deja vu. I welcome this. I welcome the use of a house in a residential area for two children who may have special needs. And I would make the argument against objectives that they have no control over some family moving in next door with young children, whereas these children will have 24/7 supervision. And I think it's brilliant that we, as a council, we are integrating children who have got disabilities within local communities. This is good for them and it's good for the community. Thank you. I'll support the application. Thank you. Councillor CASSIDY. Yes, similarly, I think this is like a family in a sense, isn't it? There's no difference, really. But are the carers expected to sleep in? Yes, 24/7. I believe that's the case. There's only two bedrooms. I assume that that would be one for each of the residents. That's confusing. Can I ask you to respond? Yes, so the home would provide 24 hour care and the staff would work shifts with up to four to six different staff working different types of shifts. It would be up to the kind of management of the care home to ensure that a suitable accommodation was provided for staff. So planning can't control the detailed management arrangements. I think they're specified through the OSTED Regime. So I'm not sure about, say, during overnight, whether one carer is sufficient cover. I can see Councillor Moore nodding. I think that is the case, but I'm not sure. And it's not. It's beyond our expertise. But effectively, I think it's quite common that I think of the properties of this scale can accommodate the two children and the carers. And again, it wouldn't it wouldn't meet the OSTED regulation requirements if they didn't have sufficient bed provision for the carers. So I think you can assume that's covered through the OSTED management process. And I guess your your main thing to consider is the impact of this use in the area on the neighbours as opposed to the detailed accommodation within. I'm not sure if that helps. To be helpful, Chair, you have one member of staff on duty at night awake all night while the children are asleep. And that's because that's the health and safety reasons to stop things like bullying, whatever. And this is this is the common practice. It is certainly at Milgate, for example, where I'm chair of the advisory board. Staff are on duty all night in case there are problems, but then the children are asleep. Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Wesley and then Councillor Aldrich, please. Yes, Chair. I welcome this and some of my comments have been echoed by the other members about safety. And we have a few in my ward of residential homes, Milton House run by the Housing Association. And there's one warden on at night and I spent the night, believe it or not. She invited me to spend the night and, you know, dealing with the alarms and things like that was rigorous checks. And if this year I hope this is just as good as the Housing Association ones, then the residents have got nothing whatsoever to worry about. And thank you, Councillor Wesley. I hope you enjoy it. I have to declare on the last one because I've been lobbied on it. So if you with your permission now, we'll be going. Thank you. So you saw a bit of this item on the next one. Well, Chris, that one's been withdrawn off the agenda. Oh, that's been withdrawn. You can stay with us, Councillor Aldrich. Yeah, it was just a comment really to echo what Len Moore said, because I've spoken on this before. For me, I feel like I feel that children should be able to feel like they're in a family home. And I know that people object. But why shouldn't children in care be able to go into a family home? And I and I really welcome it because I spoke on another one where it had objection. But you could have somebody buy that house with, I don't know, two children, a bit unruler. I've always said this. And, you know, they've got care. They've got care staff there all the time. But I think it's really important that children in our city in care feel like they've got a loving home environment. So I will always welcome this sort of development. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. I think while we acknowledge the concerns of neighbours, et cetera, clearly this is something that's important for our city and for children in our city. So with that said, I'm going to propose that we move to approve this application. Can I have a seconder, Councillor Moore? And can I ask members who are in support to raise their hands, please? So that that motion is carried. Thank you. OK, that's the end of the meeting. Unless there's any other business from anybody else. The rest is already packing these bags. Councillor Garpel. Yeah. Just wondering, normally you get this detail from the post or something. This time we didn't have this. So just. Yes, Councillor. So an email has been sent to all members of the committee regarding this, that there was an issue in sending out the papers. So a variety of different amendments were made. So a digital copy was provided and the offer of a paper copy in your pigeonholes as well. So that was sent out a while ago, just informing all members of the committee about that. So going on, you will receive your agendas as normal. For this one instance, a variety of different alternative methods were provided. Is that OK? OK, so I didn't mind not getting them because I'm sorry. Can I thank members for your time and can I thank officers as well? Have a good evening, everybody.

Transcript