Transcript
And you start speaking, when you finish your speaking, you can just
Okay, good evening everybody and welcome to the Planning and Development Committee
My name is Councillor 30 and I'll be chairing this meeting today
I'm going to ask members of the committee to introduce themselves in a few minutes
But firstly, can I welcome officers to the meeting and ask officers to please introduce yourselves
It's going right from my...
Sorry
Yeah, sorry
Good evening, Grant Butterworth, Head of Planning
Dean Mistry, Planning Lawyer
Sharif Chowdhury, Governance Services, I'll be taking the minutes for this meeting
Can you speak up, please?
Can you hear me?
It's Sharif Chowdhury, Governance Services, I'll be taking the minutes for this meeting
Ozilbom, Gathering Services
Stuart Shaw, City Council, Senior Planning Officer
Daniel Jones, Planning Officer, City Council
Isabella McKnight, City Transport Planner for the Local Highway Authority
Thank you
Do we have any apologies?
We have our substitution, Councillor Porter for Councillor Kennedy-Lount
And Councillor Kitrake has given his apologies for this meeting
Thank you, Shish
Can I ask the members to introduce themselves and to declare any interest in tonight's meeting?
Yeah, just a second
Thanks, Chair
Just to remind you, there was a few emails being circulated late on this afternoon
So again, I circulated into all members
But you just might want to reflect that if you've received an email and been engaged in a conversation about an application
You probably ought to mention it in your declarations
And obviously assuming that you have an open mind
Thank you
Thank you, Grant
So I'll ask the members to introduce themselves and to declare any interest in the business tonight
I have nothing to declare, Councillor Moore
Councillor Lynn Moore, Vice Chair of this Commission
Nothing to declare, thank you, Chair
Good evening, Chair
Councillor Astrid-Joel
I have received the email circulated this afternoon
But have had no engagement at all whatsoever
So I have an open mind
Can the members try and speak up and into the microphones, please?
Councillor Ahmed
Okay, Councillor Mohamed
And in relation to Sixth Greenview
One of our constituents' visitors
As of the surgery
Spoke to Councillor Seward
And I've not formed an opinion
So I've got an open mind on that
Councillor Nexayga
Nothing to declare
Good evening, my name is Nigel Porter
I'm a councillor for Aylston
Thank you
I will declare if I have any
Thank you
Good evening, everyone
This is Councillor Johan
And I have received two emails
Which has been copied
Regarding item B4
And its application is from our board
And that's all
Nothing else
I'm the councillor David Singh Patel
And nothing to declare
Councillor Mohamed
I have received the email
But I have not had any contact with any application
So I'm here with open mind
Thank you, councillors
Can I just check the minutes of the previous meeting
And confirm that that was an accurate record?
Does somebody want to propose?
To have a seconder
Thank you
Okay, so the next item on the agenda
Is planning applications
We will take them in the order of the agenda
So the first application is for sixth green view
Can I ask Mr Patel and Councillor Suge
To come to the table, please?
Thank you
So I will first ask officers to present the application
And after that I'll come to yourselves to speak
You'll have five minutes each
And Grant will let you know when you've got one minute to go
So if I could ask
Is it Daniel?
Thank you
One is your point of order
Mr Patel
This morning he ran
That to he and
Sorry
They will share
But he was a subject
He can
Now he's
Yeah
I ran
Sorry
I ran Jessica this morning
To ask whether we could share
Our five minutes
Between myself
And another resident from Greenview
And she said yes
And on that basis
We split our speech
And have brought along the other resident
But now we're told that that's not possible
Can we ask you to make it possible?
That's okay
Who is it that's going to be speaking with you?
Ian
Can you join us?
Could I just chat
The gentleman made a representation on the application?
Yes he did
If he did
And again
So was that registered with committee services this morning?
Well it was
Someone called Jessica
Okay
I was just going to say
I was just going to say
A deadline for
Registered to speak
It's a state report
Like
Yes
I'm happy for you to join
Mr Patel
But you will share the five minutes
Yes
Thank you
I advise you that you'd be sent a letter
According to
Did you not receive the letter
Telling you how to apply to Steve
Okay
Okay thank you
As I say
I'll go to Daniel
If you can present the application
And then come to the speakers
Thank you Chair
The application is at six screen view
And it is currently a single residential dwelling
The application is for the change of use of the site
From C3 to C4
C2 for four to four children
The application
This is the bedline of the application site
However this is from our own internal system
And so the imagery is clear as old
For when the building was still under construction
And this is a Google Maps image
Showing more and more up to date
So the property is within the red line boundary
On the north of the east side
With
Sorry
Adjacent to
Ashfield Road
Sorry my mind just comes in
This is a Google Street View
Image showing the site
Again with the
Southern boundary
One here
Being the site
This is the photo of the front of the dwelling
This is a photo of the site
From Ashfield Road
This is a photo of the existing garden
This is a photo of the relationship
Between the dwelling
And number five
Greenview
This is a photo of the rear
Relationship between
The site and number five
Greenview
And this is a photo of the brook
To the rear of the site
With the boundary fence
On the far left
Being to the rear of the garden
As stated
The application is for
The change of use of the site
To four
Up to four children
To live in under C2
There are no internal or external
Alterations proposed
This is the proposed side plan
This is the existing and proposed front elevation plan
The existing and proposed side rear elevation plan
This is the existing and proposed side elevation towards Ashfield Road
This is the existing and proposed side elevation towards number five Greenview
The existing and proposed ground floor plan
And the existing and proposed first floor plan
The application is recommended for conditional approval
An addendum has been completed as well as part of this application
There are no amendments to the description or the recommendation of this report
Condition five is proposed to be amended as follows
Development shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved land
And then refers to the latest version of the plan
Existing and proposed elevation plan
Representations
Appellant's statement
The appellant has submitted a statement requesting circulation to committee members
The statement provides details of the application's local credentials
Medical qualifications and previous care experience in managing children's care homes
Details of his aspirations and intended operation of the care home
And included in the nature group based care to be provided
Meeting a significant need and proposed exclusion of children requiring failure placement
Or intensive therapeutic treatment
Details of engagement within neighbours to provide information on the provided proposal
Concerns about the organised opposition campaign
Comments which go beyond the fair scope of planning
Comments about the sufficiency of parking and other transport options
And confirmation of the noise considerations have been properly addressed
Concerns of the shortage of children's homes both nationally and within Leicester
Especially ones that allow children to remain within their local area
Which means more local children placed out of the area
Comments to setting up children's homes as a lengthening costly process planning
Refusals on nominal objections discouraging responsible providers
And requests that all declarations of interest of communication relevant to the application
Should be evidenced in light of the campaign to have the application blocked
One comment has been received from one new Leicester address
And raises the following points
The dwelling system is suitable for the proposed use
The garden area is small
Two parking spaces plus the unrestricted parking is adequate
Should a change of use be required as it will be four children and two carers
Similar to the family and will stay at home rather than a business
Local authority and taxpayers could end up putting the bill for speculative purchase
And a request for a condition limiting the future occupants to children in the care of Leicester City Council
Or Leicester City Council and not for many councils further appeal
Further considerations
With regards to the amended plans
The amended plans include a window on the ground floor plan
The window is already shown on the elevation plan and seen during the site visit
And therefore no additional assessment is required for this inclusion
Applicants Committee Statement
The statement has been circulated to committee members prior to the committee meeting
With regards to the comments relating to the applicant's experience levels and proposal
In terms of operation of the home
As stated within the committee report
Planning legislation should not and cannot legally be used as a proxy for controlling matters
Which are the responsibility of Ofsted
Who have the remit of the oversight of these facilities
The relevant planning issues reference within the statement are already addressed within the report
Neighbouring comments
The majority of the point rates have been addressed within the original report
But in respect to the proposed use as a residential care home for children
This falls within use class C2 as a residential institution
And as there are no permitted development rights
To the change of use of the site from C3 to C2
Planning permission is required
The proposal then provides the amended list of conditions
With that recommended
I'll now come to Mr Patel
And Ian sorry I don't know your surname
You left five minutes between you
And as I said grant we'll let you know when you've got a minute to speak
Two and a half minutes
Okay
Thank you
Thank you for allowing me to speak
My name is Ian Cross
I'm a retired GP living next door to number six in number five
In fact my bathroom window is about a meter away from the bathroom window on the house facing me
I'm here to strongly object to this application
This isn't going to be a formal policy heavy speech
It's about common sense from the hearts of the local community
And I hope you'll listen to what it feels like on the ground for those of us who live here
Starting with the parking
Greenview is a narrow COVID sack
Each house has limited parking
It only takes one vehicle in the shared driveway to create real difficulty
So with the care home
If you had shift staff
Visiting professionals
Delivery vehicles
And the taxis
And the very real possibility of emergency service access
For a house with just two small medium sized cars
Up street parking space
It would be unworkable
I don't see how many you've got three on there
They don't fit
On top of that
We're directly impacted by congestion
In the masjid uzma
During prayer times
Add in the planned Eddington Road residential parking scheme
And it's clear this care home will severely worsen parking
And access problems on Greenview, Asheville Road
Kimberley Road
And St. Phillips Road
The character of the area
The funding report says the house will retain family characteristics
But four teenagers with 24-7 staffing
Ship changes and a constant stream of visitors
Is not a family home
It's a place of business
It may look like a house on the outside
But it will function as a care institution
That changes how the street feels
What is a peaceful residential cul-de-sac
Will become a work site
And with that comes noise, activity and disruption
All out of step
With the quiet character of Greenview
And Ashfield Road
And Kimberley Road
Privacy
This is another major issue
Our homes face each other
As a family coming and going
Is one thing
But a rotating roster of staff
Working 24-7
Means constant footfall
Footfall
Lights on odd hours
Cars pulling in and out
And a complete loss of privacy
For neighbouring families
It's too not
True is it
Unfair
And unfair to those who bought houses here
Expecting a stable residential setting
Thanks Ian
Thanks
Thanks Madam Chair and Committee
I just want to examine this application
Traditionally or historically
An applicant would have been
A care worker
Experienced care worker
Having worked in this sector for many years
This one
It's a recently incorporated company
The applicant
A serial businessman
13 recorded directorships
Mainly in the fast food sector
One of his companies
Was put into receiverships
With debts of half a million pounds
So we're not talking about
An experienced care worker with compassion
We're talking about a business team
If you look at the house
The house is owned by
A limited company
It has been vacant
For almost two years
It's been put up for sale
It has been put up for rental
But now
I think
They can see the fact
That councils pay
Between 4,000 pounds per week
Per child
To 10,000 pounds per week
Per child
So
They want to tap into that
Public purse
So we're not talking about
Compassion
Care
What we're talking about
Is
Profits
Business
Using
A house and a cul-de-sac
To generate
A 1 million pounds per annum
Business
So
Just bear that in mind
If you then
Follow that on
This is a trend
That's happening
All over the city
We've seen
We've seen
Many applications
So
Don't be stuck into this
As a care thing
This is something
That's going to happen
All over the city
And if we're not careful
The whole character
Of many areas
Will change
In our area
We've seen
Applications
In
Eddington Lane
Linden Drive
So
All we're saying
To
The committee
Is
Please don't turn
Our streets
Into multi
Million pound businesses
Finally
We're
We're
Puzzled
As to why
This application
Is going ahead
Because we've spoken
With the owner
Of the property
And he doesn't want
This to happen
Yet
The applicant
Is carrying on
So
We're
Totally confused
Why we're
Even sitting here
Discussing this
So
I
Just try and thank you
Thank you
Thank you
Councillor Sood
Thank you
Chair and committee
For allowing us
To
Come and make
Representation
On this
Application
And I thank you
All my constituents
Who are here
Giving up their time
On hot
Day
Chair Greenview
As we know
That is a change
Of use
From residential
Dwelling
To care home
And none of
The residents
Are against
The children
Being looked after
But it is not
The right location
Because this is
A new development
Which was built
In last few months
And they bought
The houses
As parents
Everybody
Save all their life
To have a better
To give better life
To their children
And they are
Family people
And now
In the cul-de-sac
Of six houses
There's going to be
A care home
It's the parking
I know
Officers are so
Three
It's more than
That
And there will be
Not only
Children
Staff coming
In 24 hours
There will be
People coming
And going on
And this is
They are very
Dispectable
They live in
A diverse
Community
Respectable
Neighborhoods
And you know
That it's not
Going to have
Impact only
On ashfield road
Kimberley roads
St. Philip
Road
And next door
The bowling club
Is used by
Senior citizens
And in the
Vicinity
Chair
We have got
Quite a few
Children's homes
Have been
Granted permission
And so
It is going
The area
Is within
So many
Children's homes
And no
Loss of privacy
As the house
Will become
A place of work
For five to six
Employees
Plus other
Social care
Visitors
And this
Will be
Detrimented
To the
Area
As well
Because it's
A very nice
Location
Conservation
Area
Stony Gatives
And
Applicant
Chair
He is
There
It's a
Setup
It's a
Company
With no
Experience
In running
Such care
Homes
I know
It's not
A planning
Issue
But it
Is going
To have
Impact
On the
Communities
He has
He has
Written
He has
Written
To the
Planning
Committee
That he's
Been a
Director
At 13
Different
Companies
In the
Last
Few
Years
Everything
For fast
Food
To import
And export
Also
Chair
In
Stony
Great
Evington
Area
As I
Said
In
The
Last
Few
Years
There
Have
Been
Multiple
Applications
Like
A
Linden
Linden
Drive
Homeway
Road
And
Few
Others
By
Applicants
Who
Have
Setup
Companies
Overnight
With
No
Experience
Looking
To
Make
Some
Quick
Money
And
Residential
Areas
Are
Being
Saturated
With
These
Sort
Of
Profit
Driven
Applications
Which
Are
Having
An
Impact
On
The
Character
And
Amenities
Of
Area
Few
Years
Ago
We
Had
Children
Home
In
Stoughton
Drive
North
And
Everybody
Life
Are
Miserable
In
Fact
The
Residents
Including
Myself
We
Have
To
Make
A
Petition
And
Then
Their
License
Was
Revoked
There
Was
No
Controlled
Children
Middle
Of
The
Night
They
Come
And
Press
The
Bells
Cars
Were
Broken
So
This
Is
Why
It
Is
Not
That
But
This
Is
Not
The
Right
Location
In
The
Middle
Of
Six
Houses
Is
New
Homes
Built
So
This
Is
Why
Consider
It
Not
That
The
Planning
Shouldn't
Go
Ahead
Thank
You
Thank
You
Do
Officers
Want
To
Respond
To
Any
Of
The
Comments
That
You
Have
Just
I
Mean
There
Was
A
Few
Comments
There
About
Businesses
Individuals
Those
Matters
Are
Not
For
Planning
Consider
So
Again
We
Can
Verify
That
Some
Of
The
Comments
Made
And
You
Have
To
Really
Focus
Your
Attention
On
The
Planning
Aspects
Of
The
Use
And
The
Impacts
Of
The
Use
On
The
Area
Not
Comments
About
Individuals
Who
May
Or
Not
Have
Been
In
Other
Circumstances
And
Just
To
Make
The
Point
That
As
It
Says
In
The
Report
That
The
Management
And
Operation
And
The
Standards
Of
Operation
Matter
For
Of
Stead
They
Need
Registration
That
Is
A
Separate
Regime
That
Controls
Those
Matters
So
That
Is
Not
For
You
To
Consider
And
I
Think
The
Only
Other
Comment
I
Think
Was
Mention
Of
Lots
Of
A
Number
Of
Other
Similar
Uses
In
The
Area
I
Think
Within
The
Report
Again
We
We
Only
Got
Records
Of
Consents
That
Have
Been
Granted
And
Again
There
Is
A
Plan
In
The
Report
That
Show
I
Think
Only
One
Property
Within
400
Meters
And
One
On
The
Edge
Of
That
400
Meter
Area
So
I
Think
Those
Are
The
Only
Points
I
Think
The
Rest
Of
The
Comments
Are
In
The
Report
Apart
From
Daniels
It
Is
Something
To
Add
Thank
You
Just
One
More
Point
Again
With
The
Parking
As
You
Sated
There
Is
Three
On
The
Plan
Within
The
Assessment
In
My
Report
It
Does
State
That
Again
Parking
Measures
Only
Two
Parking
Spaces
However
The
Assessments
Was
Also
Made
Against
The
Impact
To
Parking
And
Such
Can
I
Just
Take
Izzy
And
I
Can
You
Can
It
It
Was
Just
To
Add
That
The
Level
Of
Parking
Is
Required
By
The
Policy
Requirement
Is
Covered
In
The
Report
I
Two
Spaces
And
That
The
Level
Of
Parking
Expected
To
Serve
Such
A
Proposal
Would
Be
Similar
To
That
Of
A
Normal
Residential
Dwelling
Thank
You
I
Will
Come
Over
To
Council
Now
Council
Porter
This
Is
My
Main
Point
This
Is
Just
Grant
And
The
Officers
Were
Saying
They
Would
Summarise
Some
Of
The
Points
That
Have
Been
Raised
By
The
Objectors
And
I
Think
The
Crucial
One
Which
Maybe
You
Didn't
Pick up
On
Or
Didn't
Hear
For
Whatever
Reason
Was
The
What
We've
Been
Told
Is
That
The
Actual
Owner
The
Actual
Owner
Is
Objecting
To
The
Planning
Application
So
What
Concerned
Me
About
That
Was
Even
If
It's
Approved
The
Scheme
Could
Never
Be
Implemented
Because
Clearly
If
The
Owner
Of
The
Site
Doesn't
Want
It
It's
Never
Going
To
Happen
So
It
Appears
To
Be
A
Bit
Of
A
Pointless
Exercise
Can I
Thank you
I think
Case
Ports
Will
Probably
Remember
The
Training
Anybody
Can
Apply
For
Planning
Official
On
Property
Regardless
Of
Whether
You
Own
It
Or
Not
The
Planning
Commission
If
Granted
Goes
With
The
Property
So
Again
Rumours
About
Whether
People
Have
An
Interest
In
Property
Do
Or
Don't
Want
It
To
Happen
And
Not
Relevant
You
Just
Got
To
Consider
Is
The
Use
Acceptable
Or
Not
Acceptable
On
Material
Thank
You
That's
Helpful
Okay
Any
Questions
Or
Comments
From
Councillor
More
Than
Councillor
Mahmood
Thank
You
Very
Much
Chair
I
Hope
You
Can
All
Hear
Me
At
The
Back
Can
You
Hear
Me
Thank
You
I
Do
My
Playground
Voice
I
Appreciate
Very
Much
The
Comments
That
The
Objectus
Have
Made
And
Thank
You
For
Them
And
Particularly
The
Emphasis
On
Common
Sense
But
I
Have
To
Say
That
The
Planning
Department
Is
Constrained
By
Planning
Regulations
And
As
A
Committee
We
Are
Similarly
Constrained
That
We
Can
Only
Consider
The
Business
Of
Planning
And
What
The
Regulations
Say
Now
That
Does
Not
Mean
That
We
Do
Not
Feel
Concern
On
The
Grounds
Of
Common
Sense
And
Personally
As
An
Educationalist
I
Feel
Some
Concern
About
The
Credentials
If
You
Like
Or
The
CV
Of
Whoever's
Going
To
that, again it's not a planning
consideration, is always in the past
I have argued that there's
less risk to
amenity of neighbours if
a children's home is run
by skilled staff who know
what they're doing. And you
can have the risk of an ordinary family
moving into a home and creating
noise and nuisance and there's nothing very much
anybody can do about that except
complain to the noise
control department of the
council. So at this point
I can only express my own personal
concerns that I'm not
able to say I reject this application
because it fits
planning regulations.
It's a family home,
we've heard some evidence about parking,
it's always been an issue.
To be honest a member of staff coming in the
morning is equivalent to
somebody leaving in their car to
go to work similarly in the evening.
So that's my position chair, thank
you very much.
Thank you. Councillor Mohammed?
Thank you chair.
So I've just got a couple of
points of clarification that I need.
So
going back to the picture of the garden
I'm just
trying to get a feel for the size of the
garden. So
from the picture in itself the garden looks
quite small to me for a home catering for
for children potentially.
What's the view on the garden size?
Through the chair.
In my report I do just refer to the garden and assess the size of it.
I will just find that section.
It is 83.8 square meters within the assessment for the original application for the construction
of the dwelling.
The case officer did confirm that the garden would be genuinely acceptable size and good
level of privacy will be secure for future occupants and that does that answer your question?
So would that be an adequate provision for potentially a residential home for four children with potentially high needs to be catered for?
Would that be
Would we say that's adequate to run a residential home from?
Yeah I think we've had this issue before so effectively there are no hard and fast guidelines
policy standards in respect of garden sizes for care homes.
What we do have is quite an old, well a very old policy and it's I guess quite an aspiration
policy of 100 square meters for garden sizes for properties.
As we've explained before though most modern dwellings and most modern developers you know
wouldn't provide that level of accommodation and we end up most most recent permissions have
provision that's less than that so again we've made the assessment four bedroom house effectively
this was an appropriate garden size and I think we would make the same assessment if there's
going to be four children accommodating the property it's a family house so again we would we our
assessment is that that's acceptable but it's probably fair to say there isn't a hard and
fast policy guideline that dictates one way or the other.
Thank you and in terms of the parking issue going back to front where you I think was there a visual
that you showed with three cars on it so that one there yeah so was that is that taken from when we
originally the original planning permission came in to say that the space was enough for three cars normal family cars?
Yes yes so the this is the the inside plan submitted for the application showing three vehicle parking spaces and however in my report I did assess the width of the park the space taken by the cars and compared to Leicester's parking space requirements.
Okay and obviously whilst it's a residential property going to a residential care home potentially it's a commercial enterprise so I'm assuming it has commercial bins where where would they be situated because most of the care homes that I've seen in the area all tend to have the large commercial bins situated outside.
My understanding is that they would just have we've not had anything saying that there would be special bin waste and they would be the same as normal residential bins.
Okay I've seen them before where we required commercial bins I think there was an application two years ago that came in Evington Lane.
A lot of waste.
Yeah.
A lot of waste.
Yeah.
Okay.
Okay.
Okay.
Okay.
And in relation to on street parking and there was a comment on there to say that it's the green view is actually not listed on the highways plant is that because it's a private road or is it because it's we've just not got around to putting it on there.
Yeah it's a private drive.
Yeah.
It's a private drive.
I'll go to the Google.
Just to clarify so this development is relatively recent so the internal layout whilst it's not adoptable or hasn't been adopted as highway.
It would have been subject to consideration of the aisle width and the access drive width and the dimensions of the parking places and turning to make it sufficient to access those properties.
Thank you.
So just so I can understand if vehicles were not parked on the drive would access to the back properties be restricted then without actually driving over the grass verges?
Yes.
So with it being a private drive it would be a matter for the residents to manage between themselves and so they would all have right of access over that access drive to their properties.
You know visitors to those dwellings may well seek to park within the highway surrounding the site and walk in to the site rather than park in one of their residential parking spaces if there's no space available.
Yes.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I was just going to ask again and there aren't any parking restrictions on Ashfield Road itself.
No yeah just sorry just to clarify so Ashfield Road it's currently not within a residence parking scheme and I've had advice that it's not within the proposed residence parking scheme neither.
scheme either. No, but Kimberley Road is going to go into the residence parking scheme, isn't it?
The junction, just there. That's going to potentially become part of the residential
park. So any overspill from the surrounding roads are already going to push onto those
surrounding roads. Okay, just going on to the question of saturation in the area. So
going to that map there that you showed, there's two properties identified, two stars.
Are those both residential homes in terms of the applications that we've recently
given permission to? But there could well be more than that because they don't exist on the
planning data that we have.
Is that be right?
So this map is taken to any care homes that have got planning permission for the change
of use to a care home. The one on the west of the site, on the left of the page, is a elderly
care home, a large scale elderly care home, which is stated in two paragraphs below the
image. The one on the east, which is just outside the 400 metre radius, with a change of use from
a dwelling to a care home from three children. However, at the same time that this was determined,
both this and the application on the same time, both determined the change of use to a house
multiple occupation. So we can't confirm what the final use of the site, of this site is.
Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Mohamed. Councillor Adam.
Thank you, Chair. My concern is, you know, the experience perspective. Is that somebody
have a 13 company directorship for, a 13 company directorship for the passport, they cannot open
the children's home? Is there any regulation for that?
I think, as I said at the start, we don't have any information to verify or not. I think it's really
important that you don't base an assessment on allegations that we can't substantiate one way or the
other. I mean, the applicant has submitted, did submit a letter that we sent round to you that says the
opposite. I think it says they've had 17 years' experience in the care provision. They've got,
and again, as Daniel summarised in the addendum, that talked about they're a pharmacist and it
talks about them having significant experience in the care industry. So that's been circulated to you.
It's just a good example. On the one hand, we hear from people saying one thing. On the other hand,
we understand the opposite. So I just try and avoid having any, give any consideration to what,
what the person's involved. This is about the use of the property. It's a, we think it's an acceptable
use. It's a residential use in a residential area. Um, you may align at a different decision based upon
the nature of the impact of that use. And that's what I'd advise, maybe, and for you to concentrate
your assessment. Thanks. That's fine, yeah. That's a little update. Thank you. Thank you. Cheers.
Thank you. Yeah, um, Councillor Moore might not like this, but I'm going to have to disagree with a lot of
what you said. Um, you seem to paint a picture that we were unable to do anything about this, but there's
quite clearly material planning considerations that we can take into account, which are, I mean, I'll just
listen for everybody's benefit. There's the impact on noise levels, which a development could have.
The impact on the character of the area. These are all things we need to take into, into consideration.
The impact on neighboring properties, um, and the occupiers of those properties and their impact on their
privacy. Uh, we also have to take into account impact on local amenities and of course the impact on traffic.
So in terms of that point, the final point I've just made about traffic, my first question would be
about the highways issues in terms of if this proposal had come forward as part of that development,
would it necessarily have got approval? Um, and the reason I say that is because aren't there specific
pieces of, um, uh, uh, legislation or, or guidance within the, uh, design highways design, uh, document,
which separate commercial from residential and that with commercial, you need to have, um, I think
bigger turning circles, um, probably better parking facilities, et cetera. So on that basis, I would just
like to ask a few questions about that. Um, the other thing is as well is, um, it was mentioned that
in the officer's report that the, uh, applicant said that there's, um, significant need. Now, I would like to see
the evidence for that because I couldn't find any within the report, but this clearly is a significant need
for family dwellings in the city. I mean, we're all told that Leicester is suffering from, uh, a housing shortage.
So the loss of a big house like this, um, which is particularly rare, you know, five bedroom houses, you can't
find them every day down every single street, are very much in demand. And what concerns me is if the council is
struggling to find accommodation for people who actually live in the city already, a lot of people are on the council's
waiting list, there's a lot of people homeless, that we are basically losing a five bedroom property, um,
without any significant justification for a loss of what's called, what is it, um, a C3, which is a, uh, a dwelling house
in favour of a residential institution. So I would like to know the evidence to support, to support the, the need. Um,
the applicant's spoken about children, uh, locally going in there. Well, there's no evidence to say that children
locally would go in there. It tends to be the children who end up in these sorts of houses, these institutions,
are normally coming away from a problem in another part of the country, and they come here because they're sort of
being separated from what's causing them the problem wherever else they have to be. So there's no guarantee there'll be local
children, and I think that the majority of the children who do come into these homes in Leicester are
from outside of Leicester for the very reason they need to be separated from the people who are causing
grief or causing problems. I mean, a lot of it, I'm not necessarily saying it's here because I don't have any evidence
of that, but it can be associated with, uh, county lines and stuff like that. So they have to take the children
away from that. Um, so I really need to see the evidence to justify the reason to have a care home,
a residential institution for children in care in this particular location, and I haven't been able
to see any. Um, another thing that did concern me, I don't know, just down in the bottom right-hand
corner at the, sort of the bottom of the garden, is that like a river or a stream? So in terms of
child safety, that would concern me. There's a stream there, yeah, there we are, at the bottom
of the garden. Um, and you know, anything could happen. So that would be, I would say that would
be one reason. I don't think this is a suitable location for it, really, in terms of prevention
of harm to members of the public. So I think that would be a real significant reason for us
um, for us to turn it down. But having said that, back to my original point, there are
a huge amount of material considerations that we can take into account, um, in order to
refuse it. So I think I'll be refusing it. Thank you.
Thank you. Do you have to respond?
Um, to the chair. Um, apologies if I missed any of the points you've raised. I think I've
got most of them. Um, with regards to, first of all, the, um, children, where they're coming
and where they're going, um, to live. Um, as stated in my report, we cannot, um, support
or pose an application based on the geographical or any of the, um, descriptions of specific
individuals. We can only consider the use. Um, with regard, um, with, you've also, um, mentioned
obviously the brook. This was, um, um, sort of a bit, this application was approved for a single dwelling
with the brook, obviously there, um, as well, um, as are the neighbouring properties. It is therefore
considered that, as it's, um, acceptable for a single dwelling, the same assessment, um, is made for the C2 use.
Um, you've also asked the question about C3 to industrial with, um, comments on, um, commercial
parking standards. Um, I will defer to Izzy on that momentarily, but I'd just like to state
that C2 is still resident, primarily residential in-use class, not, this is not commercial use,
which is, tends to be E or C classes. Um, so C2 is still primarily residential. Um, I'll
go to Izzy for the, the evidence to justify, um, the, the change of use at this particular
location. And I was just wondering where is the evidence? Can we, Izzy, if you can pick
up the transport question and then Grant if I can come to you. Thank you, Chair. Um, so
the question was whether if the proposal had come in as part of the original application for
that residential development, whether we would assess that differently? Um, and the answer
would be no, uh, because as Dan, uh, has stated, this falls under a residential use, C2 use.
When we consider commercial development, we refer, uh, we would consider that under class use E,
E, B2 and B8, which you're correct that we would look at, um, more appropriate levels
of access and parking. But in this case, it is a residential use. Um, so in, and in fact,
the, the policy parking requirement is covered by the, um, uh, say local plan policies, um, parking
standards. So that, that, that, that would be part of the consideration. Um, so I think
that hopefully that clarifies, um, that point. Thank you. Yeah. And with regard to the, the
point about the demands, I think at the bottom of page 20, there's some comments from social
services colleagues, which sets out the sufficiency strategy requirements. I think if the social
services colleagues were here, there is a significant demand for, um, for, for provision
for children in care in the city, both local, local children as well. And again, I think
that's evidence by the significant, um, the significant number of applications that are seeking
to provide that, that, that provision. We haven't got empirical evidence with respect
to the exact numbers, but I mean, that information I think, I think can be provided. But Councillor
Porter is right. Um, the point about, um, the, the demand for family houses and large family
houses is, is a relevant factor. And again, the, the, we have housing, we do have, um, empirical
housing evidence in terms of housing demand, which does indicate that we should be seeking
to, to retain family houses. Um, you've got to, I guess you've got to balance that judgment
about there is a, there is a demand for, uh, residential care and there is a demand for, uh, for,
for, for houses as well. So that, that, that is a relevant consideration. Yeah. Thank you.
Thank you. Councillor Mardappia and then councillors Debbie Singh.
Thank you, Chair. I wanted to ask one question regarding the group on side, the river on the side,
because the, the garden is small and, uh, the big, that, I can't see very safe children playing
in the garden, but yes, that's been answered. But I want to ask regarding the 400 square metre
area. So if it's a more care home in the 400 square metre supporting the application or that is not.
So we, again, I think when we, we've started to provide that information because there's been
concerns when you get significant concentrations of a number of care homes in an area that will
change the character of that area. And that is, it would be a concern if there is significant concentration.
So the fact that, and the 400 metres is a, is a bit of an arbitrary, uh, distinction.
It's generally used in, in terms of measuring things like accessibility and proximity to properties.
It's a, it's a, it's a, so it's a, it's an, it's an area that doesn't have a particular policy, um, requirement.
But what we, what I think we would say is if, if there were a significant number of properties
within that area, that would be a concern. The fact that there's only one and one on the edge
and the one that is in the area is an elderly person zone would indicate there's not a significant
concentration of, of children's homes. And that would, wouldn't be a same reason for withholding permission.
Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Uh, I know, uh, Councillor put so many, like, points, he raised.
But, um, I got the main things, uh, behind, uh, how, uh, a house is a kennel there.
Where I live is a railway track and I got an incident. Like, uh, one girl, I don't know
how to went inside, behind my, uh, house. And we had, uh, like a three, four, might be
five hours, try to get her out. We need to call the police. But if any, uh, kids or children
is, went behind there, it is definitely not safe for the children, care home, because
that one is very dangerous. Because sometimes the kids are, they're separate for house.
We don't know, they're mentally, health and something. I got my personal experience about
that one. Even I said as well, the girls not went on a railway track. Maybe kids are, they
do silly things, or definitely I reject this application. And on the downstairs, they don't
have an enough space about, like, a study room, playing area. Is anything there? In a house?
And just one, another point. In a night time, only one staff there.
They say it's two, two staff on a day time, but night time, only one staff rejecting this application.
Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Um, so with regards to the floor plans, as stated, there is no internal
or external alterations proposed, um, to the floor. And so you still, on the ground floor plan,
it just shows the dining room, um, and living room, um, with the garage as well. Um, however,
um, once, um, internal and changing room from a dining room to a play area, for example,
wouldn't require planning permission. Um, and then on the point of, um, the staff care, um,
in my report, it is, in the application submission and in my report, it is confirmed that there
will be two carers, not one.
Just, just, just to add, I think the point about staffing, it's not really for you to
determine what an appropriate level of staffing is. That's for Ofsted. And I think with regards
to the, the issue about the brook, um, again, it's a residential property. The children in
the existing house, again, those same risks would apply. There isn't a reason for withholding
permission for residential use in a residential property. And I guess you'd have some comfort
in the fact that this, this is going to be managed, you know, staff are supervising the
children, which isn't necessarily always the case with the normal house.
Uh, thank you, sir. Uh, my question is for planning officer. Um, can you tell us what's the unit
size of the current property?
The size of the current property?
Yeah, unit size. How many people can live in five bedroom house?
Oh, five.
Uh,
So the, the, the, for a house, there isn't a control on the number of occupancies. Obviously,
you've got, I think, uh, is it five bedrooms? So again, there could be, some of those are
double bedroom sizes. So they could be more than five people living in that house.
Um, and again, the nature of the accommodation for the, for the children occupied there, that,
you know, that Ofsted would have the, the regulations about the appropriate size for the
number of people in there, but a normal family house, um, wouldn't have a condition restricting
or specifying the number of people that could live in there. Um, there could be, there could
be a large family with, um, with significantly more than four or five people. Or conversely,
there could be a couple living there. We haven't got that control.
Okay.
Okay. One more.
Yeah. Um, I believe, uh, this application has met the core strategy 2014, uh, policy CO2, CO6, I mean, CSO2, CSO6 and CSO8. Am I correct?
Am I correct?
You said, you said you think conforms or doesn't conforms?
Yeah, I mean, I believe this application has met the requirement of core strategy 2014 policy CSO2, CSO6 and CSO8.
Yeah, so those, those, those are relevant policies. And again, there's a, what the, what the, what the, if I can just answer the question, sorry. Those are relevant policies. And again, to say, will it, will it, uh, specifically meet the full requirements of those policies? We've given an indication that it's in general accordance with those policies. Yeah.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Great.
Anymore?
Councillor Mohamed?
Thank you, uh, Chair. So, obviously, some of the comments from, uh, co-counselors on the planning committee, I've taken note of those, uh, reread some of the reports. And I do have a level of concern over highway safety and inadequate parking.
Within the vicinity of that area. Also, clearly, it's going to have an impact on the character and appearance of the area. Uh, the small garden is a concern to me and potential loss of privacy along with potential noise nuisance, you know, in a closed confined area. So on that basis, I'm minded not to support the application.
Thank you, Councillor Mohamed. If there aren't any more comments, I think what I've heard today is, um, some concerns from members and from our, um, the residents, largely around, uh, parking, safety, the garden signs have been mentioned. Some of the things that have been talked about are not planning considerations. Some clearly are. Um,
So, having heard, uh, all that I've heard today, um, my personal concerns are around the amenities. Normally, many of you know, I would be supporting application or office nature, because I do believe that there is a need in the city. Um, for this particular one, I do have concerns about the amenities. Um, Grant, can I take some advice from you?
Um, Grant, can I take some advice from you?
Well, I guess, sir, by, by amenities, I assume you mean it's the impact on the residential
amenity of the neighbors, which is a material consideration. I think, I think there's some comments that, um, are being made in respect to, uh, noise and activity, and I think, you know, again, the nature.
sure, so that is a valid concern. We consider that the implications are such that they're
acceptable but obviously if you will have a different opinion in that respect.
Thank you, that's helpful. I think I am concerned about that impact and thank you to the officers
for the work on this, however I am going to move to reject this application based on the
concerns that I've heard today. So you might want to suggest that the detailed reasons for
that refusal based upon that amenity point are delegated to officers to drafting consultation
with yourself and the Vice Chair.
Thank you.
The loss of the C3 dwelling house, I think that's very relevant.
So, as Grant suggested, I will ask, I'll delegate that to officers to…
So through you Chair, your motion is to refuse on the grounds of impact on residential amenity,
impacts of the loss of a family house, I think, was the particular point that Councillor Porter
made, which again is a relevant consideration, and that the detailed wording of readers' refusal
based on those two grounds would be delegated to officers. So that's, I think, your motion.
Thank you.
Thank you. That's very helpful. So, I'm going to ask members now to vote.
Oh, I need a seconder. Sorry. Do I have a seconder, Councillor Mohamed? Okay. So, I'm
going to put this to the vote now. So all those…
In favour of…
In favour of…
In favour of…
In favour of refusal of this application, if you could raise your hands.
Any abstentions, if not?
Any abstentions?
Light for cross. Is that everybody?
Yes.
Are you against the motion or are you?
Yeah.
All those…
Regents?
Against.
Regents?
Regents.
Regents?
Regents.
Regents.
Regents.
Regents.
Regents.
Regents.
Regents.
Regents.
Regents.
Regents.
Thank you very much.
Thank you to members.
The application has been refused and as we've said, we'll move on to the next application if you want to.
Thank you, sir.
Thank you.
Thank you.
The next application to consider is McDonnell Road and I'm going to ask officers to present it and then come to members for comments.
Thank you very much, Sheriff.
This application relates to the site indicated in the red line, which is in a terraced row on McDonnell Road.
The site is just off of Belgrave Road District Centre and Retail Shopping Street, however, the application relates to the terraced row on McDonnell Road.
The application site includes numbers 4 to 10, McDonnell Road, and this is covered by these four areas here.
So the ground floor on number 4 to 8 is a grocery store and above there is storage for the store and the one bed flat above where number 8 is.
And the application site also includes a three bed dwelling house in number 10 on the right hand side there.
At the rear, the site is largely built over other than two small alleyways behind number 8 and number 10, which we'll see in a minute.
In policy terms, the site is currently in a residential area with the boundary of the district centre in the distance there.
However, in the future, the district centre will include the majority of the shop area once the emerging local plan is potentially adopted later in the year.
So view looking to the west along McDonnell Road with double yellow lines on the opposite side of the street and indeed in front of the shop where the cars and delivery van is in front of the shop.
And a further view of the east part of the site, numbers 8 and 10 shown there and further down the street as well.
So to the rear, the site does have two alleyways as shown on screen just now.
These are used as storage for various paraphernalia associated with the shop, including plant and bin storage.
So on the right hand side, that's the rear ground floor extension of the two-storey dwelling house at number 10.
And I'm currently in the alleyways between numbers 8 and 10.
And as seen in the distance, well, in the rear of the photo, there's the rear of residential properties on Buller Road.
And further views of the rear alleyways, including the bin storage and some of the plants and the sort of canopy structure that's currently on site.
So the same view, which is looking back towards the flat above number 8 on the right hand side there, and then a view of the main part of the dwelling house at number 10 on the left hand side.
Finally, this site is also partly within Flood Zone 3, the eastern part of the site, and Flood Zone 2, the western part of the site, which is also in the critical drainage area and air quality management area.
So the proposal, so to view the existing plans, we have the front elevation here of the shop and flattened dwelling on the right hand side.
Existing rear elevation here with this part of being the rear extension of number 10, which we saw earlier.
And as part of the application, that part will be demolished.
And in terms of the existing ground floor plans, we have the main shop floor area here on the ground floor and on the right hand side of the ground floor of the dwelling house.
With the two alleyways yard areas here, which we've seen in the images.
And at first floor, we can see that the bulk of the shop has storage and admin offices above, with then one bed flat above number 8 with a bedroom to front and kitchen living area to the rear.
And then we have the three bedrooms as part of the two-storey dwelling house number 10, on the right hand side there.
So the proposal includes the shop front to be extended along into the ground floor of number 10, so it would be in terms of materials that would be carried on as existing and with the canopy frontage and signboard.
At the rear, we'll see when it comes to the ground floor plans, but there would also be a single-storey side and rear extension over the existing alleyways, which we saw earlier.
So the proposal would involve a change of use above ground floor, so as per the elevation, the shop would be carried on to increase in size by 48 square metres of floor space.
And there would be 269 square metres in total, and at first floor, the existing flat would be retained, and there would be another first floor flat as well.
So the shop and the first floor flat would replace the existing two-storey dwelling.
So the hatched area would become part of the shop, and this rear part would be an extension, approximately 8.5 metres in depth and 3.2 metres in width.
And there would be a new open yard to the rear of where number 10 currently is, as we've been shown in that corner there as well.
So that is hopefully the proposal, the proposal is recommended for refusal on the grounds of loss of a three-bed family dwelling house, and the replacement of the dwelling house with the extension to the ground floor shop would also be inappropriate and incompatible with the otherwise predominantly residential area.
So that would be reason on principle of development, and the lead local flood authority also objected to the application on the grounds of lack of flood risk completed by a qualified professional and failed to provide effective flood resilience measures.
So that's the site and recommendation.
I would also note that we did receive an email today from the agent, which was passed through about three hours ago this afternoon, and I will summarise the main points that has been raised by the agent, which seeks to address the reasons for refusal.
Also, it considers that the loss of a three-bed family home would not be acceptable as it forms part of a terraced road that already contains a commercial use.
Numbers 48, Macdonald Road already comprise an existing grocery store with a flat above, and the integration of number 10 into the mixed-use site is a natural extension to this.
It's also noted the residential element would be retained at first floor with one bed flat.
It considers which should be given to the emerging local plan, which recommends an extension of the existing boundary of the district centre on Belgrave Road.
It notes that other applications have been approved and passed.
It considers that deficiencies in the flood risk assessment is a technical issue which could be dealt with by condition and doesn't affect residential properties.
It considers the shop and extension won't impact upon the character or her amenity of the area.
It considers there's no highway objections, and a larger property would allow more storage and waste management, which could be dealt with by conditions.
It notes the extension would have economic benefits.
It's considered that these matters are generally covered in the report that's been provided.
And just to clarify, the emerging local plan revisions do acknowledge the existing retail use,
but the proposed extension would lie outside of the new local designation in terms of extension of the retail area.
Thanks, Chair.
Thank you, Stuart.
Any comments or questions from members?
I just want to ask, why did the application came to this hearing panel?
So, if we get applications submitted by officers or members or agents who work for the council,
then basically we bring it here to make sure that there's a transparent decision, basically.
So, the agent will come to the council?
Yeah.
Okay, thank you.
No questions?
Okay.
Councilman Hammond?
Just a couple of comments.
So, I do think the emerging local plan policy is relevant.
I think we talked about it at the last meeting where we'd won an appeal.
So, and I think the loss of a family dwelling is, you know, is important considering the conversation we've been having.
The question I have, I do have a question, is currently the property that's been converted, has it been sat vacant or is it that the owners of, I don't know, want to convert while it's been empty?
I don't think we know.
So, the point about the local plan, the emerging local plan point, is a good one.
You can give it some weight, the emerging policy, and it's, I think as Stuart said, the extent, the area of the district centre is being expanded,
but it doesn't include this bit that's being extended.
So, effectively, that's, it would be contrary to the new local plan as well as the current one.
So, yeah, that along with the potential impacts on the area, I've already seen the view from the background.
If we're going to expand that view, it's going to have an impact on the residents at the back and the flats and everything.
So, yeah, I am minded to, you know, go with the officer's recommendations and reject the planning application.
OK, if there are no comments then, I'm going to recommend that we go with the officer's view and reject the application.
So, I have a second there, Councillor Joel.
All those in favour of rejecting the application, if you could raise your hands.
Have you got your hand up, Councillor Patel, or not?
No, just, I'm thinking, like, it's going to be, like, a...
Sorry, sorry.
Just a show of hands now.
If you want to reject it, if you could raise your hand.
And, OK.
Sorry, eight.
If you are minded to approve it, if you're the other way, not agreeing with the rejection.
Or if you want to abstain.
You're abstaining, Councillor Cole.
Can we have some clear hands, please?
So, all those in favour of abstaining?
Abstaining?
Yes, I'm sorry.
I think that's one.
Councillor Patel.
I've got a negative mind up now, don't you?
I'm not abstaining, I'm not rejecting, because 40 points, I want to clear it out.
I think there's another vote, then.
So, Councillor, Councillor, Councillor David Finkertal, is voting against the refusal.
Again, it's your motion.
Yes.
Have you got that?
Yes.
Yes.
We got there.
Thank you very much.
So, that application is refused.
Thank you very much, officers, for all your work this evening.
Thank you, members.
Thank you.
Thank you.