Transcript

Okay, good evening everybody, and welcome to the Planning and Development Control Committee. I'm Council 30, I'll be chairing the committee this evening. I want to take this opportunity to welcome all members and those in attendance to the committee. I can see there's a lot of interest in the items on the agenda today. So can I just ask those in attendance to please refrain from commenting to allow due consideration and debate on the agenda items in question today. And also, any filming should have been notified to officers. We haven't had any notifications, so I don't expect anybody to be filming today as well. Thank you. Sherry, can I just raise a matter of interest about that in that I raised this at the full council meeting when we were told we weren't allowed to film at the full council meeting. It might be a council policy, but government legislation trumps council policy, and the law of the land is that people are allowed to film. So, as I said, people are allowed to film, but however, a officer should have been notified. No, there's no requirement under the legislation. It dates back to a piece of legislation from 2014. I can't quote the exact thing. If you give me a moment, I might be able to, because I did text it to another councillor last time then. So, in terms of this meeting, people can film and record the meeting. And I think it's important. We live in a democracy. People should be allowed to do it. Thank you, Councillor Porter. I'll just ask Akil to respond. So, I'll just have to see which legislation it is that you're referring to, because I've not, in terms of that's the council policy, that's what we'd be expecting. Yeah, yeah. That policy will have been, will have considered the legislation, that's the policy that will have been created on that basis. No, well, whether it has or hasn't, the policy was in place either before or after the legislation, and the statute, which is the law of the land, trumps council policy 100% of the time. So, you can't bring in a council policy, which undermines the law of the land. Otherwise, you could bring in a council policy to say, we're going to allow people to drink and drive. It's absolutely ridiculous. The law of the land is the law of the land. That's fine. The council is correct when he says that national legislation, parliamentary legislation, trumps council policy. But, if you can't provide a specific reference, you'll have to stick to the council policy for the time to... That's what I'm saying. If you can just bear with me, I did text it to another member at the full council meeting. And at the full council meeting, the council's barrister was there, and he didn't dispute what I'm saying tonight. Okay. Council, if you could share that with a few. Yeah, we'll consider that once. We do the rest of the... I just think, practically, it might be worth pointing out that these meetings are filmed anyway, and it's available publicly for anybody to look. So, you know, the reality is, if anybody wants the footage of anything that we've said, it'll be here. Yeah, it's webcast. This is different to the full council, which is like listening to a debate through a sock. Yeah. Now, this webcast is here. It's all open. And I think it might have been Eric Pickles, when he was Secretary of State. So, it may have been a ministerial statement or... No, it's not. Right. I can give you the actual piece of legislation, if you want to hear it. Council Porter. It says you can film or take photos at a council public meeting, and it's under the Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014. Thank you, Council Porter. Thank you, Council Porter, for sharing that information. Let's proceed, because we've got a long debate ahead of us. Thank you. Okay. I'm going to ask members of the committee to introduce themselves in a few minutes, but firstly, I want to welcome officers to the meeting, and can I ask officers to please introduce yourselves, starting on my left. Good evening, Grand Batouf, Head of Planning, City Council. Akil Adnan, Planning Solicitor. Bina Mistry, Planning Solicitor. Sharif Chowdhury, Governance Services. I'll be taking the minutes for this meeting. Lucia Aldrich, Governance Services. Chloe Young, Senior Planning Officer. Isabel McLean, Transport Planner, on behalf of the City Highway Authority. Thank you. Before I go to members, do we have any apologies today? We have one apology from Councillor Kennedy-Launt and Councillor Ford substituting at this meeting. Thank you. I'll now go to members and ask you to introduce yourself, and also say if you have any declarations of interest. As I said, I'm Councillor 30, and I have nothing to declare. Councillor Cassidy? Nothing to declare. Can you introduce yourself as well? Oh, well, I'm Councillor Ted Cassidy. I'm Councillor for Safa. Councillor Mohamed, and I've got nothing to declare. Good evening, Chair. On Councillor Ashida Joel, I have nothing to declare. Councillor Lynn Moore, I've had a telephone call from Alderman Cleaver, and suddenly I realised that she was talking about something that could come to this committee. I immediately said stop, and she didn't say any more. I have an open mind. Thank you. Councillor Porter, I have to declare that I've made an objection to the application which is for Plantation Avenue, so what I'm going to do is I'm going to withdraw myself from the meeting at that stage and put forward my objections. Thank you. Councillor Patrick Kitterick, I once did have a drink in the Glen pub many, many years ago, but I do not think that constitutes a prejudicial interest. Councillor David Singh Patel, and I have nothing to declare. Thank you. Good evening, everyone. I'm Councillor Jay Gropal from Belgrade Road, and nothing to declare. Thank you, councillors. Can I ask members of the committee to confirm the minutes of the meeting held on the 2nd of April as true and correct? So I have a... Propose on a second, Councillor Mohamed and Councillor Mohamed. Thank you. Okay, so the next item of business is the planning applications. The first application we're going to be hearing is the Glen on the Hillsborough Road. I understand we have some speakers for this item, so can I ask George Whiteman to come to the table, Adrian Fields, Joe Watts and Sarah Williams, please. Thank you. Sorry, Councillor Prickley, you're speaking on this item as well. Okay, we will hear from officers first as they go through the application, and then I'll come to the speakers for your comments. You will have five minutes to speak, and you'll be notified when you have a minute left. For that, I understand that three objectives will share the five minutes, Councillor Prickley will have five minutes, and the applicant will have five minutes. So if I can go to the officers, Chloe, if you could run through the application, please. Thank you, Chair. The application relates to the Glen Public House, and that's outlined in red in the image above. The public house is within Swinford Avenue Local Centre, with a co-op to the west and six other commercial units. To the north, there is shared parking for the local centre and the public park further north across the road. To the south, east and west, there are a number of residential dwellings. Further to the east, there is Rolston Primary School. At first floor level, there is an ancillary flat above the public house, and it's proposed to convert the entire building into a place of worship. So this is a photo of the Glen, showing the front elevation and parking area. This is showing the parking area, including the parts used by the adjacent co-op. These photos are taken looking east and west on Hillsborough Road. This is a photo of Hillsborough Road Recreation Ground to the north of the application site, just across the road. This photo shows the side elevation of the Glen and the route to the rear of the site and the co-op site. This photo shows the rear elevation of the Glen, and this photo shows the rear yard of the Glen. A condition is recommended to prevent these outside areas being used for any formal scheduled activities, such as worship, religious events, wedding, classes or community events. So onto the floor plans. This is the existing ground floor plan of the pub, showing the bar at the top, seating, games room, kitchen and store, and then the toilet areas at either side. And this is the ancillary flat at first floor level. It's two bedrooms. There is no access to the flat without entering the pub, so this is considered to be an ancillary to the pub and not a separate residential unit. And this is the proposed ground floor plan. So we're showing the existing kitchen area being removed here, and two prayer pools. These measure around 200 metres squared. We then have the ablution and lobby spaces at the top, the toilets at the side, and then outside we've got some plants as proposed, and bike store to the front elevation. And this is the proposed first floor plan. We've got a female prayer room measuring 25 metres squared, and then three classroom areas. And lastly, this is the proposed site plan, and this has 26 spaces in blue, including this disabled space here. The application is recommended for approval, subject to the conditions outlined on pages 33 to 34 on the circulated report. We have an addendum to the report, which I'll read out now. So four further objections have been received since the officer report was made publicly available, and the objectives have the following concerns. Loss of employment, land and staff. Existing prayer facilities being in the area already. The use providing a lack of benefit to the majority of the community, and an alternate use is requested that would benefit the majority of the community. The application has already caused an increase in community attentions, and could continue to do so. It could cause an impact on highway and pedestrian safety, including impacts on the bus routes and people coming to and from the adjacent park and school. Additional parking created by the use could deter people from using the local centre, to the detriment of shop owners. An increase in noise levels due to long opening hours, and an increase in air pollution from vehicles. We also have two further supporting comments received, stating the proposed use would benefit the whole community, and would improve parking around other places of worship. Our further considerations are that the site is a local centre. It's in an area designated as a local centre, so it would not result in the loss of employment land, and the site currently has no staffing as it is vacant. With reference to all the other matters raised, these are all covered in the circulated report. Lastly, since the addendum, we've also received another postal vote sent to us. It's objecting to the scheme, and this says, not enough parking spaces, cars will park on grass verges, also on school pavement, children's play area. This will be hazardous for children when coming out of school. When school finishes, it's already hazardous on a dangerous bend at the school. This will be chaos, also a residential area. And it's considered that these concerns are also dealt with in the officer report. Thank you, Chloe. I'm going to now invite Mr Whiteman to speak. You'll have five minutes, and Grant will let you know when you have a minute left. If we could have the lights on, please. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I'm here on behalf of the Ayres-Montsall Community Foundation, the applicant in this case. You have before you a proposal that is about securing the future use of a vacant building in the future of a valued local community organisation. An organisation which already provides essential social, educational and religious services. The Glen has stood empty since 2022. Despite being marketed by two of the UK's leading public health agents, Admiral Taverns and Everard's, there was no substantive interest in continuing its use as a pub. That process was entirely independent of the applicant, and it confirms the former use was no longer viable. But this building does not need to remain vacant. The application proposes to bring it back into meaningful, active community use as a place of worship with ancillary educational space. Specifically, a mosque and madrasa operated by a local registered charitable foundation. A foundation that already serves the local area, delivering prayer, education and support from a community centre to 600 metres away. A foundation established by, and serving local residents, built from the ground up to meet their local needs. This is not a speculative development from outside the area. This is an application made by an existing local faith group. The Ayers-Montsville Community Foundation has operated from the local community centre since 2018. And for many years, they have delivered Friday prayers, children's classes and community events to local people. And for year on year, the foundation's local congregation base has grown and grown. The evidence base for this application includes a community needs assessment, a detailed attendance survey and independent letters and public comments of community support. These are not generic. They speak of the importance of a dedicated place of worship to serve the community. They discuss the importance of having access to a full range of religious services and the ability to worship within their community, as well as having a facility important to their families' and children's social identities. Core Strategy Policy CS08 is supportive of new places of worship, where they meet identified needs of local communities and have a viable long-term management and funding proposal. This proposal fully accords with these policy requirements. National Planning Policy goes even further. Paragraphs 88, 96 and 98 of the National Planning Policy Framework all promote the development and safeguarding of accessible, inclusive community facilities that reflect local needs. Some objectors have stated that the proposal is not reflective of the local area, raising a broader question of does a mosque fit this area? The answer to this question is yes. I reiterate, this application is made by local residents, and these residents are already part of the area. Whilst the applicant has thoughtfully prepared this application to prevent impacts on the wider community, a noise impact assessment concludes the noise levels will be within acceptable limits, and the applicant has confirmed there will be no amplified call to prayer. It is on this basis that the Council's own environmental health officers have raised no objection. Whilst the local highway authority has raised no objection to this application also. A professionally prepared transport statement and travel plan was submitted, demonstrating the majority of users are local and are expected to walk to the facility. In line with best practice, the highway authority has recommended a condition requiring an updated travel plan. To further manage sustainable transport, and the applicant fully supports this measure. However, the applicant has gone further, with trustees, teachers and parents of the Foundation having met with local ward councillors to listen directly to the concerns of the wider community. As a result of those conversations, the Foundation is committed to lines of communication. Should the application be approved today, they are ready to work collaboratively with the community members to ensure that the centre is well integrated and positively contributes to the area. Committee, this is a local proposal made by local people to benefit the local community. It brings an empty building back into use. It meets planning policy requirements and responds to a real local need. The Ayers-Montal Community Foundation is already part of the local area. They just need a permanent home. And I respectfully ask you to support this application in line with your officer's recommendation for approval. Thank you. Thank you. I will now invite the objectors. So, Mr. Fields, Ms. Watts and Ms. Williams, you will have five minutes between you to speak. And again, Grant will let you know when you have a minute left. Good evening, councillors. Having lived on the estate for 29 years, I feel more than qualified to stand here today and be a voice for the local community. The residents feel they have not been given the opportunity to have a voice, which is one of the reasons why I'm passionate about speaking. If you live on the estate, you will know that the flow of traffic is frequent at all times of day and night, especially along Hillsborough Road. On Hillsborough Road is Rolston Primary School, the co-op and the children's park. This is also where the former Glenpub resides. We are concerned about the manager's impact on the school and these public services. Rolston Primary School has no on-site parking for parents and carers, which means that during drop-off and pick-up times, the surrounding roads are extremely busy. This also includes breakfast and after-school club. With already very limited parking on the roads, parents and carers use the co-op car park. We are very concerned about the increase in noise pollution from prayers at the Masjid. Mostly the ambient noise from additional traffic, the noise from numerous car engines pulling up, car doors being slammed and people entering the building. Those living in the residing properties should not have to live with this. It is simply not fair or acceptable, especially with the first prayer starting around 3am during the summer months. During warmer weather, residents will have their windows open. This additional noise will be even more disruptive. It states within the planning application that visitors to the Masjid will walk or cycle. However, this is not sustainable when it's cold, wet and windy. The majority won't do this. They will drive to the Masjid up to five times a day. I am asking the committee to reject the application based on the 874 online objections, 2,500 online signatures and we feel that the last place of Masjid should be is next door to a busy supermarket. Thank you. Good evening everyone. I want to raise strong concerns about the traffic, parking and environmental impact on the proposal, particularly given the sensitive location of the Glen. The site sits at the heart of a busy area next to a primary school opposite a public park beside a shopping centre including the busy co-op and pharmacy which offers essential and health needs for the community. The car park is shared with the Glen and at risk of losing its allocated 64 parking spaces. The remaining 26 allocated to the Glen building is not enough for what will be a busy area with several prayer times of over 150 people alongside Madrasa classes. 26 spaces is totally inadequate. Evidence has been acquired proving that illegal and dangerous parking during prayer times at the Ayers-Montal Community Centre has been regularly demonstrated, falsifying the information reported in the travel plan that 85% of people walked to the centre and that zero drove in solo. This planning application arose as it was suggestively required for the local community and this is again contradicted by the Birmingham train times advertised in the travel plan, again raising cause for concern. We're concerned for our only vital bus route, the 88, with constant food traffic which struggles due to school traffic and parking. This raises serious traffic safety issues. Our elderly and disabled using mobility aids and parents require accessible parking near the shops and with increased congestion and overflow parking through visitors, this will make the area difficult and dangerous to navigate for those who face challenges, again raising serious safety concerns. With cars travelling in from outside the area, we're looking at a real rise in air pollution, right next to where our children land and play, and only having one road to from the location emphasises that this is not the right location for this kind of high impact use. I ask the committee to reject the application in the interest of safety, health and accessibility. Thank you. Hi, I'm a resident of Ayers-Montal, have been for 48 years. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. Firstly, the application raises serious concerns about community cohesion, as much as a long-established tight-knit community, and this proposal does not reflect the needs or identity of the majority who live here. It introduces a use that many feel has been imposed rather than integrated, and that risk disrupts in the balance that holds the community together. That leads to the second point, community tension. One minute, please. community at its heart, from social events to family gatherings, repurposing it for a single-use religious facility, strips it of that legacy, and closes the door on the future-inclusive use. Finally, this comes at a time when Leicester is facing a well-documented housing crisis. The Glen is a prime site that could be used to meet urgent, urgent needs. Once it's converted, this opportunity will be lost, and for what? A facility that doesn't meet the broader needs of the area. This is not just a small planning matter. It's a decision that will have a long time. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I'll now come across to members. Any questions? Oh, sorry. Sorry. That's picking. Forgive me. Thank you. Five minutes, please. Chair, fellow councillors. I speak on behalf of many concerned residents in As-Mansur regarding the planning application for the change of use. This is not about denying any community the right to gather or practice their faith. As a councillor, my first duty is to represent the voices and well-being of my constituents who have contacted me directly. And the overwhelming feedback I've received is concern, frustration, and a real sense that this proposal does not reflect the needs, character, or cohesion of As-Mansur. Firstly, As-Mansur is a tight-knit neighbourhood with a long-standing identity. Residents tell me this application feels imposed rather than organic. It is serving a wider catchment area, with many attendees reportedly travelling from several miles away. This raises a key planning question. Who is it really for, and does it serve the local community as required under policy CS08? Secondly, there are genuine and well-founded concerns about traffic safety. The Glen is flanked by a primary school, a public park, and a busy shopping precinct. This area already sees a high pedestrian activity, from parents with pushchairs to elderly residents on mobility scooters. Introducing regular gatherings of over 150 people, potentially at all hours of the day and night, will strain already limited parking and increased risk to vulnerable residents. We have all witnessed the chaos of the school run twice a day in our wards, and the problem it causes residents. Every school has a travel plan, but it becomes almost meaningless once the school opens and closes, as it's all going on outside the gates and on the roadside. Residents are particularly worried about disabled parking availability, and the shopping precinct and the overspilling to residential streets, causing accessibility issues for those who rely on proximity to services. This proposal doesn't come with a clear, enforceable travel plan, and that's unacceptable for a site of this sensitivity. Then there is the issue of noise and air pollution. Car doors, conversations, increased traffic movements, especially during prayer times, and the delivery of the madrasa every day. Plus, other celebrations and festivals. I can only speak from experience of all the different festivals that Christians have during their busy calendar, Harvest Festival and Christmas, as an example. This will disrupt a highly residential area. Add to that the environment, air quality and impact of dozens of vehicles, making daily journeys locally or into Ayrs Monsal. The use of cars is not only for travelling a distance. It's about saving time and whether the weather is nice. So, outside, if it's cold and windy, we'll jump into our cars to stay warm. It's a busy arterial road on a blind bend, which sees a good amount of traffic at present, and adding more cars poses safety issues. The school and the convenience store on the site already, it is clear this site is not suitable for the purpose. We also need to consider a loss of opportunity. Leicester faces a well-documented housing crisis. This plot could be repurposed to provide genuine, affordable housing for local families, not closed off from the wider community for a singular purpose. Finally, I want to say my residents feel they haven't been listened to. Whilst planning and the masjib have had years, the residents have had weeks to respond. And I will let the hundreds of objections speak for themselves. They feel this process hasn't taken into account the scale of change being proposed. And while technically a change of use, the practical implications are far-reaching. On behalf of my residents, I respectfully urge the committee to refuse this application and look at options that reflect the long-term needs and identity of the Ayers-Mansill community. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Kicken. Before I come across to members to offer someone to respond to any of the items that have been raised. Yeah, just a few. So the application has been determined in accordance to the development management procedure order, which stipulates that neighbours who are joined to the site would be notified and given three weeks to comment. And with regards to concerns about noise, we're mindful that the application at the site at current is a public house with no conditioned open hours in planning terms. We have put three conditions on the application that are recommended to deal with noise concerns. One being restricting the hours of use from 7.30 to 11 for most of the year, with the exception of the Holy Month of Ramadan, in which they would be able to do the early morning prayer. That's condition two. Condition three, restricting amplified call to prayer or all announcements. And condition four, which I mentioned in the presentation, limiting the external parts of the site for any public worship use, for example, weddings, classes, religious events. With regards to the affordable housing, the site is within a local centre, so this is ultimately where we would want football to be rather than housing. And ultimately, the application in front of us is for a place of worship. And so it would be unreasonable to refuse such an application if it was acceptable based on the idea that there could be a possible preferred use, especially when one's not in front of us. Can I just ask a quick question, Darren Cajos, just about the... I can ask you in a minute, Councillor Paul. Not a statement. It was just about we've been told there isn't a transport assessment. So we'll pick that up in a minute, if that's OK. Lizzie, did you want to add anything before we get into Councillor Porter? I think most of the items, please, have been covered in the report. And I think just picking up on a couple of the comments referring to the unsuitability of Hillsbury Road itself being a major arterial road into development. It is, you know, a main road serving the estate. And for that reason, it is able to take the amount of traffic which is forecast to be generated by such a proposal. And indeed, it is serving the adjacent co-op and the local centre there. OK, thank you. I'll come to members now. Is there a council reporter? Yeah, I wasn't intending. I just wanted to clarify to this. One side saying there has been a transport assessment and the other side saying there hasn't. So I just wanted to clarify to on that. If there has been a transport assessment because I didn't see anything in the report. That's all. Yes, there has been a transport statement and a travel plan submitted in support of the application which forecasts the amount of trips based on the existing use approximately 600 metres away from the application site and the travel plan which is also subject of the condition for amendment. OK, Councillor Cassidy. I think we acknowledge the concerns of people with something that's so different, if you like. And I'm sure when John Bosco Church was first proposed for Ayers-Monsul there would have been concerns about all sorts of things at that time. So places of worship do create change in a community because it's what it offers to the local community as well as what it brings to the community. I think this application has been very carefully looked at in terms of the conditions to make it so that it can fit into that community without causing noise extraordinary noise. So I think the organisation the community foundation has a lot of work to do to make a relationship with the local community so that it's not seen as something that happens to have a building there but doesn't relate to the local community. It's got to be the opposite of that. It's got to be relating to the local community and I just hope that the local community will work with the organisation to make that an asset to that part of Ayers-Monsul. Therefore I support this application with all the conditions attached. Thank you Councillor Cuskey. Councillor Moore? I've got some questions really. I'm not sure whether people will be able to answer them. When the pub was operational when did it close? When it was 22. 22? Was there a problem with noise, traffic, illegal parking on double yellow lines on the arterial road that we've heard about? That's my first question. Our second question is how many pubs are there in the area? The next question is where is the nearest mosque to Ayers-Monsul? And a comment, just bear with me Chair. I noticed when I read the papers there were some comments about the demographic indicating that there were not many people who would be using this mosque. People would be coming from outside the area. I actually have the electoral roll for Ayers-Monsul. Now obviously it doesn't say on the electoral roll anything about religious persuasion or anything. But what I did, I used an Excel spreadsheet. I'm a big fan of Excel. It does some really good stuff. And I put in as a search term the name Mohammed because I assumed that Mohammed would indicate that that person was a Muslim and asked it to filter out anybody with that name which it did. I then coloured that cell cleared the filter but then I could see the coloured cells and it indicated which address that person was living at. I went to that address and coloured the additional people living at the house because I assumed that they would also be of Islamic persuasion. And then I did another search and put in Hussein which I assumed was a Muslim name. Again that selected cells. I coloured them. It led me to addresses. I coloured that. And therefore I got 71 people living in Ayers-Monsul who I assumed were Muslims. Now that's an absolute minimum. I'm sure there is more than that. So I have to query the argument that somehow people who Muslims are not part of the community. I think they are part of the community. And I have to say that 71 people who might be attending that mosque is probably a lot more than your average congregation of the Church of England church. So that's quite a substantial number and it's probably a lot more than that. That's the only comment I would make. But if you'd like to answer my questions now about are the pubs, were there a problem when they were open etc. So I'll leave easy to the highway if that's okay. But with regards to the noise the noise officer did not pick up any existing any past problems that had noise wise that had been generated by the Glen. There's more parking and traffic that I'm interested in. With regards to pubs when I did a search there wasn't too many but it sounds like maybe some of the councils will be able to answer that better. We do have so in accordance of our own planning records we do have a map of the places of worship just in the southern part of Leicestershire. So all of these black dots are places of worship. you can see the green star at the bottom that's the application site and whilst this is not technically a place of worship I've added the community centre that's currently being used because it's been raised by objectors so that's sort of an ancillary part of that is currently being used but it's understood that we'll probably cease should this application be approved. This one then shows the different types of places of worship so under the youth class order there's no restriction that says certain places of worship need to stay as those types but at current this is what they are so currently we've got mainly churches in the area and then we've got some masks higher up and then again community centre and application sites. So whilst it's not technically a planning consideration we do have the demographic census data so for example again we've got the application site here with the star and then you've got this area here it's 15.8% Muslim this one's 5.7% and this one's 8.3% and ultimately you know we've got over 250 supporting comments saying that there's a need for this the maximum capacity as stated in the noise assessment is to be 200 so we are satisfied there is a need for this place of worship and that is also outlined in the officer report is there traffic confirmed yeah so in regards to any prior issues with parking in the area I have consulted with our parking enforcement team and their records which are going back to 2021 so the most recent five years parking enforcement officers visit Wollaston school sorry there's no current records of any parking enforcement requests for that period parking enforcement officers visit Wollaston school as they do with other schools and they've had no requests for additional visits either in terms of the parking any parking issues at the moment it is in the report but just to reiterate that Hillsborough Road is subject to a 20 mile per hour speed limit there has been the road safety highway safety record for Hillsborough front of the site there has been one accident but that was a single vehicle so not really attributable to any particular reason so there's nothing to suggest that there is a highway safety record in general or in particular to pedestrians in relation to parking at school times again we've visited the site and observed that there aren't any particular parking issues there is some parking opposite the school but around the application site itself there was no parking observed within the highway and there was ample capacity within the car park with parents that were already utilising the car park to pick up so in our opinion this proposal shouldn't put any further pressure on that thank you thank you thank you I'm going to come to councillor Mohamed then councillor Porter again and then councillor John thank you chair I think Chloe's clarified the one well one of the questions I had in relation to the applicant proposing if the application was granted to relocate from where they currently are so they would relocate on a permanent basis so that is the understanding but ultimately it's not something that we should enforce it's not controllable so yeah okay and just a couple of observations so it looks like the applicant has been operating since 2018 in the local community centre yeah that would be correct and currently the public house has been vacant for three years yeah so there's nobody occupying it and there's no tenants in the flat upstairs so has there been any there is just my understanding I think there is a caretaker from the group that has been in the premises that's my understanding okay fine and just in terms of the site itself has the applicant acquired the site now so it's theirs or is it subject to planning provision of the application I believe they have acquired the site yeah and then just one question you may or may not be able to answer it so in the period that it's been empty the three years has there been any issues around antisocial behaviour anything like that because the site is vacant and therefore it's attractive any issues around that no we don't we don't know I mean that information probably is available we haven't got that information I'm afraid sorry okay so I mean I have a couple of comments which is that it's clearly the application has been well thought through it's bringing back it into use a building that's been vacant for three years the applicant has been in the area for at least six years and clearly is looking to look for a permanent home and they've indicated they are trying to work closely with the community so I am minded to support the officer's recommendation and support the application thank you council marmos councillor porter yeah thank you chair obviously this planning application came in before the council made their announcement about community centres what I'm saying is that the council is recently doing a consultation on the use of community centres and I think one of the proposals is that the community centre should be turned over for use by a local community group as one of the options and you've pointed out already that the people proposing to use this are already using the community centre now obviously this is something that's happened since the planning applications come in that the council has put forward this idea of getting community use so if this application was to be rejected as they're already using the community centre there would be nothing stopping them I suppose from expanding their use of that to make it as their base but also allow the rest of the community to use that as well so it wouldn't just be purely a mosque and a prayer centre I don't know if that's something that we should take on board because obviously there's a planning application for this but one of the things I do tend to feel certainly since being elected as a councillor is I think it's always really important that you represent the people who vote for you because that's what our democracy is about and I'm disappointed to hear from the residents they feel they haven't been part of this process that they just happen to be coming in at the final end and I think obviously now the applicant has already purchased the site so they are quite a long way down the road so it is a bit of a last minute thing for the residents to come and tackle and in terms of the number of objections I know there's been almost a thousand actual written objections and then there's I think somebody mentioned two and two and a half thousand other objections I don't know in what form they came in but I think these are really important issues they might not tick the right boxes for planning but I think in terms of local democracy we should listen to the local residents and their views and I think they do carry a lot of weight so what I'm going to suggest maybe is that if this application were to be refused that the council could work with the applicant to try and make sure that there was an alternative venue put forward which doesn't seem to carry the same number of issues because clearly there must be some sort of consent that's taken place there and I think it does seem odd that there's only 26 parking spaces when we've been told there could be a few 100 plus people, 150 people coming to events that are taking place. I certainly know from the one in Aylston, my ward, that residents are continuously complaining about parking problems. I mean there are so many people that come, they will park anywhere, they park willy-nilly all over the place blocking pavements, blocking people's driveways and it is a real nuisance and what happens is the people come and complain to me, I get in touch with the council's parking team and they say they'll send out more enforcement people and they go out and they ticket people but clearly the people don't care because they continue to park wherever they want so it can cause a problem. The other thing that was mentioned about the Hillsborough Road being a safe road, I think I remember that there were two fatalities on there, maybe, I don't know how long ago, maybe about ten years ago, but I would say, I mean, although it was one of the first roads to get a 20 mile an hour zone and speed humps, but what tends to happen along there is that people race in between the speed humps and certainly motorcycles and things like that and I think that may have been one of the fatalities, so could you just look at that to see if it has got such a good safety record because from what I remember I don't think it has, I think there have been fatalities along there which will surprise a lot of people because it is a 20 mile an hour zone, but thank you. Thank you, I support it, Rob, did you want to pick up? Just to come back on the community centre point again, you're here to determine the planning application and the committee hasn't got any remit over determining what the council may or may not do with its assets, so I'd maybe just advise members to concentrate on the planning policy implications, but also the representations are material considerations that you obviously should give you out to. I think there's reference to the thousands, I think there were two petitions online, but they weren't formally submitted to us, we've acknowledged those in the report, and again, the point about the nature of the use of the community centre potentially being able to accommodate, it's probably worth saying that community centres in general, I think I'm right in saying that this is a different use class, so actually if you were to use the existing community centre for a place of virtue, that technically would require planning permission, whereas partial use, if it's not the primary use of the building and it's a subsidiary use, then that doesn't require planning permission, hopefully that's helpful. That's helpful. Izzy, I don't know if you want to comment on the traffic issues. Thank you, Chair. So when we consider the highway safety record, we generally go back five years. I have gone back ten years using Crash Map, which is a publicly available site. There were two serious accidents on Hillsborough Road, but they were further away from the application site. I think the council reporter has mentioned himself, the road is subject to a 20-month-hour limit with traffic calming and that traffic calming is at regular spaces. I've driven down that road myself and they are quite robust in terms of the traffic calming cushions themselves. So as I just to reiterate the position earlier in terms of the most recent highway safety record, it doesn't suggest that there's a particular issue. Thank you, Izzy. Councillor Jay? Thank you, Jay. I think I have two curious comments or questions if I can position them that way. I think the cast, just listening to the representation, there seemed to be the overarching theme from the objectors that they didn't feel taken along. So I think my question is how much engagement did we, you know, did officers have with the objectors themselves when things sort of came to light. And then I don't know whether Izzy might, sorry, Chloe, my apologies, whether Chloe would, you know, have any knowledge of whether the applicants themselves had, you know, indicated in any way that there was any form of engagement or consultation with the residents of the general public as to their intents there to get them into conversation. You know, those are just sort of, you know, niggling questions for me. and I think Councilor Mohammed already sort of spoke to one of my other questions around the extent of a lack of use of the premises and how long the particular group had been part of the community itself. And I think I would go further to say in terms of, you know, dialogue, just to get a sense of where some of that tension perhaps emanated from. Thank you, Chair. Yeah, just to maybe say, planning officers, we have to actually just deal with applications in a very neutral way. So we wouldn't particularly look to encourage an approach with objectives or supporters. We effectively are in listening mode throughout the planning application process. so it wouldn't be appropriate for us to, I guess, I'd like to receive that engagement. But I am aware that there have been more recent meetings with world councillors. The national planning policy framework does encourage applicants to engage in pre-application dialogue with communities, but it doesn't require that. And I think it's, I don't think it'd be a sound reason to withhold permission on the basis that there hadn't been pre-application dialogue. It was just a curious question to find out what we have. In planning policy terms, I guess it's difficult to respond to feelings and issues like that. I think we tried to set it out in the report. There's national policy that talks about we should be encouraging community facilities. And actually in the same paragraph in the national guidance, it talks about community facilities, place of work and public houses. So from a planning point of view, they're all community facilities and we're not in a position to be able to moderate. That's for you to consider in terms of the meeting today. Thank you Councillor Kittrick and then Councillor Devysing. Thank you very much Chair. I think rather than ask questions I'll just give my thoughts as I usually do. It's interesting in the submission that nobody really is arguing for the Glen pub to continue as a pub. People may feel like that. I did refer to the fact I must have had a drink in there over five years ago. I felt I wanted to use the lose and I felt duty bound to buy a drink when I went in there. It is a case of it's like a lot of the state pubs and I find it very sad that they're just not viable anymore. When I found out it was shut in 2022 it surprised me that it actually was open as long ago as that because when I went in it wasn't very busy but we know that pubs in these locations you've got to do something very special to keep them going. So we've got an empty pub so what do you do with it? And we've had the ideas put forward. The problem with the housing is I'm looking at the site. I mean the officers have said it's in a local centre. If you were going to even vaguely attempt to put housing on that site you'd have to tear down what actually is quite an attractive building if you have a look at it. I quite like that as a sample building of its time. You'd have to rip that down and the reality is I've seen sites for housing. It doesn't really make a lot of sense for housing. So then we come down to as a committee we might want it to be housing but we've got to see what's before us. The proposal is for it to turn into a mosque. The reality is that we look at some of the arguments which says the majority of people are not of the Muslim faith so I won't be able to use it. As Councillor Cassidy says in John Bosco Church is just a few hundred metres away and I haven't done Councillor Dr. Moore's extensive analysis but I'd probably guess there's more observant Muslims in the area than there are observant Roman Catholics. I say that as a Roman Catholic. We have synagogues in high fields. Again I'd probably guess there's not a huge amount of people who live in the immediate percentage of the Jewish to try and determine where a place of worship should go on the basis of it must serve a majority of people. We wouldn't have any churches, we wouldn't have any places of worship if that was the sole defining characteristic when we give things planning permission. Again I fully concede I have not as much intimate knowledge reverse Muslims as the objectors but I do know that reasonably well. it's not somewhere, it's not an area of Leicester you would go on your way through to somewhere. It sits at the south of the Erzmonsal Estate. You're only really going there if you're going there. You're not passing through. And do you know what? Absolutely. People will end up probably driving there 200 metres. Maybe not even in bad weather but they'll do it on a whim. Because people do. People will drive down to that co-op on a whim who live 200 metres away for various reasons. The simple fact is it's more likely that they'll walk or they'll cycle if they come from the local area. And knowing where that's located there might be the odd person who comes from a few miles away but it is really, you know, every instinct tells me it's by and large going to serve the local community. To be frank with what Councillor Port says about Ersmansel Community Centre, in some ways I'm a lot more comfortable with worship moving out of community centres. I just am. I just think community centres should be as neutral as possible. I think that they, if there's a need and there's nowhere else then you take it for religious worship. But actually, you know, I was a good altar boy for many years as the committee will have heard. places of worship are sacred to those people who worship and it could be that they are Hindu, Sikh, Catholic, Muslim. Actually, having it in a community centre just, it doesn't quite sit right with me unless it's absolutely necessary. So the fact this community is moving from the community centre into a purpose-built building, I actually think possibly in terms of community cohesion and the way that community centre works is possibly actually an improvement. So finally, then we come down to, and the reality is, it's been marketed, there hasn't been any vandalism. It does sound like whoever owns it has taken a very responsible attitude and has put in a caretaker there. Not everybody will be as responsible as that, but you know buildings like this will end up, kids get curious, they go in and they mess about, and actually to have an active use of it, I think will be positive. So actually let's come down to the final issue, which is the parking, and if you take the overhead view of it, the reality is, yeah, I live near a mosque, Friday prayers is a bit crazy, but to be honest, for the number of worshippers compared to that parking spaces, it is probably one of the best catered for, it will end up, if approved, being one of the best catered for mosques in the city in terms of open parking. You know, I realise that everybody's dodging around it, but the reality is you've got 26 dedicated spaces, but what was it, that there's 64 overall, if you consider the rest of the car park, you know, and people will overflow to it, I know they will, but the reality is they'll move over to that car park, and the other thing is, is Muslim, Christian atheist, I know that when people park, they try and park as near the front door as possible, so the reality will be, is the gravitation will be towards the parking near the place, you know, and the officers have said that it's not allowed planning permission without submitted travel plan, we've had discussions at this committee before now, and I have pressed for the travel plans, because Friday prayers can be chaotic, you know, let's not make any bones about it, and it is a real challenge if that, if the organisation gets the, gets permission to manage that. I think the other aspects of it, though, is even at Friday prayers, which tends to be the peak problem time, again, Muslim colleagues can correct me, but actually, it tends not to clash with school hours, you know, and that's where you might have a concern. So, and equally, I presume that when the madrasa is operating, again, it will be generally outside the school hours of Rolston. so, it is a case of, I get that people, people will have fond memories of the Glen, probably very happy memories, and it is a big change. As Councillor Cassidy said, there is a challenge there to manage that change, but me being sad about the loss of an estate pub, ain't going to change it into a popular pub, isn't going to change it into a thriving pub, and actually we've got to look at a new use for this building, and to be frank, this is as good a use as any, so I'll be supporting this proposal. Thank you, Councillor Ketri. Councillor everything to tell, and then Councillor Joel again. Just, thank you, Chair. When we read this application, like, there are over 870 objects, right, and if you see on a 22 page, there are already high number of the place of the worship in Lister, not around, like, 75 months, around the area might be the area of the most, and I'm very, like, agree with the Councillor Patrick, is about the traffic, definitely on a Friday prayer, even I went many places, on a Friday prayer, definitely struggling with the parking, so this is, need to be definitely manageable, and even noise-wise, around the residence area, I think, I don't know how many people vulnerable in the elderly living in this area, there might be, because of the sometimes affecting on a people's life noise area very badly, I think we need to think over about that one as well, so, I think we need to, like, think very deeply about this application, because so many objections, we need to think about that objection first, other than what we do, thank you. Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Joe? Thank you, Chair, and this perhaps is directed to grant in fine nature, I note Councillor Pickering had made some requests in addition to the conditions that officers had placed, would we be considering any of the conditions that she's suggested alongside those that the officers have put forward? So, yeah, you'll note from the report, we had a travel plan submitted, and again, partly down to the comments from Caisley Pickering, but others, that one of the things that that travel plan didn't cover was things like stewarding and active management of the parking, so that was the justification, that's why we've actually recommended the submission of a revised travel plan which I note the applicants said they were happy to provide, and that does make, if you read the condition, does make explicit reference to, I guess, a bit more proactive management of the parking because, as you say, it's actually a sort of shared car park to a degree. I think, I know we've had previous debates at the committee, in case the Kittrick mentioned it, where we would be very uncomfortable to go further than, I guess, the site boundary, because only the police can manage activity on the highway, but, again, the report does indicate we certainly can look at monitoring things like traffic regulation orders and parking restrictions and enforcement as I can see as he's nodding. So, yes, the short answer to these questions is we considered those comments and we feel that the conditions are appropriate and proportionate, so we did take into account some of the suggestions, but not all of them. everybody made thank you, chair, everybody made the comments so I said I have to make some as well. Planning perspective probably is the okay building for the brown land which has not been used for a couple of years or something, so nothing wrong with that. But when you live in a democracy or something public opinions matter as well. So, there's like so many objects on just this location or something which is to be considered like public views because people live around the most affected people which is like they have to deal day to day and day out and I know the Hillsborough road is not wide road it's a very narrow road so one car can go one car definitely if it is like a most definitely it's going to be traffic congestion it's very nearby to the school as well which is making another effect to the topic and I think it's a bit difficult to make judgment like which way to go or something but that's my opinion thank you thank you councillors if there's no more comments I just want to say thank you to the applicant and the residents and councillor Pickering for your presentations I think we heard very clearly and we can see in the room strong feelings around this application I hear the concerns the real concerns of the objectives particularly around noise and traffic safety I believe that they have been addressed in terms of the officers report and the conditions that have been stipulated what I would ask is that so I'm minded to approve this application however what I would ask is that should it be approved by councillors that the applicants work very very closely with the residents to really understand their concerns and to really address those concerns it's imperative if this is agreed that that happens and you know I think we can't underestimate the feelings around this so really important that that happens I do hear the concerns however with everything that I've heard I think bringing this disused property back into use is a good thing and it's a welcome thing but again I can't stress enough that need to work together around making sure that this works for everybody within that community and not just the applicants so I'm minded to approve this application to a other seconder as to Cassidy and now put it to the vote all those in favour if you could raise your hands all those against if you could raise your hands and all those abstaining if you could raise your hands and that's six members for two members against and one extension so that is carried again I would stress that work goes on with the community and I know you have excellent ward councillors that will be supporting that work and thank you again for everybody who's come tonight and for representations thank you we're just going to adjourn for five minutes while people leave the room if I could ask those that will be speaking on this to come to the front that's Mr. Osman and Jan Andrews please okay are we ready to start then wonderful okay so the next application we're hearing is 16 plantation avenue as before I'll ask the officers to go through the application and then come over to the speakers you have five minutes each and as before Grant will let you know when you have a minute left and we have Mr. Osman speaking Ms. Andrews and Councillor Porter so if I could come over to officers please Chloe I think it's you again yeah thank you chair so this application relates to 16 plantation avenue it's a two-storey semi-detached dwelling on a cul-de-sac in a primarily residential area to the rear of this property the northeast backs onto Holywell Road this application is for the construction of a single-storey outbuilding to the rear of the property and this application is retrospective so this is the front elevation of the property this is the front elevation of the proposed outbuilding so at the top you can see there's a fake pitched roof at the front which makes the height taller to around 3.3 metres this will be a bit more apparent in the plans and photos later on this is a photo of the rear garden and rear elevation of the house and that's taken from the front of the outbuilding this is a photo of part of the side elevation looking south west onto 15 plantation avenue at the side of the site this is a photo looking north west from the outbuilding over to 53 Holywell Road at the rear of the site this is a photo looking east from the outbuilding over to 26 Holywell Road at the rear of the site this is a photo looking south east from the outbuilding over 17 plantation avenue at the side of the site this photo is looking south west taken from Holywell Road which is the road at the rear of the application site you can see the top of the outbuilding in black above the hedge just here you can see my mouth this is another photo taken from Holywell Road just further back again you can see the outbuilding in black slightly less so here this is another photo looking east from Holywell Road over to the side elevation of the outbuilding you can see here in black and white so you can see this small triangle here this is the fake pitch at the front and then it drops down to 2.4 metres this is the site plan showing the footprint and the placement of the outbuilding at the rear this is the proposed floor plan so you can see the outbuilding would comprise a music room to the back office and gym to the front and then a shower area on suite bathroom thing at the back a condition is recommended on page 45 of the circulated report to the outbuilding to remain incidental to the dwelling house and not the use of living accommodation this is a photo of this is the proposed front elevation the front of the building you can see due to the fake pitch roof that would be 3.3 metres tall and this is the side elevation facing 15 plantation avenue so here you can see the majority is 2.4 metres tall and then here's the side elevation facing 17 and the rear elevation where you can see that the end of the height is here and then you can see the fake pitch from the front and the background here we've got the roof plan and then here we've got some sections of the whole site so it's showing there's a 1.2 metre drop in land levels from the house to the out building and again on the other side and then lastly this is the rear elevation of both the out building and the dwelling house just again showing the land levels and the drop in height between the two properties the application is recommended for approval subject to the conditions on page 45 of the circulated report there's no addendum for this application thank you chloe could we have the lights please ok thank you ok to come then across to mr osmond you have five minutes to speak and god will let you know when you have a minute left thank you thank you chair you can call me fasil chair i think you have the right to call me fasil like i said thank you for the opportunity for giving me a chance to speak on behalf of my clients my clients have got a disabled daughter they wanted a room so you can go and relax a husband can use a gym a builder came along and said yes you don't need planning permission i can build this for you no problem started the work obviously somebody rang the enforcement team and they came out and said you need planning permission we and said i want to get planning permission i don't want to do anything against planning we obviously submitted a retrospective application it is a shame that we've had to come here because if my clients were aware that they needed permission they could have spoken to the neighbours and made it more neighbourly and actually had a bit of conversation with them but because they were under this impression that they didn't need permission they thought well just carry on however going forward they do want to work with their neighbours they do want to have a relationship with their neighbours and they also want to be neighbourly and they apologise for any inconvenience that's been caused on this however with regards to planning it's not about who applies otherwise Donald Trump would not get a planning commission to build a golf course in Scotland it's about the policy it's about how the planning policy works with that building being there these photographs I took yesterday and just shows how it's now grown and it's all set in the building it can hardly be seen in terms of the immunity there's over 100 square metres of immunity left after this building it's a three bedroom house council policy guidelines the 100 square metres is more than what the guideline stipulates the conditions are quite clear it can't be used for giving somebody else it's for their personal use and if they don't obviously enforcement is there you can't punish somebody before they've committed a crime and I saw some of the comments about what they're going to use for we can't assume anything the assumption is there's a lot of assumptions but that building is for their disabled child going forward so far I think it's been built six or seven months ago enforcement team will confirm this there's been no issues or no call outs or no noise from that building or those no problems there's been no incidents recorded where an enforcement team had to come out where the neighbours have objected or there's some kind of parting or any noise going on so that building so far because it's already built and sitting there hasn't caused any issues in the last six months since it's been built in terms of that this application is approved in line with the council policies and in line with the office's report thank you chair thank you very much I now invite Ms Andrews to make her representation hello I would like to start by saying that having never been through a process like this before I have been shocked by the lack of respect for laws and regulations that my research into various recorded cases show regularly happens when people go ahead with building structures and then apply for retrospective planning permission and that planning department seems to go along with this I feel my confidence in legal process has diminished considerably the original letter I and others received from the planning department may also need adjustment as it gives a phone number to contact if we wished and a name of a said person I had many questions but messages left on the phone with a promise given that someone would call me back was to no avail email exactly the same so that was a waste of time I recently was sent an email also from planning to say if I wanted to come here and speak then they gave me three phone numbers to ring for four days I ran three phone numbers different times all unavailable almost seems like something set against me now the first thing I want to take to issue on the planning was a specific comment and I quote specific start date for this work is not a material consideration for making a decision on this application I appeal to the committee that the glossed over requirement for this build would have been laid down and allowed but wasn't the fact that the build should be two metres from the boundary line the height would have been made clear and the requirement should have been adhered to French doors of which there are two sets would not have been allowed to look into my kitchen conservatory and lounge now these might be in place but attendant alterations can and should be made and although the cost may be large to do so it could have been avoided if the correct procedure had been followed and not this retrospective planning commission which didn't come about until I actually told the builders that I was going to speak to the council there also seems to be no authority checking the work being done and the thought of sewage pipes being laid and attached to mains is very disturbing as seven trents seem to know nothing about what is being proposed here or attempted to be accomplished the other points by planning made is I do not consider the proposal to be unacceptable in respect to the views from neighbouring properties the thought of having a toilet flushing a metre away from my garden is absolutely abhorrent to me and the smells and sounds of shower rooms it's totally awful to contemplate my concern is that construction might become what it might become in the future planning departments seem to believe it's not possible and obviously dismiss that part of what we informed them about they have a right to their belief and I have a right to mine and time will tell this whole process has given me sleepless nights being constantly upset about all that's gone on the retrospective planning that so many use to achieve their goals seem to be so easy as to get out to any who want to use it I ask the committee to use their influence to stop this being such an easy way to ignore rules and regulations and such an easy way for planning to not have to enforce those regulations I hope I haven't over set anything in my comments I only received this direction for what I should say today which was also late my little speech is in conclusion I ask that as it stands and what it has requested this bill should not go ahead the shower and toilet room is the top of my list that I would not allow to happen and also the height and my privacy that has been compromised completely by if I can see them they can see me I would just like to thank you for your time and you see to me thank you thank you very much Councillor Porter you also have five minutes yeah I got involved in this because I've been approached by local residents who've raised a number of concerns and something that I think is really important we need to clarify is as far as I'm aware now this can be double checked is the applicant doesn't actually live in this house this house is actually rented out it's a three bed semi detached house the applicant lives in the county I'm not sure where about but they certainly don't live here and this idea that their disabled child is wanting to use the back garden they would have to move them over from wherever the landlady who currently rents this dwelling out is clearly to establish a new dwelling in the back garden and to do that through the back door rather than submitting a proper planning application for a new dwelling to have in the back garden in the rear garden because interestingly enough if you look at the plans that were shown it looked to me that there's a possibility to create a new access not from Plantation Avenue Holywell Road into the back of this unit so we need to be absolutely clear this isn't a structure which forms part of the occupiers of this existing house this is a completely separate independent self contained unit which is not for the use of the existing tenants of the house on Plantation Avenue but has been entirely developed in order to establish a separate residential unit in the back garden therefore bypassing the normal planning procedures which would be to take into account the impact it's going to have on the character of the area highways and the impact on the occupiers of the neighbouring properties so if you were to go and build what is pretty much here a one or two bedroom dwelling at that location you would need to submit a proper planning application and you need to be consulting as we already heard people like seven trent water because what's going to happen with this toilet there's a toilet and a kitchen in there as well as the two bedrooms so where's the toilet going to be flushing to these things haven't been addressed which they would have been if there's a proper planning application and the idea that it's then down to residents and for the council to enforce once this new dwelling starts to operate as something like an airbnb or just as a separate bed in shed type development then I think that's wrong because really what we should be doing is making sure that when these sorts of facilities are built they're built to the proper standard where's their amenity space they're not going to have any amenity space they're going to be sharing a garden with tenants who already own or rent the other part of the house so I think if you were to approve this you would be clearly breaching what are already the local authorities planning conditions and they are designed to protect the character of the area the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings and also important things are highway safety if this development is to be used safe for an airbnb there could be vehicles different vehicles coming and going every single day of the week plantation avenue is a cul-de-sac and also it's holy well road is a cul-de-sac holy well road especially if that's where the entrance will be through the top end of holy well road it's a very very tight cul-de-sac and there's no room for additional parking certainly no space for off street parking so what I would say is refuse this and if you're not going to refuse it have a site visit and go and have a look I mean the place is actually as you can see from the photos the place is actually almost finished I think work's only come to a stop because the residents complained to the council that this was being built unlawfully so really I suggest we have a site visit go down it looks like it's finished go and have a look around and you will see this is a separate dwelling it's nothing for a nothing as far as I'm aware for a disabled child to go and use this is a separate dwelling the people who the applicant doesn't even live in the house it's rented out so I'll leave it there and hopefully you'll take on board what we're saying and you'll refuse it thank you to all the speakers Chloe did you want to respond to anything sorry thank you thank you chair yeah just a couple so the first thing is about the permitted development side of things so under schedule 2 part 1 class E of the general permitted development order there are permitted development rights to build an incidental outbuilding to the rear of your property in this case this application wouldn't meet that criteria and that's purely because of the fake pitch roof at the front if that was removed and the height was 2.4 metres then that would comply with the criteria within that basis with regard to the disability so we do have something called the public sector equality duty and that requires public authorities to have due regard to certain equality considerations when exercising their functions like making decisions in this case my understanding it wasn't brought to our attention that it would be used by someone who is disabled so that has not been a factor in our decision making and we've assessed it purely on what it is for any person to use with regards to the possibility that it could be used as separate living accommodation we can't speculate what it could become we've got to look at the application as what's in front of us and this is a household application applying for an outbuilding that's incidental to this property and if that was to change through a separate application we'd have to look at that on the relevant policies and with the response to numbers and phone calls I can't comment on that it wasn't my application sorry certainly I'd apologise for any lack of communication but the just the other point I'd make is the couple of references to sewage pipes that's a matter of building regulations not for planning permission there wouldn't be a reason to withhold permission thanks chair thank you Izzy I don't know if you want to say anything in relation to traffic just that as the application stands as a building that's incidental to the main property there is no highway concern thank you thank you okay come over to councillor thank you chair just in terms of the outbuilding itself I'm just trying to work out what the material is is it a composite material or is it wood just from a sound perspective that was trying to work it out you don't know that and in terms of the height the way I've read it is to the highest pitch is 3.3 metres that would be right yes so this fake pitch element here to the pitch to the top of the pitch that's 3.3 and then the heights to eaves slightly lower 2.2 and then going up to 2.4 and then you can see this roof lantern just makes a slight bit at the rear 2.5 so mostly 2.4 metres and the fence that runs along the side I'll just try to we don't have the actual height but it's usually about 1.82 metres high just on the fence so again you can erect a fence up to 6 foot 6 2 metres without needing planning permission I think I understand there was some concerns about the height of the fence that's not been applied for if it is over that 2 metres again it's not part of the application but in these circumstances we wouldn't have any concerns about the fence of that scale but I gather I think in the representation it was a point of concern the height of the fence but the fence does actually have the benefit of screening the property and actually reduce the overlooking and loss of privacy okay so yeah I think given all the consideration and the report that's been put forward I am minded to support the officers recommendations to retrospectively approve thank you councillor kittrick just really to respond to the object because it hasn't been picked up by the officers I find people building stuff without planning permission extremely annoying because I'm sure the council planning officers find it extremely annoying and the fact it comes here retrospectively is a great annoyance to us you could pretty much have guessed or you should have at least inquired as to whether it required planning permission but just to respond through you we can't give any weight to the fact that this is retrospective I wish we could there but we can't so I think it's only fair to respond to your point the objector's point about a lot of the anxiety here is caused by the fact that you see it and it's half built and people are taking the mick and they are taking the mick but we as a committee can't take that into account unless the legal officer tells us otherwise the other issue which again I understand from the objector it's the main area of concern is about it becoming a bedding shed individual dwelling and I can see from the overall map of the area the worry is that something breaks through and then it can be used as an independent dwelling or that future planning committee we find out that it's suddenly proposed to grow but all we can take is the condition that's attached about the detached building so if it was going to grow we would have to come back here to the committee hopefully the people who own this place know that they have to come for planning permission and I can't see the grounds for us with that condition being able to resist this for permission but just to say I shared the frustration at the nature this was fairly obvious it would have required planning permission they should have applied they've applied now but unfortunately as a committee we just we can't give it any weight and the condition it might be interesting to ask officers if it did become apparent that this was being used for residential how would any objector or neighbour take it through planning enforcement but I'd be just intrigued as to what powers the planning department would have to investigate the nature of that development because I have I do remember I think there was a particular there might have been a notorious case just outside it was either O.B. Wigston or Braunston where somebody was using one of these beds and sheds and just intrigued as to what powers of investigation people have in relation to that because if it's granted permission clearly that's going to be the objector's next concerns what do they do if they believe they have suspicion they are breaching condition number one A couple of comments so if it was occupied as an independent dwelling that would certainly need planning permission we have taken enforcement actually against beds and sheds and actually we have actually sort of notices on them to require them to be removed but that was in a terraced location where the impacts were very significant if however this was I guess so if there is a concern about the nature of the occupancy it should be reported to the planning enforcement team as was done and the enforcement team would investigate it and they'd look at the nature of the occupancy I think the wording of the condition talks about incidental use as opposed to ancillary use if the wording of the condition was ancillary you could argue that you could have people as part of the household sleeping in the building but we've made it incidental and that effectively we would read that as being that it shouldn't be used for accommodation however if say a member of the family wanted to sleep in one of those rooms if they take enforcement against that that would be quite difficult to prove that there's significant harm similarly so again the nature of how the enforcement process works is that we can't refuse something on the suspicion that something might happen but we will certainly investigate and look at the evidence of any impacts but I would caution to say there would have to be significant impacts to justify enforcement action this is an extremely large garden and again the single storage structure doesn't particularly impact in terms of overshadowing and overlight loss of privacy so again there would have to be some significant impact in terms of comings and goings noise nuisance or whatever for us to be able to take it all the way through to an enforcement case I'm looking to the noise here nodding so the nature of survey enforcement notice to stop people using premises that does have to be evidenced as having quite significant impacts so if it was used as an airbnb lots of loud parties seven days a week that would be a significant impact and again I guess hopefully that's helpful we'll leave it there and certainly as has been evidenced by the fact it's here before you when it was reported to us we effectively went out there investigated and secured the retrospective application and just to reiterate Councillor Kitterich's point we would only encourage a retrospective application to be submitted if we felt there was a reasonable chance that permission would be granted if we felt that there was enough case for us to take enforcement action and secure the removal of the building we wouldn't have invited the retrospective application which does go to some degree to sort of indicate we would make an assessment as to whether the proposal is likely to be acceptable hopefully that helps any further questions or comments from councillors okay so based on what we've heard today and recognising the distress of the objector and and based on the evidence before us noting we can't make assumptions about future use so based on this planning application I think I am minded to approve this planning application what I would say to the owner is in terms of the concerns around overlooking the objectors kitchen etc you know you need to work with your neighbours to make sure that you are satisfying everybody and that everybody's comfortable with what it is but based on what I've seen today I'm minded to approve and is there a second councillor Aldred so we'll move to a vote those in favour if you could raise your hands those against if you could raise your hands and those abstaining if you could raise your hands so that application is seven members four and two abstentions so that is carried again I'd urge you to work with your neighbour to make sure the concerns are addressed thank you everybody thank you for those who have attended thank you to officers thank you to members have a good evening