wards: see individual reports. · development control committee 16th december 2003 1 wards: see...

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE 16th December 2003

1

Wards: See individual reports.

Development Control Committee 16th December 2003

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


2

APPLICATIONS WITH SPECIFIC EQUAL OPPORTUNITY IMPLICATIONS

App No Page Ward Address Ethnic Minority Groups

Religious Groups

People with Disabilities

Res. Care inc.

Children and

Elderly

Non-Res. Care inc. Children and the Elderly

Children Women's Issues

20031781 45 KN 43 SHIRLEY ROAD √ √

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


3

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

Page App.

No. Address Ward Report

Section

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


4

Contents Page Nos.

Contravention Matters 5-13 Applications Recommended For Refusal 14-23 Listed Building Consents And Conservation Area Consents Recommended For Approval

-

Other Applications Recommended For Approval 24-78 Development By The City Council - Observations On Consultations From Government Departments - Other Items - Planning Inspectorate Appeal Decisions - Petitions -

Index 16th December 2003 Page Appn

Number Address Area Ward Report

Section19 20031895 14 Alvaston Road W BF REF 14 20031800 14 Avebury Avenue W FS REF 50 20032023 Conduit Street / Andover Street C CA APP 73 20032212 135 Gipsy Lane, Oom House E BE APP 29 20031298 64 Gwendolen Road E SH APP 31 20031375 8-10 Highfield Street E ST APP 64 20032028 8-10 Highfield Street E ST APP 7 20034430C 12 King Street C CA CON

70 20032178 33 Kitchener Road E CO APP 5 20034410C Melbourne Road E SH CON

68 20032129 73 Narborough Road W WC APP 35 20031538 21 Queen Street, Courtauld Building C CA APP 45 20031781 43 Shirley Road W KN APP 9 20034534C 150a St Nicholas Circle C AB CON

12 20034398C 15 Stonebridge Street E CO CON 24 20030842 Syston Street West, Dysart Way E LA APP 76 20031922 428 Uppingham Road E TC APP 42 20031598 19 Wimborne Road W KN APP 22 20031999 27 Woodbine Avenue E ST REF


5

CONTRAVENTION MATTERS 20034410C MELBOURNE ROAD 23/07/2003 AREA: E WARD: Spinney Hills ENC CAR SALES BY THE OCCUPIER

Introduction This report relates to the Melbourne Road Service Station which is situated at 95 Melbourne Road, within a Primarily Residential Area as defined in the Adopted and Draft Replacement City of Leicester Local Plans. Background The lawful use for this site is for a petrol filling station and MOT testing station only. Permission was given for this in 1980 with a condition that no car repairs be carried out. Permission to allow vehicle repairs was refused in 1986. Alleged Breach In July and August 2003, three complaints were received regarding the use of the property for the purpose of car sales. Upon investigation I found that the property was being used for used car sales and car repairs. The complainants are particularly concerned about parking congestion caused by vehicles associated with the use being parked on the highway. I consider that there has been a material change of use to car sales and car repairs.


6

Policy Policy E19 of the Adopted City of Leicester Local Plan states that vehicle repairs will not normally be acceptable on land or buildings close to residential if there would be a detrimental impact caused by noise and other disturbance. Policy E20 of the Adopted City of Leicester Local Plan states planning permission will not normally be granted for vehicle sales on residential land. Consideration I do not consider that I would recommend approval of any application for car sales and repairs in this location. The use for car sales and repairs results in extra vehicles on the highway to the detriment of residential amenity and highway safety. Recommendation I recommend that the Town Clerk be authorised to issue the following notice: Enforcement Notice - Material Change of Use Steps to be Taken Cease use for Car Sales and Car Repairs. Reason The use for vehicle sales and repairs leads to additional vehicles being parked to the detriment of residential amenity and highway safety. Period for Compliance 1 Month


7

CONTRAVENTION MATTERS 20034430C 12 KING STREET 29/07/2003 AREA: C WARD: Castle PRA PROJECTING BANNER PO THE OCCUPIER

Introduction This property relates to a shop situated within the Central Shopping Core, within the New Walk conservation area but outside the New Walk area of special advertisement control. Background In April 1991 planning permission was granted for a change of use of the ground and first floors of the building from a hairdressing salon class A1 to a restaurant class A3 and a café was then opened. In July 2001 consent to display a vertical projecting banner sign was refused. In 2002 there was a change of use to a hairdressing salon class A1 under permitted development rights. Alleged Breach An advertising banner has been erected on the side of the building that stretches vertically from the first floor windowsill level to the top of the second floor window. The banner protrudes into the highway on King Street. This is a similar development to the one that was refused consent in 2001.


8

Policy EN 26 Consent not normally given for signs that do not relate well to the building or t he surrounding area. EN 30 Fascia signs above the level of first floor window sills not normally permitted. EN 31 Consent not normally given for signs which adversely affect the character or

appearance of listed buildings or conservation areas. Policy Considerations The draft Replacement City Of Leicester Local Plan (2nd Deposit Copy) includes the following. BE14. Advertisement Design: Consent will not be given for signs or advertisement which:

a) do not relate well to the building on which they are fixed or to the surrounding area; b) cause unacceptable light pollution or loss of amenity through excessive glare, light spillage or sky glow.

BE15. Projecting Signs: A maximum of one projecting sign per frontage will normally be permitted. Fascia and projecting signs above the level of first floor window sills will not normally be permitted. Consideration The sign has a modern style and is large in relation to the building extending the full height of the first and second floors. The upper two floors have two large bow windows of an attractive style and provide an important feature of the building and the conservation area. Despite the building being three-story high, it is comparatively small both in terms of its height and its width. The sign dominates the upper two floors of the building when viewed looking south along King Street and obscures the views from the two bow windows within the building. The sign detracts from the buildings design and appearance is detrimental to the character and appearance of the conservation area. The sign is contrary to all of the above City Of Leicester Local Plan policies, Recommendation I recommend that the Town Clerk be authorised to issue the following notice: Prosecution Proceedings - Advertisements


9

CONTRAVENTION MATTERS 20034534C 150A ST NICHOLAS CIRCLE 12/09/2003 AREA: C WARD: Abbey PRA ILLUMINATED SIGNS AT FRONT SMB THE OCCUPIER

Introduction 150a is part of a larger factory premises within a Potential Development Area which envisages a range of uses including residential, business and leisure. The adjacent property at 10 Talbot Lane is in residential use. The premises are within the Castle Gardens Conservation Area and adjacent to Grade 2 listed buildings at 10 and 12 Talbot Lane. Background Planning permission was given for �Change of Use from Factory(Class B1) to Health Spa/Gymnasium(Class D2)� in February 2003. The premises have been occupied since September 2003 by a business advertising �Sauna and Massage�. Following investigations I believe that the use is lawful in planning terms. The factory roller shutter door has been removed and replaced by a �shop window�. Although the planning permission did not include for external alterations, I consider that this change has improved the appearance of the premises and therefore have not recommended any enforcement action.


10

Alleged Breach Two internally illuminated projecting box signs have been installed. These need consent and I have advised the business that they are unlikely to be acceptable. I also received a complaint about a banner sign at the rear which was removed at my request. There is an externally illuminated fascia sign above the window. This needs consent. I advised the business to submit an application to retain the fascia sign and any of the other signage that they wanted an opportunity to have considered. The application was submitted but was incomplete at the time of drafting this report. A complaint has also been received about the window display. This comprises moving optical effects in the window consist of a female human silhouette etched with frosted glass on the window glass itself with fluttering material behind. This material is illuminated to give the effect of flickering flames on which the female silhouette is superimposed. My view has been that this is a decoration or window display for which neither planning permission nor advertisement consent is required. There is also lettering on the window which is not directly illuminated but is readable after dark as a result of the illumination at the premises itself. My view is that this is also not an illuminated sign for the purposes of the regulations; non- illuminated fascia and other signs in shopping streets are generally readable by passers-by as a result of illumination from the shop window and from street lighting. I have asked the Head of Legal Services to advise whether these displays and the lettering could be advertisements over which the local planning authority has control. Development Plan Policies EN26 Consent not normally given for signs which do not relate well to the building

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

amount of illumination. EN28 For night time leisure uses greater than normal illumination permitted. EN29 Maximum one projecting sign per business frontage. EN31 Consent not normally given for signs which adversely affect character or

appearance of listed buildings or Conservation Areas. Other Policy considerations The Draft Replacement Local Plan repeats EN 26 with an additional criterion relating to light pollution. Policies BE06 and BE15 make similar provision to the adopted EN31 and EN29. Consideration The premises were formerly part of a factory building and the surrounding area is dominated by the roads of the Central Ring Road and St Nicholas Circle. This is a


11

mixed area where City Centre uses would be expected to locate bringing with them a commercial and vibrant character. Some commercial advertising would therefore be expected and appropriate. However, the property is within the Castle Garden Conservation Area and next to a Grade 2 Listed Building. The premises are also at the character boundary between the busy commercial environment of the road system and the city centre and the quieter environment of Talbot Lane. I therefore consider that the plethora of illuminated signs is both excessive and undesirable. The appearance of the two projecting box signs is particularly inappropriate. SUBJECT TO THE ADVICE OF THE HEAD OF LEGAL SERVICES, I consider that the window display, the lettering on the window and the externally illuminated fascia sign are acceptable in this location and I do not recommend any action to remove or alter them. I consider that the two illuminated projecting box signs are unacceptable and that prosecution action should be taken if they are not removed. Recommendation I recommend that the Town Clerk be authorised to issue the following notice: Prosecution Proceedings - Advertisements


12

CONTRAVENTION MATTERS 20034398C 15 STONEBRIDGE STREET 16/07/2003 AREA: E WARD: Coleman ENC USE FOR RETAIL SALES BY THE OWNER/OCCUPIER

Introduction The site comprises a two storey factory on the southern side of Stonebridge Street and opposite Southdown Road. The site is located within a Primarily Residential Area as defined in both the Adopted and Replacement City of Leicester Local Plan. The site previously accommodated a clothing manufacturing factory. Background The lawful use of these premises is for General Industry (Class B2). Use for either wholesaling (Class B8) or retailing (Class A1) has not been authorised. On 17th September 2003, Leicester City Council refused to grant Planning Permission for a change of use of part of the site from General Industry (Class B2) to a Retail Shop (Class A1). Alleged Breach On 16th July 2003, a complaint was received alleging that the occupiers of 15 Stonebridge Street were using the premises for the purposes of a �Cash and Carry� business. Upon investigation, 25th July 2003, I found that the property was being used for the purposes of retailing. The property is �Open to the Public�, as stated by the advertising on the buildings fascia. I consider that there has been a material change of use to retail (Class A1).


13

Policy Policy S8 of the Adopted City of Leicester Local Plan normally confines retail development outside of the Central Shopping Core to existing and proposed shopping centres. The site is located within a Primarily Residential Area as defined in both the Adopted and Replacement Local Plan, and not within an existing or proposed shopping centre. Therefore the proposal would be contrary to Policy S8 of the Adopted Local Plan. Draft Replacement City of Leicester Local Plan Policy R08 only allows retail uses outside defined centres where there is a need which cannot be met in nearby centres. Policy E03 carries forward the provisions of Policy E4 and Policy E11 allows for direct sales from Class B8 premises to trade customers only. Consideration I believe that this breach is likely to undermine the viability of other shopping centres, particularly those close by such as St Saviours Road, East Park Road and Green Lane Road. Policies S8 and R08 of the Adopted and Draft Replacement Local Plans protects existing shopping centres by ensuring that new businesses locate within them rather than set up elsewhere. The loss of empoyment floor space particularly in areas such as this where jobs can be provided for people living in the immediate area is undesirable. Recommendation I recommend that the Town Clerk be authorised to issue the following notice: Enforcement Notice - Material Change of Use Steps to be Taken Cease use for retailing (Class A1) Reason 1.The use of the premesis for retailing outside a defined shopping area undermines the viability of nearby shopping centres by leading to loss of activity and choice in those centres. As such, the use is contrary to policy S8 of the Adopted City of Leicester Local Plan. 2.The use has resulted in a loss of floor space for employment in an area where such premises can offer job opportunities for a local population. As such, the use is contrary to policy E4 of the Adopted City of Leicester Local Plan. Period for Compliance One Month


14

APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR REFUSAL 20031800 14 AVEBURY AVENUE 10/09/2003 AREA: W WARD: Fosse DEV TWO STOREY EXTENSION AT SIDE OF HOUSE GS MR A S ILIFFE

Introduction This application relates to an extended detached house on the western side of Avebury Avenue to the north of Anstey Lane. Background This part of Avebury Avenue is on a steep slope with the floor level of 16 Avebury being approximately 1 metre higher than the application property. The side wall/chimney breast of 16 abuts the application site driveway. 16 has a small conservatory built within permitted development limitations. The conservatory is largely glazed in construction having obscure glazing on the southern side facing the application property. There is a bedroom window at first floor level approximately 0.8metres from the sidewall, approximately 0.75 metres wide. The application property has a two-storey rear extension (ref 19871725). Therefore the rear façade is 2.6metres deeper than the rear of the neighbouring properties. Planning permission was refused for a two storey extension similar to the current application (20020655) in September 2002 for the following reason:

‘The proposed extension because of its excessive depth, scale and bulk would be likely to have an adverse effect on the amenity of the adjoining dwelling by reason of loss of outlook and light, contrary to policy H6 of the City of Leicester Local Plan and the supplementary guidance ‘A design guide for house extensions’.


15

A subsequent appeal was dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate for the following reasons:

1. Due to the north-west orientation of the rear of the neighbouring property(16 Avebury Avenue) it has limited access to sunlight and daylight and any interruption would be noticeable inside the dwellings and in the gardens. The existing extended rear elevation of 14 Avebury Avenue is just at the limit of 2.4m as recommended in the design guide. The nearest corner of which lies at about 45° from the original rear ground floor window and the existing first floor window of the neighbouring property. As this guidance is to limit the loss of outlook or light, even if complied with other considerations such as orientation, levels or position may also apply. The existing two-storey rear extension already intercepts some direct sunlight causing some overshadowing to the rear conservatory. The proposed extension would be 0.3m from the side wall of 16 and the conservatory. Even accounting for the first floor setback and the 1 metre difference in levels of the properties, it would further reduce access to sunlight and significantly increase the overshadowing to the conservatory particularly in winter, causing substantial loss of light harming living conditions and in conflict with Policy H6.

2. The Inspector considered that the proposal is contrary to the terracing policy,

appearing to be joined to 16 Avebury Avenue therefore creating a terrace and changing the character of the street. He did not consider the proposal would appear as a subordinate feature. He refers to the 1 metre set back recommended by the design guidance (the scheme provided only a 0.5m setback).

3. The maintenance of the extension itself should be enabled by the provision of

a 1 metre gap (referred to as desirable in the design guide). He considers the creating of an inaccessible void between the properties failing to allow maintenance to the appellants extension and is not in the public interest.

The Proposal The original application comprises a two-storey side extension with a partly hipped roof, abutting the chimneybreasts of 16 Avebury. On the front façade the first floor is set back 0.5 metres. The ground floor indicated a garage of 1.85 m width (unlikely to accommodate a vehicle). The first floor at the rear was set back by 1 metre from the original proposal (1.6 metres beyond the neighbour�s bedroom window and ground floor living room window within the conservatory). The ground floor almost aligns with the rear of the neighbour�s conservatory. The current scheme is similar but the first floor rear elevation has been set back 1.7 metres now projects only 1 metre beyond the rear façade of 16 Avebury Avenue and is not beyond the 45° from the edge of the first floor or original dining room window. The single storey rear extension and mono-pitched roof remains 2.6metres beyond the original rear facade almost aligning with the rear of the neighbours conservatory. The proposal does not alter the position of the side gable wall that almost abuts the chimney breasts of 16 Avebury Avenue.


16

This scheme includes a front porch 1.5metres deep with a ridged roof to a height of 3.2m. The plans also refer to a connecting wall between the end of the single storey extension and an existing outbuilding 3.4 metres high. Development Plan Policies H6 Within the Primarily Residential Areas, permission normally granted for

residential development, subject to criteria. EN18 Extensions to houses should normally match the existing house in

materials, roof form, scale and proportion of openings. Policy Considerations Additional criteria are contained in supplementary guidance �A Design guide for house extensions and in Appendix 5 of the City of the Leicester Local Plan. This states:

Extensions should have a roof matching the main house in form, slope and material. Rear extensions. The following 45° rules are intended to prevent undue loss of daylight to neighbouring properties, to avoid excessive overshadowing of gardens, and preserve a reasonable standard of outlook.

A single storey rear extension on or close to the boundary should not go beyond a line taken at 45° from the centre of the ground floor window of any principal room in an adjoining property. A two-storey rear extension should not intersect a 45° line taken from the nearest point of the ground floor windows of any principal room in an adjoining property. Sunlight. An extension must not cause any significant loss of sunlight to principal rooms and gardens of neighbouring properties. Sunlight should be considered, even where extensions comply with the 45° rule, as this can depend on orientation, house layouts, changes in level between and position of adjoining properties.

They should be constructed of materials matching the original house. Where the street scene consists of a row of houses with relatively small spaces between them a series of two storey extensions built up to the side boundary of each plot is likely to create a terraced effect. To help reduce this effect side extensions should be set back a minimum of 1 metre. If this dimension would not accommodate an existing or proposed garage the setback can begin at first floor level. The infilling of gaps between residential buildings can harm the character of the street. A minimum gap of 1 metre between the side wall of a side extension and the boundary is desirable. This will allow access for refuse bins etc, and for maintenance. If building up to the boundary is unavoidable, then


17

the front wall of the extension should be set back behind the front elevation of the house by at least 1 metre to minimise the terracing effect. Permissions may not be given for an extension that will prevent access for maintenance of an adjoining house that is on or close to the boundary. These guidelines are general rules. The Council will consider each case separately when assessing the effects of an extension.

Representations An objection from the neighbour at 16 regarding the original proposal refered to the following concerns:

The proposal will deny access to 16 thus making maintenance to that side impossible. This conflicts with Appendix 5 and the design guide. He details concerns of inaccuracies on the amended plans regarding guttering positions and access to rainwater pipes and possible problems caused by defective rainwater collection from the extension. The proposal fails to harmonise with the surrounding area and should not infill the space between detached properties. The proposal causes a terracing effect contrary to policy. The rear part of the side extension will impact on light to the original lounge window, will dominate and will be oppressive when viewed from that window again contrary to policies. This may affect his �right to light� that could result in legal action against the applicant. The neighbour objects to the amended plans referring to the original report that suggests the proposal be flush with the rear façade of 16, and that as this proposal does not conform with that request it still has an unacceptable impact on outlook and light. He further requests members visit the site.

The objector re-iterates his original objections and also has concerns regarding the porch projecting forward of the building line. He also emphasises the Planning Inspector�s decision on the previous scheme. Councillor Green objects to the proposal as ward member, to the objector�s inability to gain access to maintain his property. Consideration The porch requires planning permission only by virtue of the height of the ridge roof. It will project forward of the building line but could be potentially built without planning permission with only a minor alteration.As it will not affect outlook from neighbouring front windows I do not consider this significantly detrimental to the street scene or neighbouring amenity. The previous scheme was refused for impact on outlook and light. However the planning inspector has added two further reasons; the inability for the occupier of the application property to maintain the extension, and the creation of a terracing impact. This scheme has not altered in terms of these issues. These matters are material considerations and must be taken into account when determining this application. I have the following comments:


18

1.Maintenance of the application property. The Inspector refers to the need for a 1 metre gap at the side of the extension. However the design guide refers to the desirability of such space and continues �If building up to the boundary is unavoidable, then the front wall of the extension should be set back behind the front elevation of the house by at least 1 metre to minimise the terracing effect.� It has not been the City Council�s policy or practice to insist on 1 metre gaps between side extensions and neighbouring properties. Such a move would deny extensions to houses that abut site boundaries. In this instance to reduce the width of the side extension by 1 metre would produce an unusable extension. Furthermore such a consideration would, if applied to all side extensions, deny garages being built abutting boundaries. I therefore consider the strict implementation of what is referred only as �desirable� would not be reasonable. 2. Terracing impact. The inspector considers that the extension being as close to the neighbouring property (0.3 metres) will appear to adjoin and therefore has the appearance of creating a terrace. He also does not consider the proposal appears as a subordinate feature. However there is a set back of 1.7m at the front in the current proposal and the ridge of the hipped roof will be 4.5 metres back from the front façade of the house. The front façade will remain the dominant feature when viewed from the highway, and by implication the extension will appear subordinate. The hipped roof slopes away from No 16, the ridged roof is significantly lower and the eaves level is 1 metre below that of the neighbours, and the front is 0.5 metres back from the neighbour�s façade. There will remain a gap of 0.3metres between the front corners. As such the proposal will not in my view appear to be a terrace. 3.Impact on amenity by reason of loss of outlook and light. The two-storey rear extension now accords with the 45° guidance when viewed from the original windows on the rear of 16 Avebury Avenue, similar in impact to the existing two storey extension. The key issue is the impact of the single storey rear extension and the boundary wall. A 2.4m deep single storey rear extension is normally considered acceptable on or near the boundary. The planning inspector attached significant weight to the loss of sunlight due to the orientation of the rear of these properties. He highlighted that even 2.4metre extensions may not be acceptable if it has significant impact due to orientation resulting in loss of sunlight. I consider the 3.4metre high wall (approximatey 2.4m high on the neighbours side) will result in a significant loss of sunlight, particularly in winter, to the conservatory of 16 contrary to Policy H6. Having given due consideration to the Planning Inspectors reasons I consider the issues remain finely balanced. However I consider the current proposal unacceptable and recommend REFUSAL for the following REASON: REASON 1. The proposed single storey rear extension because of its excessive depth,

would be likely to have an adverse effect on the amenity of the adjoining dwelling by reason of loss of light, contrary to policy H6 (b) of the City of


19

Leicester Local Plan and the Supplementary Guidance 'A design guide for house extensions'.

APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR REFUSAL 20031895 14 ALVASTON ROAD 25/09/2003 AREA: W WARD: Braunstone Pk & Rowley Fields DEV CANOPY TO FRONT, SINGLE STOREY AND TWO STOREY

EXTENSION AT SIDE AND REAR OF HOUSE.(AMENDED PLANS 02/12/2003)

AB MR A G SABUR

Introduction 14 Alvaston Road is a detached house within a residential street of similar detached and semi-detached houses. It is within an area allocated for primarily residential use in the Local Plan. Councillors Middleton and Seare have requested that this application be considered by your Committee. Background The house has been enlarged previously with a single storey side extension to form a flat roofed garage/utility room which was approved in 1979 (19782107). This extends up to the boundary with 16 Alvaston Road. The Proposal The proposal as submitted was to provide a first floor extension to the side of the house over the existing flat roofed side extension to form two additional bedrooms and a shower/WC room. This will adjoin the boundary with 16 Alvaston Road. The front elevation will be flush with the main front elevation whereas the side elevation will be recessed by approximately 0.9 metres on the first floor. The proposal will


20

extend for a total of approximately 1.8 metres beyond the main elevation at the rear of the house. A projecting canopy is also included on part of the front elevation. This will extend forward for 1.2 metres in line with an existing storm porch. Development Plan Policies EN18 Extensions to houses should normally match the existing house in

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

residential development, subject to criteria. Policy Considerations In addition to EN18 and H6 there are more detailed design guidelines relating to house extensions in Appendix 5 to the Local Plan. These require that side extensions should have a roof which matches that of the main house in form, slope and material. Where it cannot be demonstrated that a satisfactory match in materials is likely to be achieved, then the front wall of the extension should be set be set back a minimum of 100mm. To help reduce the terracing effect of two-storey side extensions in the street scene, where houses have relatively small spaces between them, the front elevations should be set back behind the main elevation by at least 1.0 metre. If this dimension would not accommodate an existing or proposed garage the set back can begin at first floor level. A minimum of 11 metres will normally be required between any two-storey elevation containing principal room windows and any site boundary other than a frontage to a highway, river or canal. For single storey dwellings shorter distances may be acceptable depending on design and orientation. Representations The occupiers of the adjoining houses were notified and I have received one letter of objection from those at 1 Lindsay Road. Their house adjoins the rear of the applicant's property and their concern is at being overlooked by the rear part of the proposal. They point out that the rear of the existing building is already relatively close to their rear boundary. They are concerned that, should it come any closer, especially at first floor level their privacy would be further compromised. Consideration The house is adjoined on either side by semi-detached houses of similar age and appearance, both of which have been enlarged with two-storey side extensions in the past. The house at 12 Alvaston Road has a two-storey side extension which was approved in 1996 (19960297). This was amended to provide a 100mm recess on the front elevation and inset by 1.0 metre from the boundary with the applicant's house (No.14) to minimise the terracing effect in the street scene. The first floor is also flush with the main elevation at the rear but the ground floor projects for a short distance of about 1.0 metre to the rear. The house at 16 Alvaston Road has a two storey flat roofed extension to the side which was approved in 1976 (19762017). This has a flush frontage and adjoins the


21

boundary with the applicant's house. It extends for approximately 7.5 metres along the side of the house stopping short of the rear elevation by about 2.0 metres such that the rear bedroom window would be likely to be adversely affected by the excessive depth of the proposal at the rear. I considered that the proposal, as submitted, would be likely to add to the terracing effect in the street scene. Accordingly I requested the applicant to consider amending this part of the proposal by setting the front elevation back by 1.0 metre, at least at first floor level, with a corresponding reduction in the height of the roof ridge in accordance with the above design guidelines. The rear part of the existing house is only about 10 metres away from the boundary of the rear garden to the objector's house at 1 Lindsay Road. The proposal would reduce this distance to approximately 8 metres against a requirement of a minimum of 11 metres to minimise overlooking and privacy problems specified in the above design guidelines. Accordingly I have also requested that the applicant consider reducing the depth of the rear part of the extension, at least at first floor level, to that of the existing house. The applicant has since submitted amended plans which now show a 300mm recess on the first floor front elevation with a corresponding reduction in the height of the roof ridge. However, there have been no alterations or reductions in the extent of the proposal at the rear. Given that there will also be a 900mm recess on the side elevation at first floor level as well I consider that the revised scheme addresses the issue of terracing in the street scene and a refusal would be difficult to sustain on these grounds, particularly as the adjacent house at No.12 has been built in a similar way. However, the proposal does not address my other area of concern at the rear of the proposed extension and I consider that the scheme is unacceptable on those grounds. However, the applicant has declined to amend the plans as requested. I consider that the extent of the two-storey extension at the rear is excessive and unacceptable in terms of loss of privacy and overlooking of the rear part of the neighbour's garden and to the outlook of the rear of the adjoining house. I therefore recommend that this application be REFUSED for the following reasons: REASON 1. The proposal, by reason of its design and exessive depth, would be

detrimental to the light and outlook of the rear of the adjoining house at 16 Alvaston Road and be detrimental to the privacy and amenity of the occupiers of 1 Lindsay Road at the rear contrary to the provisions of Policy H6 and design guidelines for house extensions in appendix 5 to the City of Leicester Local Plan.


22

APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR REFUSAL 20031999 27 WOODBINE AVENUE 28/10/2003 AREA: E WARD: Stoneygate DEV ROOFLIGHTS AT FRONT; DORMER WINDOW AT REAR OF

HOUSE AS T HOOLEY

Introduction This application relates to a mid terraced property located within a primarily residential area. The property is covered by an article 4 direction and is located within the South Highfields Conservation Area. The Proposal The applicant proposes to alter the existing kitchen by blocking up an existing doorway. The applicant also proposes to insert two roof lights to the front elevation. A roof light and a dormer window is proposed to the rear elevation. The dormer would be pitched roofed with bricks and tiles to match with timber windows. Development Plan Policies EN11 Development or demolition in Conservation Areas only approved if it

preserves or enhances the area's character. H6 Within the Primarily Residential Areas, permission normally granted for

residential development, subject to criteria. EN16 Works resulting from Article 4 Direction will normally be approved only if

character of building retained or reinstated.


23

Policy Considerations There are no further policy considerations relating to this type of development. Representations The Conservation Advisory Panel opposed the roof lights and the dormer window. A petition containing 23 signatures has been received objecting to the proposal on the grounds that �any alterations to the façade of a property must be in keeping with existing and surrounding properties. To do otherwise would be a contravention of the Listed Buildings Act and thus illegal�. Consideration The properties along either side of Woodbine Avenue are only separated by a footpath, with small gardens to the front. Those properties are all uniform with no roof alterations. To the rear of the property is Holy Trinity Church, which has a two storey flat roofed extension up to that boundary. The dormer and roof light to the rear would not be visible from the street. I consider that the alterations to the front are unacceptable and that the roof should remain unaltered. However, to the rear the proposal would not be visible from the street and overlooks a flat roofed modern extension and I do not consider that alteration would detract from the appearance of the Conservation Area. I have requested that the application be amended to remove the roof lights to the front elevation and to only alter the rear elevation. At the time of writing this report amended plans had not been received. IF A SATISFACTORY AMENDED SCHEME IS RECEIVED BEFORE THE MEETING I MAY BE ABLE CHANGE MY RECOMMENDATION TO ONE OF APPROVAL, but I consider the application as it stands to be unacceptable and I therefore recommend REFUSAL for the following reason: REASON 1. The insertion of roof lights to the front elevation would detract from the

appearance of the property and would not preserve or enhance the charcter of the South Highfields Conservation Area, thereby contrary to policies EN11 and EN16 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.


24

OTHER APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL 20030842 SYSTON STREET WEST, DYSART WAY 03/06/2003 AREA: E WARD: Latimer COU CHANGE OF USE FROM RETAIL SHOP (CLASS A1) TO

RESTAURANT,RETAIL OUTLET, TRAINING/EDUCATION AND FILMING FACILITY (NO USE CLASS)

JB2 MR Y B PATEL

Introduction The site is located between Dysart Way and Syston Street West, with access off the latter. The premises are currently in use as an electrical retail warehouse owned by the applicant (Class A1) but previously the Comet store. It is a single storey corrugated clad building with a pitched roof. There is a large car park to the east of the building for customers and a loading bay and access for delivery vehicles to the west. The area is typified by retail warehouse and wholesale cash carries but with a series of small industrial units at the end of Syston Street West. The site is located within a primarily employment area as allocated within the City of Leicester Local Plan. Background Approval was originally granted in 1971 for a wholesale electrical warehouse with the provision of 28 parking spaces (022144). At the time a condition was attached stating that it did not imply consent for the use of building as a showroom or for a retail sales or as a cash and carry shop or warehouse and that the area of the building with general public access being restricted to 23sq.m approximately.


25

However, an application was approved in 1980 for an increase in the sales area to 889m² (19800308). This was conditioned so that the premises shall be open for the display and sale of domestic appliance goods and ancillary equipment and not for any other products. This was primarily due to the land being allocated for employment use and not considered to be a satisfactory form of permanent development in the area. Two subsequent planning applications in 1986 (19860672) and in 1996 (19960690) increased the retail floor area by 454m² and then by a further 74m². The Proposal It is proposed to change the use from retail warehouse (Class A1) to restaurant, retail outlet and film studio (no use class). The original layout would provide seating for 140 covers at one time with a waiting/lounge area and associated kitchen, toilet facilities and office. The layout also shows rest facilities for camera crew and student chefs. Twelve staff are currently employed on site with this number being increased to sixteen with the proposed restaurant. The proposed hours of use are 1200 to 0030 Monday to Friday and 1200 to 0100 Saturday and Sunday. The existing car park with 22 spaces to the east of the building is proposed to serve the proposed restaurant with servicing/deliveries being accommodated to the west. No external alterations are proposed to the existing building as part of the application. Development Plan Policies E4 Within Primarily Employment Areas permission normally granted for B1, B2

and B8 uses and not for changes to other land uses. S8 Retail development outside Central Shopping Core will normally be

confined to shopping centres shown on the Proposals Map. S13 Use for class A1, A2 and A3 for local facilities outside defined centres

considered on merit against criteria. Policy Considerations The relevant polices of the Replacement Local Plan are as follows: Policy E03 states that within primarily employment areas planning permission will be granted for B1, B2 and B8 uses as appropriate, and not for other land uses unless special circumstances can be demonstrated. Policy R05 relates to local shopping centres and important function they serve and focus for the local community and their vital contribution to sustainable development and social cohesion. For these reasons the policy confines retail development outside the central core to identified shopping centres such as Belgrave Road. Policy R08 states that planning permission will not be granted for new local shops and facilities falling within the use classes A1, A2 and A3 outside the identified centres unless:


26

a) There is a need for additional local facilities in the area; b) Suitable sites and premises are not available shopping centres; c) The proposed development is easily accessible by foot, cycle and public

transport; d) Significant disturbance is unlikely to nearby residential areas; e) The traffic generated will not have a detrimental impact.

The concentration of Class A3 uses within identified centres is further reinforced in supplementary planning guidance �Guidelines for Class A3 Uses in Local District and Town Centres� Adopted April 2003. Representations One letter of support has been received from a local community organisation who consider that the proposal could offer wider entertainment and employment opportunities, which would enhance local provision. A petition of support signed by 260 signatures who consider that the development will improve and benefit the area. It is much needed investment, employment opportunities and support to the local community. Consideration The proposal is located within a defined employment area and is outside the closest local shopping centre at Belgrave Road and as such it would normally be contrary to both the employment and shopping policies of the Adopted and Replacement Local Plan and Supplementary Planning Guidance for A3 uses. However, whilst polices seek to retain such sites for primarily employment use Policy E03 of the Replacement Local Plan allows changes of use to occur within employment areas where special circumstances can be shown. Amongst others special circumstances may be shown where the use is ancillary or complimentary to and existing B-class use and redevelopment of the site would make an important contribution towards the urban environment. In justification of the need for the proposed development the applicant has stated that its use would be linked to their existing business operations �Falcon Cash and Carry� and the �Morrice� Brand (rice and spice mill and packaging) which is located in the premises on the opposite side of Syston Street West (no. 82). They have submitted a copy of the �Morrice� business plan, which shows a three phased investment and expansion plan for the brand centred in the Syston Street West premises. Phase three of the business plan particularly relates to the proposed restaurant and retail outlet. A restaurant/retail outlet attached to the business is aimed to facilitate the marketing and education programme to elevate the �Morrice� Brand. This film studio, through the production of cookery programmes and education courses will provide opportunities to taste ingredients and cuisines created by the �Morrice� range of products. It will also be used for the company to participate local community projects. It will be used as venue and forum or passport to export, facilities for presentation, entertainment of clients an exhibitions of the brand.


27

The proposed development is therefore aimed to diversify the existing businesses, but it also proposed to increase local employment and education, together with providing low cost daytime meals and international cuisine. The applicant has agreed to any planning approval for the development being conditioned to being ancillary to the main use of the business at 82 Syston Street West. The site is located at the edge of the Belgrave shopping centre. It is located in close proximity to the large Sainsburys retail store and the Peepul Centre and would form component part of a mixed use area of retail, employment and community uses. I therefore consider that it would form a logical part of this local centre. However, in order to control the area allocated within the premises as a restaurant and for retail use, the applicant has been asked to submit an amended plan showing the precise floor area for each of the proposed uses and any subsequent approval would be conditioned to restrict the mix of uses occurring to those specified on the amended plan only. Any increase in the area devoted to each use would then require the benefit of a further planning application and assessed at that time on its impact on the neighbouring local centre.. Finally, it must also be remembered that since being granted approval for the limited use of the premises for warehouse retail purposes in 1971, a series of subsequent planning approvals have increased the floor area to become predominantly retail (Class A1). The premises has therefore already changed from a B- class employment use and I consider that as a mixed use (Classes A1/A3/B1) development, the proposal would have a similar impact on the employment area and Belgrave Shopping Area and in terms of its traffic and amenity implications to its current class A1 use. I consider the size of the current car par to acceptable for the proposed development and to meet current car parking standards. The premises already has it�s own ventilation and extraction system and I consider it to be satisfactory. The applicant has asked for opening hours up to 0030 Monday to Friday and 0100 hours Saturday and Sunday. These proposed opening hours are not consistent with advice contained in the supplementary planning guidance for A3 uses and I recommend a condition restricting opening hours to 0730 to 2400 Mondays to Saturdays and 0730 to 2300 on Sundays. I consider the proposed use to be acceptable in light of the special circumstances outlined above and subject to the applicant�s agreement to the restrictive conditions and to the submission of an amended floor plan showing the precise breakdown of the floor area to be used for the restaurant, retail sale and for a film studio. I am still awaiting confirmation of the applicant�s agreement to these restrictive conditions and to the submission of the amended floor plan. SUBJECT TO THE RECEIPT OF THE APPLICANTS COMMENTS ON RESTRICTIVE CONDITIONS AND TO THE SUBMISSION OF AMENDED FLOOR PLANS I therefore recommend APPROVAL, subject to the following conditions:


28

CONDITIONS 1. (0101) START WITHIN FIVE YEARS 2. (0809) PARKING/SERVICE AREA RETAINED (%) (S13) 3. (0504) NO DETRIMENT FROM LIVE/AMPLIFIED MUSIC OR VOICE (%)

(S13) 4. (1007) VENTILATION SYSTEM INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED (%) (S13) 5. (1006) NO NOISE/VIBRATION FROM VENTILATION SYSTEM (%) (S13) 6. The premises shall be closed for business outside the hours of 0930 to

2400 Mondays to Saturdays and 0730 TO 2300 Sundays. (In the interests of residential amenity, and in accordance with policy S13 of

the City of Leicester Local Plan.) 7. The proposed development shall remain ancillary to the main business of

food production at 82 Syston Street West and shall not operate from the site as a separate business.

(The proposed development is considered to be acceptable as an ancillary use in light of the special circumstances presented by the applicant and would normally be contrary to policies S8 and E4 of the City of leicester Local Plan and policies R05 and E03 of the City of Leicester Local Plan)

8. (0901) AMENDMENTS RECEIVED ON (DATE)


29

OTHER APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL 20031298 64 GWENDOLEN ROAD 14/08/2003 AREA: E WARD: Spinney Hills EUD CERTIFICATE OF LAWFUL USE OR DEVELOPMENT AS SIX

BEDSITS AND ONE SELF-CONTAINED FLAT (CLASS C3) JP MR I AHMED

Introduction The application relates to a three storey semi-detached property located on the north side of Gwendolen Road, close to the junction with Dorothy Road. The property is located within a Primarily Residential Area. Background Planning permission was granted in 1968 for the erection of fire escape staircase at side of house in multiple occupation (68/07588). The Proposal Certificate of Lawful Use is sought for the use of the property as six bedsits and one self contained flat (class C3). For a Certificate to be granted for residential use, the applicant needs to be able to demonstrate that �on the balance of probabilities� the claimed use has continued for a periods of at least four years. Representations Adjoining occupiers were notified of the application. I have received two replies (one signed by 6 separate neighbours). The letters state that the property has been empty for some time and only housed one individual.


30

The letters also highlight concerns about the structure of the property and problems associated with parking and noise in the area. Consideration The applicant has submitted the following evidence in support of the application:

• Separate TV licensing requests for flats 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7, 64 Gwendolen Road (dated April 2003 and May 2003).

• Gas bill for flat 3, 64 Gwendolen Road. • Details of the 1968 planning approval for the external fire escape. • Estate agents specification detailing six bedsits and one flat.

I have requested further evidence from the applicant to cover the last 4 years, however, the applicant having recently purchased the property does not have any further information to submit. The City Council rates the property as one single dwelling (however, I have been advised that prior 1993 the property was rated as a house in multiple occupation). The evidence within the site file suggests that the property was divided up into six flats and one ground floor flat 1960s. It appears that this was how the property was used for some years before being occupied by one individual in the recent past. This corresponds with neighbour�s responses to the consultation. Having said that, following a visit to the property, it is clear from the physical divisions within the property that it has been used as 6 bedsits and one flat. There are 7 electricity meters outside the property. On entering the main house, each bedsit has its own lockable �front� door, with the each bedsit having a wash basin. Communal kitchens and toilets/wash areas are provided on the first and second floors. Residents concern�s regarding the impact of the flats, or the structure of the property, are not a material consideration in this application for a lawful development certificate. It appears, that the use of the property as six bedsits and one flat, on the balance of probability, has taken place some time in the past albeit that more recently only the ground floor flat has been occupied. As such, I am satisfied that, on the balance of probability, the use has taken place for 4 years and therefore recommend that a CERTIFICATE OF LAWFUL USE SHOULD BE ISSUED for six bedsits and one flat. CONDITION 1. The available evidence suggests, on the balance of probability, that the use

described commenced more than 4 years ago and would therefore be immune from enforcement action.


31

OTHER APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL 20031375 8-10 HIGHFIELD STREET 18/07/2003 AREA: E WARD: Stoneygate DEV THREE STOREY EXTENSION ADJACENT TO SHOP (CLASS

A1) TO FORM THREE SELF CONTAINED FLATS (CLASS C3) JP MR N RANA

Introduction The application relates to an area between numbers 8-10 and 12 Highfield Street. The adjoining properties are three storeys high with retail supermarket (Class A1) and a restaurant (Class A3) on the ground floors with residential above (Class C3). Terrace of properties on Victoria Avenue abut to he rear. The property is located within a designated shopping area and within the South Highfields Conservation Area. Background Planning permission was granted in 1987 for alterations to the existing first, second and third floor living accommodation to provide seven self contained flats at 8 � 10 Highfield Street (871699). An application has been received for the change of use of the basement at 8 � 10 Highfield Street from retail storage (Class A1) to restaurant (Class A3) with flue at rear (20032028). This can be found elsewhere on the agenda.


32

The Proposal A three-storey infill extension located between 8-10 and 12 Highfield Street is proposed, comprising three one-bedroomed flats. Each flat would consist of one bedroom and living room facing Highfield Street with a bathroom and separate kitchen at rear. The front elevation is set back from the two adjoining properties, and an arch over the existing ground floor loading area is proposed. The extension would have a half hipped roof with natural Welsh slates. Provision for bicycle parking is provided on the ground floor adjacent to the entrance. The application has been amended. As originally submitted the flats were 4.5m deeper, being 5.5m from the rear boundary of properties in Victoria Avenue for their full width. A bedroom at the rear has been omitted. The front elevation has been amended to be set back behind the existing roofs and to incorporate an arch over the existing loading area. Development Plan Policies H14 Permission normally granted for new flats and conversion to self-contained

flats, flatlets or cluster flats, subject to criteria. EN11 Development or demolition in Conservation Areas only approved if it

preserves or enhances the area's character. EN12 Development in Conservation Areas to take account of building scale, form,

materials and detail immediately surrounding. Policy Considerations Policy H14 of the city of Leicester Local Plan states that planning permission will normally be granted for the conversion of any property to self-contained flats provided the proposal is satisfactory in respect of, amongst other considerations, the arrangements for and consequent appearance of waste bin storage, the provision of adequate car parking, the provision where practicable of a garden and the extent to which a satisfactory standard of accommodation is provided. Appendix five of the City of Leicester Local Plan contains criteria setting out minimum distances of buildings from other buildings and site boundaries in order to safeguard privacy and outlook. A minimum of 11 metres distance will normally be required between any elevation containing principal room windows and any site boundary other than a frontage to a highway, river or canal. Between facing windows of two storey hoses where principal windows would be overlooked a minimum of 21m would be required. Policies EN11 and EN13 of the City of Leicester Local Plan state that new development in Conservation Areas will be approved only if it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area; and extensions to existing buildings in such areas will be expected to match the existing in form and materials of buildings. Consultations The Conservation Advisory Panel commented on the original proposal stating that there was no objection to infill in principle but the design and proportions needed to


33

be improved. The extension should be set back to avoid the cornice on the existing building; the opening could be arched to improve the appearance. The proportion of the window openings should match the adjoining properties. Natural slate/timber windows are required in this sensitive location. The amended application was reported to the Panel who consider the amended design an improvement on the original submission although they considered the proposed arch on the ground floor is too weak, spanning the whole width of the building; it should span only the width of the gates on the right hand side. Representations Site & press notices were posted and adjoining occupiers were notified about the original proposal. I received eight objections to the original proposal. Neighbours were reconsulted on the amended proposal and five objections were received. The objections are summarised as follows:

• Overcrowded development • Loss of light and overshadowing to properties in Victoria Avenue which are

already in the dark • Loss of privacy to Victoria Avenue • Increase in parking and traffic in an already congested and heavily parked

area • Building would trap cooking smells and pollution • Conservation area does not need to be built up any further • Density in area already high • Impact of building works and use of Victoria Avenue rear alley causing

disturbance Consideration The main issues to consider are the standard of accommodation provided and the impact of the proposal on the Conservation Area and adjoining occupiers. The self-contained accommodation is adequate with outlook onto Highfield Street. No parking is proposed for the flats however the building is close to the city centre, London Road (a main public transport route) and the railway station. I do not therefore consider the lack of parking to be a problem. The existing loading bay is required for the shop and I have recommended a condition be attached so that it remains unobstructed for the purpose of serving the shop. Cycle parking has been provided. There is no scope for amenity space to be provided, however, having regard to the character of the adjoining development, this would not warrant a refusal in itself. The internal layout of the proposed flats is satisfactory. All principal room windows are located on the front elevation of the building facing Highfield Street. Those windows on the rear elevation are approximately 12m from the rear boundary and serve bathrooms. There would therefore be no significant increase in over looking into the rear gardens of properties on Victoria Avenue. The properties on Victoria Avenue have bathroom windows within the back additions located 6m from the rear boundary. The bedroom windows are located over 11m from the proposed extension and over 18m from the main body of the extension.


34

Given the distance I do not consider there would be a significant loss of light to these windows. There are no rights to views under planning legislation as such, however, developments should not unreasonably impact on adjoining occupiers in terms of loss of outlook. The properties on Victoria Avenue are at a lower level than Highfield Street. The pitched roof of the single-storey store currently at the rear of 8-10 already obstructs the view towards Highfield Street and this would be removed. I do not consider the proposed extension would have an unreasonable impact on light and outlook over and above that already experienced. The infill extension would preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The detailing and proportions of the proposed timber windows and cills match the adjoining properties. The applicant has advised that they are willing to amend the front arch as suggested by the Conservation Advisory Panel. SUBJECT TO RECEIVING AMENDED PLANS detailing the front arch, I consider the amended proposal acceptable and recommend APPROVAL subject to the following conditions: CONDITIONS 1. (0101) START WITHIN FIVE YEARS 2. (0301) MATERIALS (WALLS AND ROOF) TO BE AGREED (%) (EN11 &

H14) 3. The rear windows shall be finished in obscured glazing at the time of

installation and maintained as such. (In the interests of residential amentity and in accordance with policy H14 of

the City of Leicester Local Plan). 4. The loading area shall be retained soley in connection with the retail use

and not used in connection with the residential flats. (In the interests of highway safety in accordance with policy H14 of the City

of Leicester Local Plan). 5. (0903) PLANS AMENDED (AMENDED BY; RECEIVED ON)


35

OTHER APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL 20031538 21 QUEEN STREET, COURTAULD BUILDING 14/08/2003 AREA: C WARD: Castle DEV NINE & ELEVEN STOREY BUILDING FOR 100 FLATS (CLASS

C3) INCLUDING BASEMENT LEVEL & CAR PARKING MRC QUEEN STREET APARTMENT CO LTD

Introduction The Site forms part of the Courtauld�s former factory complex situated on the south side of Queen Street. Part of the complex faces onto St. George Street and adjoins the Grade II listed St. George�s Church and Churchyard to the south. The west part of the site is adjoined by a mixed use building comprising a hairdressing salon, night-club and snooker club and opposite this is the vacant Odeon Cinema, which are both Grade II listed. The site is within a primarily employment area as identified in the City of Leicester Local Plan and is within St. George�s Conservation Area. The site lies within the St. George�s Cultural Quarter, which will continue to see high levels of investment in the immediate area in order to continue the levels of urban regeneration the area has experienced recently. Background In 2000 planning permission was granted creating through a mixture of demolition, new build and conversion for 251 flats. Development is phased and the main �U� shaped building (Block A) on Queen Street was converted as phase 1, which comprises of 131 flats.


36

Phase 2, at that time, was to be the erection of new Block C located on the corner of Queen Street and St. George Street. The approved scheme was for a 9-storey building incorporating a curved glazed tower on the junction of the two streets. Phase 3 and the site of the current application related to Block B comprising of an �L� shaped eight storey section fronting Queen Street with a four storey wing at right angles to the rear. Also included as part of Block B was the conversion of the two-storey Mews Building to flats and a management office. This section of the overall site has a close relationship to the St. George�s Church and its environs and the former Odeon Cinema. In March 2002 another planning application (20010919) was approved as a revised scheme for Block �B� comprising eight storey building for 69 flats; associated car parking and landscaped courtyard. The Proposal This scheme is another revised scheme for Block B, still proposes an �L� shaped building and the main elevation will still face Queen Street and also overlook St. Georges Churchyard. However, the main building (25m high compared to the previous scheme 23m in height) will have nine floors and introduces modifications to the external design and increases the depth and height of the rear wing. A part of the building would have two additional floors and would appear in the form of a tower with a total height of 33m. The development would accommodate 100 residential units comprising 8 two-bedroom flats, 45 one-bedroom flats, 18 studios and 29 one-bedroom duplex apartments. The application approved in 2001 was for 69 apartments comprising 56 one bedroom apartments, ten two bedroom apartments and three two bedroom duplex apartments spread over eight floors. The application approved in 1999 resulted in 66 apartments. To the rear of the building 21 car parking spaces are shown adjacent the churchyard, at a lower level than the churchyard similar to the previous scheme. Vehicle access to the parking area is adjoining its western boundary. The access incorporates a rumble strip with gates set towards the rear of the building in order to provide sight lines. The bin storage area would be located to the left of the site adjoining an existing two storey building with a direct access from Queens Street. The design of the building uses a mixture of materials and glazing elements to emphasis the verticality of the building. The front elevation includes projecting vertical bays, which run almost the full height of the building; these contribute further to reinforcing the verticality of the façade. Window casements to the front are to be aluminium. The use of contrasting brickwork and coloured cladding would reflect traditional elements in a modern interpretation. A design statement was submitted as part of the initial application under 19991215. Development Plan Policies EN1 In areas of character, development should reinforce established pattern of

built form, spaces and movement routes. EN2 In areas of little character, development should give stronger identity

through the layout of buildings and new spaces.


37

EN3 Development adjoining public spaces or thoroughfares must provide positive and attractive built frontages.

EN4 No permission for poor quality or inappropriate designs. High quality design expected in City Centre and Conservation Areas.

EN5 High quality modern design normally permitted where existing surroundings have been taken into consideration.

EN10 Development affecting the setting of listed buildings will not normally be approved if it would have a detrimental effect.

EN12 Development in Conservation Areas to take account of building scale, form, materials and detail immediately surrounding.

EN19 Design and layout of new housing development should satisfy criteria. EN34 Tall buildings will be permitted where they meet specified design and

locational criteria. EN62 Provision of new works of art as part of major developments and their

contribution to the development and the amenities of the area. H6 Within the Primarily Residential Areas, permission normally granted for

residential development, subject to criteria. H8 New residential development density should normally be compatible with

the area. Higher densities may be appropriate in some cases. H14 Permission normally granted for new flats and conversion to self-contained

flats, flatlets or cluster flats, subject to criteria. H28 Special consideration given to the construction and internal arrangement of

premises to minimise potential noise disturbance. T17 Bicycle parking facilities to be provided in a form and location allowing

surveillance, improving security for cycles and people. T29 Development shall create a safe and convenient environment for

pedestrians on paths within the site and on footways alongside. Policy Considerations The site is located within Central Commercial Zone (Zone 2) as defined in the Supplementary Planning Guidance for �Vehicle Parking Standards� adopted in 2002. The maximum parking provision within this zone is one space per dwelling. Consultations The application as originally submitted was reported to the Conservation Advisory Panel. The Panel felt the proposal building was too high, too dense and the upper section is proposed to be built in inappropriate materials (metal cladding). It would represent over-development of the site. The panel considered that the overall height and scale of building would have an overbearing impact on adjacent buildings (including the listed building 43 Rutland Street and St George�s Church) on St George�s Churchyard and on the character/appearance of the Conservation Area. The height (23m) approved under planning application (20010919) in 2001 matched the height of adjacent buildings and should be the maximum. The City Archaeologist does not consider that there would likely to any significant surviving archaeology in the site. The Georgian Group has made no comments on the proposal as the buildings on site are outside the period on which the group is interested.


38

Representations I have received an email form Civic Society objecting the proposal on the grounds that • The design is ugly and unimpressive and does no credit to the Conservation

Area and the street scene; • Extra traffic to the area would be safety hazard; • No account of needs of disabled people is taken; • The proposal is over development on a massive scale. Consideration The principle of residential development has already been established with the approval of two previous applications for the site. The site is within the St Georges South Cultural Quarter as defined in the second deposit of the Replacement City of Leicester Local Plan where residential is a priority use. Therefore, in principle additional housing is welcomed as it will add to the vitality of the City Centre, contribute to the brown field housing target and continue the regeneration of the St Georges area. The design of the frontage has a vertical emphasis, which is one of the design elements along Queen Street. Also the plinth of the building addresses the street in a similar but not identical way to the Courtauld�s Building. The rear wing overlooks and encloses the churchyard providing activity and security in an area that would otherwise remain devoid of any natural surveillance. I consider that the creation of apartment blocks will also encourage more activity, interest and investment in the area. The revised design and form of the building will in my opinion do more to enhance and preserve the character of St. George�s Conservation Area and the integrity of the existing buildings on the site than the building approved under the previous planning permissions, provided some reduction in height is made. I will be negotiating with the agent in this respect and report at the meeting. I consider that the current proposal represents an improvement in design terms and in respect of its relationship to other buildings in the immediate vicinity. Certainly the ratio of space to buildings has improved and more of the retained Courtauld's Building is reintroduced into the townscape, particularly when viewed from the churchyard. Additional 20 cycle parking spaces are to be provided in the main building as this is more readily monitored by full time staff and benefits from the recently installation of CCTV. The means of escape are contained within the envelope of the building. The site faces a few existing industrial premises, some of which have 24-hour uses Block B will also adjoin an unrestricted night club (D2) use. Given this, there could


39

be potential noise problems to future occupiers, particularly in the summer months. I have therefore recommended a condition, which requires the use of acoustic glazing on the building. The applicant also intends that the design of Block B will incorporate insulation to deal with the perceived problem from the night club. The site is within the city centre where public transport is very accessible, therefore, I am of the view that the current level of parking (21 spaces) would be acceptable. The applicant had at the time of the previous application supported the principle of art within the scheme. I suggest that, with the agreement of the Arts Officer, railing detailing on the building would be an ideal opportunity to form some element of functional art that is highly visible. Therefore, I would recommend that a condition and a �note to applicant� to be attached to address this issue. The proposal is likely to assist in the development of St. George�s Cultural Quarter. I consider that the residential proposal will provide a mix of accommodation, which in turn will broaden the cross section of people living in St, Georges and provide increased vitality and surveillance in the area outside normal business hours. In light of the existing planning permissions, which could be implemented, the proposal represent a positive enhancement of the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and an improvement on the previous schemes. Since the moratorium for affordable housing has expired in October, all applications for 25 or over units are subject to affordable housing requirement. The Director of Housing has requested 30% provision on site of which 7% should be to Housing Corporation wheelchair standards and 8% to Leicester City Council Access Standard with the remaining to the Housing Corporation Access Standards. The Housing Department has requested that 30 properties should be provided for affordable housing comprising 20 two bed, 10 one bed flats. However, there are outstanding planning permissions, that granted in 2002 for 69 flats, without the requirement of affordable housing, which is a material planning consideration for this application. The current scheme is to provide 31 additional units; requiring 30 properties to be affordable is in my view unreasonable. I will be negotiating with the applicant with a view to achieve some affordable housing on site and outcome of my negotiation would be reported at the meeting. SUBJECT TO RECEIPT OF A SATISFACTORY AMENDED SCHEME TO REFLECT SOLUTIONS TO CONCERNS RELATING TO THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING, WORKABLE PARKING ARRANGEMENTS AND POSSIBLE CONTRIBUTIONS TOWARDS AFFORDABLE HOUSING, I RECOMMEND APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: CONDITIONS 1. (0101) START WITHIN FIVE YEARS 2. (0302) MATERIALS TO BE AGREED (FOR; %) (walls, roof and colour

cladding; EN18) 3. Before the development is begun, a scheme shall be submitted to and

approved with the City Council as Local Planning Authority for an additional 20 secure cycle parking spaces on the site or adjoining buildings under the


40

control of the applicant. The approved scheme shall be completed in respect of each part of development before Block B is occupied and shall be retained for the use of tenants at all times.(To secure satisfactory form of development)

4. (0406) LANDSCAPING TO BE AGREED & CARRIED OUT: VERSION 2

(%) (EN55) 5. The parking spaces shown on the approved plans shall be provided at the

time of development and shall be retained. (To secure adequate off-street parking provision, and in accordance with

policy T12 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.) 6. (0812) TURNING SPACE WITHIN SITE (%) (T12) 7. At the same time as the remainder of the development, all parking and

circulation areas shall be surfaced and marked out in accordance with details which shall first have been agreed in writing with the City Council as local planning authority, and shall be retained and not used for any other purpose.

(To ensure that parking can take place in a satisfactory manner, and in accordance with policy T12 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.)

8. (0201) SIGHT LINES TO ACCESS (%) (T28 and T29) 9. (0205) PROVISION OF FOOTWAY CROSSING(S) (%) (T29) 10. (0206) ALTERATIONS TO FOOTWAY CROSSING(S) (%) (T29) 11. (0203) PEDESTRIAN CROSSING POINTS (%) (T29) 12. Before the development is begun details of a public work of art, craft or

other feature, which is visible from public vantage points and incorprated as part of the external fabric of the site's development, shall be submitted and agreed with the City Council as Local Planning Authority and shall be provided within one year of the buildings being occupied and shall be retained. (In the interests of enhancing the amenities of the site and in accordance with policy EN62 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.)

13. The facades of Block B shall be fitted with acoustic glazing, details of which

shall be agreed in writing with the City Council as Local Planning Authority before the development is begun (In the interests of the amenities of future occupiers and in accordance with policy H28 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.)

14. Before the development is begun details of the design, position and

materials for the provision of security gates to the access points shall be submitted to and agreed with the City Council as Local Planning Authority. All security gates shall be set back a minimum of 5 metres from the back of the footway and retained at in that position at all times. (In the interests of the security of future occupiers)


41

15. Before the development is begun details of any proposed external security fittings within the site shall be submitted to and agreed with the City Council as Local Planning Authority. (In the interests of visual amenity)

16. (0411) SURFACING/BOUNDARY TREATMENT ETC TO BE AGREED (%)

(EN1) 17. (0207) REINSTATE REDUNDANT FOOTWAY CROSSINGS/FOOTWAY 18. Before the development is begun a scheme for lighting within the site shall

be submitted to and agreed with the City Council as Local Planning Authority and shall include details of: a) location of points of illumination b) the nature and design of the lighting source; c)the illumination (candela) levels in the evening. The approved scheme shall be completed in respect of each part of development before that part of the development is occupied and shall be retained.(To achieve a satisfactory form of development)

19. Notwithstanding the Town and Country (General Permitted Development)

Order 1995, no permitted development rights are granted for satelite dishes or antenna. (In the interests of visual amenity)


42

OTHER APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL 20031598 19 WIMBORNE ROAD 10/09/2003 AREA: W WARD: Knighton DEV TWO STOREY HOUSE SSB MR & MRS D PALLOT

Introduction 19 Wimborne Road is a detached dwelling with a street frontage of 20.3m . Generally in the area the dwellings are of a pleasant traditional brick and render design on plots ranging in width from approximately 11.5m in width to 15metres. The area is entirely residential in character. Background A previous proposal, submitted in outline for one dwelling, was refused in January 2003 ( 20021391) on the grounds that the site was too narrow to accommodate a house of the size and type characteristic of those in the immediate vicinity. The Proposal This current proposal attempts to address those reasons by the submission of a fully detailed scheme. A two bedroomed property is proposed of approximately 166sq metres with parking for two vehicles on the front forecourt. In addition a small basement level store and utility room is proposed. The design replicates the appearance of the adjoining properties using render and brick detailing and the provision of a bay window and chimney. Development Plan Policies EN17 Infill development in housing areas should normally conform to the

prevailing scale, density, site coverage and materials.


43

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

Policy Considerations Emerging policies are contained within the Replacement Local Plan :- Policy H11 generally accepts the provisions of Policy H6 in the Local Plan Policy HO2 states that proposals for housing development on windfall sites will be considered against the existing land use and compatibility with adjoining uses and on design and quality Policy UD01 states that development should be designed with regard to the local context. Consultations Borough of Oadby and Wigston :No observations. Representations 1 letter from occupier of 21 Wimborne Road who has no objections. 1 letter of objection signed by 10 residents of Wimborne Road on the grounds of :- a) Plot not large enough to accommodate a dwelling in keeping with the area b) Design is a scaled down version of others in the area and there is no garage c) Building is squeezed into the plot d) Concern at traffic safety e) Will have a detrimental effect upon the general character of the area 9 further letters of objection on grounds of a) not in keeping with area b) concerns over traffic safety c) no external access to rear d) opposite a road junction and will create a potential accident prone area e) will obscure open views of the golf course Consideration The previous refusal was primarily based upon the lack of information concerning the appearance of the dwelling and its relationship to the street scene. Wimborne Road is characterised by reasonably large houses with attractive bay window detailing in a mixture of brick and render finishes. In terms of the design of the dwelling the applicant has attempted to produce a dwelling which is complementary in detailing to those around it. In particular it has a large bay window , chimney and is a virtual replica of the adjoining dwelling at No. 15 ,albeit without an attached garage. It is considered that the design is satisfactory. The majority of dwellings in Wimborne Road are built close to their boundaries and in visual terms the streetscene is one of a suburban character with little or no space around the dwellings. The proposed site is in fact the only open frontage along this section of Wimborne Road and to develop it would maintain that streetscene. If the proposal were for a two storey extension to the main house for example, then in development control terms it would be considered acceptable. Parking is available on site for two vehicles to the front of the dwelling and there is no highway objection to the proposal.Furthermore the plan allows for a maintenance strip of 1 metre between the proposed dwelling and No. 19. With regard to the third party concerns, Wimborne Road is a comparatively quiet cul- de- sac in traffic terms, and it is not considered that the addition of one dwelling


44

could cause a traffic hazard even though it is near a traffic junction. Many of the objections refer to the dwelling being squeezed into the plot but within the street itself most of the dwellings are built very close to their boundaries and it is the detailing and design of the dwellings which create an attractive streetscene. It is considered that on balance the proposal is acceptable and conforms to the policy for infill development in terms of scale ,materials and site coverage. Appropriate and attractive front boundary treatment can be secured by condition to avoid an open plan frontage and maintain the character of the area. I recommend APPROVAL subject to the following conditions :- CONDITIONS 1. (0101) START WITHIN FIVE YEARS 2. (0201) SIGHT LINES TO ACCESS (%) (H6) 3. (0205) PROVISION OF FOOTWAY CROSSING(S) (%) (H6) 4. (0301) MATERIALS (WALLS AND ROOF) TO BE AGREED (%) (EN17) 5. (0411) SURFACING/BOUNDARY TREATMENT ETC TO BE AGREED (%)

( EN17) 6. (0912) NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS/ALTERATIONS (CLASS; %) (A;

EN17) 7. (0901) AMENDMENTS RECEIVED ON (DATE) (1st October 2003)


45

OTHER APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL 20031781 43 SHIRLEY ROAD 01/10/2003 AREA: W WARD: Knighton COU CHANGE OF USE OF GROUND FLOOR OF HOUSE (CLASS

C3) TO DAY NURSERY (CLASS D1) SSB MR P CHENEY

Introduction The site comprises of a detached bungalow, with rooms in the roof space, that lies within a primarily residential area and within the Stoneygate Conservation Area.The property is in an elevated position and fronts Shirley Road.There is a forecourt area to the front of the dwelling currently used as a garden and it is served by a single vehicular access from Shirley Road. Background A similar proposal for a day nursery at the premises was approved conditionally at the Development Control Committee of the 29th July 2003 [20030792] and was also subject to a Section 106 Agreement requiring the provision of a mini bus service for the nursery. This application was withdrawn before the Agreement was concluded and no planning permission was issued. The Proposal It is proposed to change the use of the dwelling to a day nursery [Class D1] for 30 pre-school children aged 0 to 5 years. The business would employ 5 staff and a nursery manager and be open between the hours of 08.00 to 17.30 Mondays to Fridays only. The first floor accommodation would be retained as a managers flat. A car park for 6 vehicles would be provided to the front and side of the property and the access modified to provide 2m by 2m visibility splays.


46

The applicant is willing to undertake a Section 106 Agreement requiring a mini bus service for parents. He already operates such a service from his other day nursery premises at 279 London Road and has found such a service to be very popular with parents. Development Plan Policies C8 Permission normally granted for the establishment of day care facilities for

children under 8 subject to criteria. Policy Considerations The Replacement Local Plan Policy CL 1 states that planning permission will be granted for the establishment of day care facilities provided that :- A] the activities which take place do not cause nuisance to people living nearby B] traffic does not cause nuisance or danger to other people using the streets nearby or to children attending the nursery C] there is no adverse effect on the character of the area; More detailed guidelines are also provided in the City Councils Supplementary Planning Guidance " Planning Policies for Private Day Nurseries " approved in 1988 and amended in 1991, 1992 and February 1995. Supplementary Planning Guidance: Vehicle Parking Standards [Sept 2002] sets out parking standards for D1 Non- residential institutional uses indicating a maximum of 1 space per 22 sq m and a target reduction of upto 50 % in this outer area if criteria are satisfied. Representations 24 letters of objection have been received on the grounds of :- - Increased congestion and volume of traffic on a quiet residential road - Shirley Road is already a rat run during the daily rush hour and this proposal will

exacerbate problems - Inappropriate use in a residential area - Already well served by such uses and therefore unnecessary - Adverse impact on environmental character - Increased hazards from increased use of a poor vehicular access - Concerns over increased parking in the area - Concerns over loss of amenity due to noise of children - Added pollution - A day nursery is a commercial enterprise with its inevitable advertising board,

would lead to impact on residential character - Close proximity of an electricity sub station to the site which could affect the

health of the children - Will create a potential hazardous traffic situation in the area Consideration Policy C8 of the City of Leicester Local Plan and the City Council's supplementary planning guidance " Planning Policies for Private Day Nurseries " 1995 accepts the principle of day nurseries within primarily residential areas subject to criteria.


47

The material considerations in this case relate to the impact of the nursery on residential amenity, the impact upon the character of the area and its traffic implications. Impact upon residential amenity Subject to the imposition of conditions limiting the hours of use of the premises to 08.00 to 17.30 Mondays to Fridays only, limiting the use of the rear garden to 8 children at any one time, and the provision of an insulation scheme to prevent the transmission of noise to adjacent properties, I do not consider the nursery would result in serious harm to the amenities of nearby residents. A condition would also be imposed ensuring the occupation of the flat be restricted to ancillary accommodation in connection with the nursery. Impact upon the visual character of the area The property is located within the Stoneygate Conservation Area and as such development should respect and enhance its character. In this instance there are no external alterations proposed and therefore its residential appearance will be maintained. The proposal will result in some additional parking within the curtilage and this can be softened by additional planting. I do not consider the proposal will harm the visual character of the area or impact unduly upon the street scene. The proposal will retain the mature hedge and trees to the front of the property although this will require some hedge removal to accommodate the visibility splays. The proposed parking area close to tree on the frontage will need to be surfaced with porous material to ensure its continued health. Impact upon the highway network Despite residents concerns, Shirley Road is a relatively wide road with no parking restrictions, and any increase in traffic would not impede the safe and free flow of traffic on that road. The proposed carpark indicates 6 spaces and based upon the current standards 7 spaces would be required. However this requirement could be discounted by 50% if certain criteria such as proximity to public transport routes are satisfied. In this case London Road is within easy walking distance of the site and I consider the provision of 6 spaces is adequate for a day nursery of this size. To assist in reducing traffic movements the applicant has also agreed to provide a mini bus service to all parents. He already operates this service at his other premises at 279 London Road and this has proved highly successful.In addition he believes several families will walk to the site because of a strong local demand for this facility. On this basis I do not consider that any potential increase in traffic will significantly impact upon highway safety. With regard to the concerns expressed by residents over the close proximity of the electricity sub station there is no evidence to suggest it will be harmful to health. In conclusion this proposal is virtually identical to that approved in July and circumstances have remained unchanged since that approval which was also preceded by a Members site visit. I therefore consider the site to be acceptable for the use subject to restrictive conditions to reduce its impact upon residential amenity


48

and highway safety and a Section 106 Agreement requiring a mini bus service . I RECOMMEND THAT THE APPLICATION BE APPROVED subject to the following conditions :- CONDITIONS 1. (0101) START WITHIN FIVE YEARS 2. The proposed day nursery shall accommodate no more than 30 children at

any time unless otherwise agreed in writing with the City Council as Local Planning Authority.

(In the interests of residential amenity and to minimise the number of traffic movements associated with the site, in the interests of highway safety and in accordance with policy C8 and T12 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.)

3. No more than 8 children shall be permitted to play outside at any one time. (In the interests of the amenity of nearby occupiers.) 4. Details of the kitchen ventilation equipment, including any external flue,

shall be submitted to and agreed by the City Council as local planning authority,prior to the day nursery being brought into use and shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the agreed details.

(In the interests of the amenity of nearby occupiers and preserving the character of the Stoneygate Conservation Area and in accordance with policy C8 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.)

5. The use shall not be carried on outside the hours of 0800hrs to 1730hrs

Monday to Friday. (In the interests of the amenities of nearby occupiers, and in accordance

with policy C8 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.) 6. (0406) LANDSCAPING TO BE AGREED & CARRIED OUT: VERSION 2

(%) (C8) 7. (0409) RETAIN EXISTING TREES/SHRUBS/HEDGES (%) (C8) 8. The surfacing of the parking and turning area within 8m of the large oak

tree on the adjacent site at 41 Shirley Road shall be constructed in porous materials in accordance with a method and specification that has first been agreed in writing with the City Council as local planning authority. The construction of the surfacing shall be in general accordance with that described in the Aboricultural Advisory and Information service publication:'Driveways Close to Trees'.

(In the interests of visual amenity.) 9. A daily collection and delivery service for the children shall be provided and

shall commence operation as soon as the proposed nursery has opened to children and shall carry on thereafter for the duration of its operation. The precise details of the service shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the City Council as Local Planning Authority.

(To minimise traffic generation and in the interests of highway safety and in accordance with policy C8 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.)


49

10. Notwithstanding the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987

the property shall only be used as a day nursery and not for any other use falling within Class D1 (non-residential institutional use).

(The City Council would wish to give separate consideration to other uses within Use Class D1 in the interests of residential amenity and highway safety.)

11. The parking spaces shown on the approved plans shall be provided before

the use begins and shall be retained. (To secure adequate off-street parking provision, and in accordance with

policy T12 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.) 12. The proposed first floor residential flat shall remain ancillary to the main use

of the property as a day nursery. (In the interests of residential amenity and in accordance with policy C8 of

the City of Leicester Local Plan). 13. (0504) NO DETRIMENT FROM LIVE/AMPLIFIED MUSIC OR VOICE (%)

(C8) 14. (0201) SIGHT LINES TO ACCESS (%) (T12and T29) 15. (0206) ALTERATIONS TO FOOTWAY CROSSING(S) (%) (T29) 16. (0502) INSULATION SCHEME (%) (C8)


50

OTHER APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL 20032023 CONDUIT STREET / ANDOVER STREET 30/10/2003 AREA: C WARD: Castle LA3 THREE STOREY HOMELESS ACCOMMODATION, DAY

CENTRE AND HEALTH CENTRE (NO USE CLASS), ASSOCIATED CAR PARKING AND LANDSCAPING, 2M HIGH BOUNDARY FENCE, WORKS TO TREES PROTECTED BY A TREE PRESERVATION ORDER

MRC LEICESTER CITY COUNCIL Introduction The application site is on the south-eastern side of Conduit Street at the junction with Andover Street. The site is currently vacant but used on a temporary basis on Fridays as a car park for visitors to the Mosque. A small part of the site covers the adjoining contract car park. Most of the land on this side of Conduit Street is currently used for car parking. Abutting the south-eastern boundary of the site are the rear gardens of the two/three storey residential properties fronting Lincoln Street and a metal fabrication works, which fronts Andover Street. This site has outline planning permission for houses. On the opposite side of Conduit Street are offices, a public house and light industrial units, to the north-east of which is the Leicester Central Mosque. The site abuts the South Highfields Conservation Area, the boundary of which runs along the rear of the Lincoln Street properties. There are trees within the gardens of the Lincoln Street properties adjacent to the site boundary, which are the subject of a Tree Preservation Order. This section of Conduit Street is subject to a Highways Improvement Line. Background There is no relevant previous planning history at the site. The Proposal The proposed multi-disciplinary centre would provide integrated facilities for homeless people including 41 bedrooms, a daycentre and a primary healthcare centre. The aim is to provide accommodation, education, training and support, as well as medical advice under one roof. This will involve the relocation of the existing Nightshelter in New Walk, Y Day Centre in Pocklington�s Walk and the Homeless Primary Care Team (including mental health outreach workers). One of the aims of the integrated approach is to overcome the problem of both clients and staff having to move between different facilities in the City Centre and therefore to reduce the number of homeless people present in the street. The proposed building would be 3 storeys in height, with a single storey element at the rear and fronting Andover Street. The building would be angled at the corner of Andover Street and Conduit Street. It would be of a modern design, with a flat roof with raised mono-pitched roof elements. The three storey flat roofed element at the


51


52

rear would have a height of 9.6m, with the highest part of the mono-pitched roof having a height of 11.9m where it fronts Conduit Street. The front elevation of the building would be constructed of brickwork, wooden panelling, copper panelling and glazing as well as render. The rear elevation would be mainly of brick with render. There would be a distance of between 24.5 and 27m between the windows in the rear first and second floor elevation of the proposed building and the first floor windows in the rear wings of the houses fronting Lincoln Street. Between the same windows in the proposed building and the windows at first and second floor level in the main rear elevation of the Lincoln Street dwellings there would be between 32.5 and 34.5m. There would be between 8m and 9.75m between the first and second floor windows of the proposed building and the rear boundary of the site. 5 car parking spaces, along with a turning and service area, would be provided to the north-east of the building with access gained from Conduit Street. Access to the building would be via a main entrance fronting Conduit Street. Of the 41 bedrooms, 9 would be located on the ground floor, 15 on the first floor and 17 on the second floor. Of these bedrooms, 6 could be used by disabled persons, and 2 of them would be double rooms. 2 of the ground floor rooms would have external kennels attached. The ground floor would also contain the reception area and offices as well as counselling and consulting rooms in addition to the kitchen and dining room. The rear garden would be partitioned, have a depth of between 6.8m and 9.75m and would be accessed from the Y Centre and the dining room. The garden would be separated from the Lincoln Street properties by a 2m high fence. The first floor would contain offices, staff rooms, and an activities and TV lounge. The second floor would also contain a TV lounge in addition to a quiet room, offices and a training / seminar room. Most of the windows in the rear elevation of the building would serve the bedrooms. The hostel element of the proposal would be staffed by a manager and 2 assistant hostel managers in addition to 11 duty officers. There would be 3 night workers as well as a domestic team under a housekeeper. A minimum of 3 staff would be on duty at night. The Y centre would have 6 staff and 9 volunteer workers and the Primary Health Care Team 10 staff. All residents would have to sign a licence agreement, which sets out the standards of behaviour expected of residents. All external areas would be covered by CCTV cameras and the main entrance subject to a door entrance control mechanism. Development Plan Policies ST1 The City Council's overall planning strategy. EN2 In areas of little character, development should give stronger identity

through the layout of buildings and new spaces. EN3 Development adjoining public spaces or thoroughfares must provide

positive and attractive built frontages.


53

EN4 No permission for poor quality or inappropriate designs. High quality design expected in City Centre and Conservation Areas.

EN5 High quality modern design normally permitted where existing surroundings have been taken into consideration.

EN42 Permission not given for development which is potentially unsafe, particularly for women, children and elderly people.

EN55 New developments should have a high standard of landscaping. Full and accurate details should be submitted.

EN62 Provision of new works of art as part of major developments and their contribution to the development and the amenities of the area.

H19 Within Highfields South, Holy Trinity and the West End, permission not normally granted for hotels, hostels etc.

H28 Special consideration given to the construction and internal arrangement of premises to minimise potential noise disturbance.

H29 Hotels, hostels and residential institutions to have adequate car parking and where appropriate, adequate servicing space.

E4 Within Primarily Employment Areas permission normally granted for B1, B2 and B8 uses and not for changes to other land uses.

C1 Design and layout for development for community or education facilities should if possible facilitate dual use.

C3 Permission normally granted for community development except where proposal inadequate or adverse effects on amenity or traffic.

T2 New developments required to make allowance for highway proposals, reservations and improvement lines.

T12 Permission not normally granted unless adequate provision for parking of vehicles including cycles off the highway.

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

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

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

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

surveillance, improving security for cycles and people. T29 Development shall create a safe and convenient environment for

pedestrians on paths within the site and on footways alongside. E12 Land committed to employment uses on 31st March 1994. Policy Considerations In the City of Leicester Local Plan (LP) and the 2nd Deposit Replacement Local Plan (RLP), the site is within the Highfields South Hotels, Hostels and Residential Institutions restriction zone, the boundary of which runs along Conduit Street. In the LP the site is allocated as an Employment Development Proposals Site and abuts a Primarily Employment Area. In the 2nd Deposit RLP the site is within the Leicester Regeneration Company, Central Office Core area. In the 1st Deposit RLP the site had a similar employment designation to that of the LP.


54

Policy H15 of the 2nd Deposit RLP relates the Hotels, Hostels and Residential Institutions restriction zone and sets out the criteria in which new hostels will be allowed within such zones. Policy E01 of the 2nd Deposit RLP relates to Employment Development Proposals Sites and Policy E03 sets out the criteria in which non-employment uses would be acceptable on such land. Policy SPAX states that development that frustrates the delivery of the Central Office Core will be resisted. Policy ST02 of the 2nd Deposit RLP states that in all development proposals the needs of disadvantaged people will be addressed in order to maximise equality of opportunity. Policy ST04 states that development proposals should take account of the potential impact on safety, security and crime, while ST05 seeks to ensure that residential amenity is protected. The Urban Design section of the 2nd Deposit RLP contains a range of policies, which seek to ensure that the design and appearance of a development is in keeping with and enhances the existing urban fabric. Policy UD08 encourages energy efficiency in buildings. Consultations Severn Trent Water � No objection. Conservation Area Panel � No objection to the principle of the development, its location adjoining the Conservation Area or its Design. Leicester Civic Society � The proposal is of an excellent quality and design, deserves full support and will enhance the border of Conservation Area. Leicestershire Constabulary Architectural Liaison Officer � No objection in terms of siting or layout provided the building is managed in accordance with the supporting documentation. Leicestershire Constabulary Ashfordby Street Local Policing Unit � The users of the centre would not cause a significant increase in crime. They could be potential victims of crime as the area is beset by prostitution, street robbery and drug dealing. Certain measures should be introduced to reduce the threat to the users of the centre including

- Traffic calming measures to disrupt kerb crawlers - An alcohol ban up to and including Prebend Park and; - More comprehensive CCTV coverage in the area.

The displacement of the parking by visitors to the Mosque will add to the traffic problems in South Highfields. Public Art Manager, Leicester City Council � The project presents an opportunity for public art to create identity and a sense of place. English Heritage � (Verbal comments) The application can be determined by the Local Planning Authority in accordance with the advice of the Conservation Officer. Victorian Society � No comments received


55

Archaeological and Historical Society � No comments received Representations Councillor Kitterick has objected to the scheme for the reasons that have been summarized as follows. Additional documentation was attached to support these objections. The site is within Police Beat 18 with particular problems of drugs and prostitution. Residents will be vulnerable to this and will attract pimps and drug dealers. Little regard has been given to behaviour outside the centre and the CCTV system would not cover the wider area. There is a high concentration of other hostels in the area. The local plan designates the site for employment use and it is meant for no other purpose. At least 4 local businesses have stated that they would leave the area, and this is contrary to Policy SPAX of the 2nd Deposit Local Plan. Pocklington�s Walk would be better able to absorb the impact of such a use. The Housing Department have failed to demonstrate an overriding need for the centre to be located in the area and it is a weak argument to say that there has been a reduction in the Council hostels bed spaces since 1979. 3 of the hostels that have closed down are not in the restriction zone. Hotels and residential institutions are also not included. There is an over-concentration of these uses. Housing have made no submission to amend the Local Plan zoning. The methodology of the site options assessment is bogus. The site is not within the ring road and it is clear that development control criteria were not applied when shortlisting Conduit Street. The Highfields South restriction zone should have been excluded from the search if the Holy Trinity Hostels zone was excluded. Pocklington�s Walk was rejected for political reasons and other sites have been rejected for reasons that would also apply to the Conduit Street site, for example the loss of car parking spaces and the sensitivity of the site. If permission is granted the restriction zone policy will be undermined and the reasons given by the Housing Department will be used by others to open more hostels in the area. While calling for a rejection of the scheme Councillor Kitterick has suggested how the impact of the development could be reduced through restricting the hours of entry, contributions being sought towards planning gain for the area and introducing a street drinking ban to extend well beyond Prebend Park. Additional resources would need to be delivered by the Council rather than relying on the overstretched resources of the Police. Councillor Kitterick has also outlined his concerns about the loss of the car parking for the Mosque and the impact this would have on on-street parking, the safety of visitors to the Mosque and community relations. No funding would be available for a Traffic Management Scheme until at least 2005/6.


56

An open letter has been received from Councillors Kitterick and Waddington outlining their objections to the proposal in terms of the inappropriateness of the area for the proposal when compared with the Pocklington�s Walk site. 100 representations have been received from occupiers of adjoining residential and commercial property, objecting to the proposal on the following grounds: a). Does not accord with the Local Plan policies b). Within the hostels and residential institutions restriction zone. Already a large

number of hostels in the area � movement between them and the centre would result in disturbance.

c). Lack of detail of alternative sites. Other sites rejected for inadequate reasons � should have looked in other hostels restrictions zones.

d). Not in line with Policy SPAX of the 2nd Deposit Local Plan e). Not in line with Employment Policies of the Local Plan. f). Not in keeping with the character of the Conservation Area. g). Inappropriate use in a residential area. h). Proximity to the railway station will attract homeless people to the area. i). Reinforce the reputation of the area as a high crime area. j). Vulnerable residents would be exposed to drugs and prostitution. k). Drugs and alcohol policy only enforced on the premises. l). Drug and alcohol problems in Prebend Gardens would increase. m). Fears for safety of children playing in the area. n). Fears for the safety of women and the elderly visiting the Mosque and other

facilities in the area. o). Fear of racist abuse. p) Increase in noise and disturbance and Noise from dogs in kennels. q). Detrimental to local schools r). Deter investment and regeneration. Local businesses are threatening to leave

the area. s). Inadequate parking would remain for the Mosque and other uses leading to on-

street parking pressures t). Conduit Street is a route used by the fire service and deliveries to businesses. Increased congestion would put lives at risk and hamper businesses. u). Pedestrian safety put at risk due to increased congestion. v). Contradicts Council policies to bring stability to the area. w). Lack of public consultation - consultation taken place during Ramadan. x). Land should be used for family housing or providing child play facilities. y). Neighbourhood Renewal Funding should not be used to fund the proposal and

long term funding would not be secure. Threat to the funding of other projects in the area

Among these representations, objection letters have been received from the Shama Women�s Centre, Highfields Community Association, The Islamic Centre, Community Alliance � Stoneygate Ward, SureStart Highfields and Highfields Association of Residents and Tenants. A further 683 letters of objection have been collected and submitted by the Islamic Centre on behalf of users of the Leicester Central Mosque and others. These are objecting to the proposal on the following grounds:


57

a). Traffic and parking problems that would generate due to the loss of parking spaces particularly on a Friday. b). Violation of the Hostels etc restriction zone, in an area where there is an overconcentration of such uses. Other sites within the City Centre would be appropriate. c). Contrary to the employment policies in the local plan and the Regeneration Company�s Office Core. d). In addition some expressed concern about the infringement of Human Rights in relation to a right to worship and other issues that are stated in the main summary of the representations above. 82 letters of objection have been collected and submitted by Councillor Kitterick. These are raising similar objections to those raised by the Mosque users. Consideration The main issues to be considered are:

a). The principle of the use on land designated as an employment proposals development site and within the hostels restriction zone;

b). The effect on the visual amenities of the street scene and the appearance

of the adjoining Conservation Area; c). The amenities of the occupiers of adjoining property; d). Crime and disorder; e). Living conditions for future occupiers of the development, and;

f). The impact on the highway and car parking provision in the area. Hostels Restriction Zone Policy H19 of the City of Leicester Local Plan states that planning permission will not normally be granted for the construction of new hostels, except in very exceptional circumstances, where an overriding need to be located in the area can be demonstrated clearly. Policy H15 of the Replacement Local Plan (RLP) is similarly worded. The Council has operated a hostels restriction policy since 1979 in order to protect residential character and to avoid creating unbalanced communities. The applicant has submitted additional information to show the change in the number of hostels in recent years. While no data exists from 1979, the history of 4 sites within the zone is as follows:

College Guest House, 13 Lincoln Street � Registered for 25 beds paces in 1985, now registered for only 9 bed spaces. Prebend Hotel, 6 Prebend Street � Registered for 26 bedspaces before ceasing use as a hostel in 1993. The site is in use as a hotel.


58

St Alban�s Hotel, St Alban�s Street � First registered as a hostel in 1992 for 42 spaces. This had reduced to 15 bedspaces by 1996. The premises are currently registered for 5 bedspaces. 31 Highfield Street � The hostel ceased use in 1987 when it became a care home.

3 other hostel sites that have ceased use were outside of the restriction zone, although one at 87 Earl Howe Street, providing 4 beds, which ceased use in 1992 is on the edge of (but outside) the zone. The Council�s record of hostels registered under the Leicestershire Act 1995 shows a decline in the South Highfields area from 4 hostels with 80 bedspaces in 1992 to 2 hostels with 14 bedspaces in 2003. The nearest registered hostel to the site is College Guest House in Lincoln Street which has seen a decline in the number of bedspaces as listed above. Bearing in mind that the site is at the edge of the hostels exclusion zone I am satisfied that the residential character of the area would be retained. However, a sufficiently strong case has to be made to demonstrate that there is an overriding need for the proposal to be sited in this location. I am satisfied that there is a need for such a facility in Leicester to meet the needs of homeless people, which seeks to integrate the hostel element with the advice centre and healthcare provision. It is also reasonable, as the applicant has stated, to expect that such a facility needs to be located within or close to the City Centre where rough sleeping is concentrated. A site options study report has been submitted with the application. The first stage of this involved identifying the areas within the inner ring road and the vicinity where such a development would not be suitable. This included sites within the Leicester Regeneration Company (LRC) Masterplan Intervention Areas. The second stage identified 13 possible sites for the Multi-Disciplinary Centre. Most of these were ruled out on the basis of their inadequate size, lack of availability, functional aspects and cost, all of which are reasonable criteria in the assessing the appropriateness of a particular site for the use as a Multi-Disciplinary Centre. It was concluded that the Pocklington�s Walk appeared to meet all the criteria with the Conduit Street site as a second best option, which was dependent on the outcome of the detailed plans for the LRC Office Core. A planning application was submitted and approved for a site in Pocklington�s Walk, although an application for Listed Building Consent was being considered by the Secretary of State when the application was withdrawn. There had been objection from the English Heritage concerning the impact on the listed building. A Cabinet decision was made on 16 June 2003 not to go ahead with the Pocklington�s Walk site. The report to Cabinet stated that the scheme was opposed by the business community and the Leicester Regeneration Company, who were concerned about the impact on the City Centre retail core.


59

I am satisfied that the procedure and the justification for the disqualification of the other sites as suitable sites has been explained in a satisfactory manner and that an overriding need for the proposal to be located at this site has been demonstrated. Employment Development Proposals Site and LRC area Policy E12 of the Local Plan states that the application site was committed to employment uses on 31 March 1994. As such the proposal has been advertised as a departure from the adopted Local Plan, and if Members are minded to grant permission, the application would need to be referred to the Secretary of State. However, weight must be given to the policy changes in the 2nd Deposit RLP. In the 2nd Deposit RLP the site is within the Leicester Regeneration Company Central Office Core. Policy SPAX of the RLP states that development that frustrates the delivery of a prime office area will be resisted. The site was included within the Central Office Core because of the potential to utilise the highway reservation line along Conduit Street for the re-routing of the ring road. However, the final options for the framework did not utilise this area. Therefore the siting of the development in this location would not frustrate the delivery of the office core proposals. When the Framework for the office core is completed, it is likely that the boundary of the office core in the RLP will be amended at the forthcoming Local Plan Inquiry. The designation in the Local Plan would be likely to revert to its designation as an Employment Development Proposals Site adjoining a Primarily Employment Area. In which case, Policy E01 of the RLP would apply which states that planning permission will not be given for non-employment uses unless the site is within or adjoining a Primarily Employment Area and the criteria set out in Policy E03 are met. One of these criteria is that the use is a local community facility for which no alternative sites are available, for which there is a demonstrable need in the area, and will not have an adverse effect on existing businesses. Another is that redevelopment would make an important contribution to improving the wider urban environment. I am of the view that the proposal is a local community facility as it serves a recognised need within the area in which the site is located. As outlined in the previous section, I consider that it has been demonstrated that other alternative sites for the multi-disciplinary centre are unavailable. While concerns have been raised about the impact on businesses in the area, I do not consider that the proposed use would be incompatible with other uses. The area is one of mixed uses, and most of the existing businesses are either offices or light industrial units, who will not have to curtail their activities as a result of the development. The impact on the environment is dealt with below. I therefore conclude that the development would not frustrate the implementation of the Prime Office Core, and if the land designation reverted to an Employment Development Proposals Site, my view is that the proposed development would meet the exceptions set out in Policy E03.


60

Effect on the street scene and the character of the Conservation Area The proposed building would improve the appearance of this section of Conduit Street, much of which is currently used for car parking. The form of the proposed building would help bring definition to the corner of Conduit Street and Andover Street. The other buildings along Conduit Street vary in their size and design, so that a building of modern design would not appear out of place in this location. The variety of materials proposed would bring vitality to the street. I consider that the development would maintain the character of the adjoining Conservation Area, with the predominance of brickwork on the rear elevation in keeping with the appearance of the dwellings to the rear of the site. The development presents an opportunity for the provision of public art as part of the development proposal, and if Members are minded to grant planning permission I would recommend that a condition be attached to secure some public art. Effect on the amenities of the adjoining residential property Careful consideration has been given to the effect of the proposed building on the occupiers of the residential properties in Lincoln Street, with regard to visual intrusion, privacy and a loss of light. Appendix 5 of the Local Plan states that there should be a minimum of 21m between facing windows of principal rooms of two storey dwellings in order to avoid a loss of privacy. Taking into account the proposal is for a three storey building, I consider that the distances stated in �The Proposal� section above would be sufficient to avoid overlooking between windows. The distance of between 8m and 9.75m between the rear elevation at first and second floor level and the boundary of the site is less than the 11m normally required as set out in Appendix 5. This could result in the overlooking of the rear gardens of the Lincoln Street properties. However, I consider that this would be overcome if windows in the rear elevation of the proposed building were obscure glazed and to this end I am requesting amendments from the applicant. Some of the windows have been positioned to face the side rather than the rear in order to avoid overlooking. I do not consider that the development would result in visual intrusion or a loss of light for occupiers of the Lincoln Street properties or the proposed housing development fronting Andover Street. With regard to noise and disturbance, Conduit Street currently has a high level of pedestrian and vehicular activity. The number of visitors to the site would not result in an unacceptable level of disturbance along Conduit Street, which is predominantly commercial in character. The applicant has stated that the use of the rear garden would be carefully managed and clients using the garden would be supervised at all times. As the proposed dog kennels are attached to the rooms of their owners, it is not expected that the dogs would be noisy. I therefore do not consider that the use


61

of the rear garden would result in an unacceptable level of noise and disturbance for adjoining residents. Crime and Disorder Concerns have been raised about the potential for crime and disorder to increase, particularly in relation to drug and alcohol abuse. The building has been designed to ensure that the opportunities for crime are minimised and the Leicestershire Constabulary Architectural Liaison Officer raises no objection to the proposal in terms of its siting and design, provided the building is managed in accordance with the supporting documentation. There would be one entrance to the building, in addition to CCTV cameras, which would be monitored as part of the Council�s CCTV system. No drugs would be stored on the premises. The applicant has stated that residents will enter into a licence agreement that requires certain standards of behaviour towards other people, including others in the neighbourhood. The Local Policing Unit does not consider that the users of the Centre would cause a significant increase in crime. However they have requested traffic calming measures, a street drinking ban to include Prebend Park and more comprehensive CCTV coverage in the area. I am discussing with other Officers in the Council the possibility of implementing these proposals. I will report the outcome to Committee. Furthermore, funding has been made available for the Council�s Neighbour Nuisance Team (NNT) to work across the City with effect from April 2004. The NNT is involved in stopping anti-social behaviour including drug problems. The living conditions for future occupiers I consider that the development would provide a suitable living environment for future residents. In order to minimise noise and disturbance from the railway, I recommend that a condition be attached to any permission requiring the provision of acoustic glazing to the windows fronting Conduit Street. The impact on the highway and parking provision in the area The site is currently used as a car park on Fridays by visitors to the Mosque. At least 45-50 spaces are provided at the site. Concern has been raised from local residents and users of the Mosque that the loss of the car parking spaces would lead to increased pressure on a limited number of on-street car parking spaces in the area. However, the site is allocated for development and the parking has only been provided by the City Council on a temporary, informal basis for the last 3 years. When planning permission was granted for the various phases of the Mosque, the level of on-site parking associated with the Mosque was considered acceptable. In addition, while the loss of the use as a car park would result in increased pressure on on-street parking in the locality, this would be limited to Fridays. I understand that the Council�s Property Services have offered some additional temporary car parking during the evenings on the opposite side of Conduit Street to the Mosque.


62

Bearing in mind that Government policy, as set out in Planning Policy Guidance Note 13, seeks to encourage alternative means of transport to the private car, particularly in accessible locations such as this, I do not consider the application could be refused on the grounds of a loss of off-street car parking spaces. The Supplementary Planning Guidance Note on Vehicle Parking Standards sets no specific maximum vehicle parking standards for this particular type of use. The site is within the Central Commercial Zone where a lower provision of off-street parking is required due to the proximity to good public transport facilities. Bearing in mind the close proximity to the railway station and the bus routes along London Road and Sparkenhoe Street I consider that the 5 off-street parking spaces provided as part of this development would be acceptable. Visibility splays would be required at the vehicular entrance to the site to ensure adequate visibility between drivers and pedestrians. The disabled parking spaces are of an inadequate size. Amendments can be made to the plan to ensure these are satisfactory. The road widening line is no longer required to allow for the widening of Conduit Street particularly as it is not intended that Conduit Street be used to relieve traffic using the ring road. However an allowance has been made to increase the width of the pavement to 2.5m to allow for easier pedestrian movement along this section of the street. Other issues The applicant intends to retain the trees on the site. Some pruning of them may be required to accommodate the building. I am requesting further information from the applicant regarding the condition of the trees, the impact on them resulting from the development, their protection during construction and the extent of the pruning required. I will report the results of these findings at Committee, along with appropriate conditions that should be attached. Conclusion The proposal is for a facility for which there is a need in the City and which needs to be located in or close to the City Centre. I consider that the justification for this location has been demonstrated and that the development is unlikely to be detrimental to the amenities of adjoining occupiers or harmful to the character of the area. Therefore, SUBJECT TO THE RECEIPT OF FURTHER DETAILS AND AMENDMENTS, AND REFERAL TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE I recommend APPROVAL subject to the following conditions: CONDITIONS 1. (0101) START WITHIN FIVE YEARS


63

2. Before the development is begun the finished floor levels and the materials to be used on all external elevations and roofs shall be agreed in writing between the applicant and the City Council as local planning authority.

(In the interests of visual and residential amenity, and in accordance with policy(ies) EN4 of the City of Leicester Local Plan)

3. Details of the following shall be submitted for approval to the City Council

as Local Planning Authority before the development is begun and and shall be provided in accordance with the approved details before any part of the development is occupied and shall be retained thereafter:

1). CCTV cameras 2). Security lighting 3). Boundary and screen fences/railings 4). Sight lines to vehicular access 5). Acoustic insulation to the rooms fronting Conduit Street (To ensure an acceptable standard of development and in accordance with

Policy EN42 of the City of Leicester Local Plan) 4. Details of obscure glazing to the windows at first and second floor level in

the rear south-eastern elevation of the building shall be submitted to and approved by the City Council as Local Planning Authority in writing before the development is begun. The windows shall be installed in accordance with the approved details before the development is begun and shall be retained thereafter

(To protect the privacy of adjoining occupiers and in accordance with Policy ST05 of the 2nd Deposit Replacement City of Leicester Local Plan)

5. (0401) LANDSCAPING TO BE AGREED & CARRIED OUT: VERSION 1

(%) (EN55) 6. Before the development is begun details of a public work of art, craft or

other feature as part of the site development shall be submitted to and agreed with the City Council as Local Planning Authority and shall be provided witin one year of the building being occupied and shall be retained thereafter

(In the interests of amenity and in accordance with Policy EN62 of the City of Leicester Local Plan)

7. (0812) TURNING SPACE WITHIN SITE (%) (T14) 8. The parking space(s) shown on the approved plans shall be provided at the

time of development and shall be retained thereafter. (To secure adequate off-street parking provision, and in accordance with

policy T12 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.) 9. (0811) LOADING AND UNLOADING WITHIN SITE 10. (0205) PROVISION OF FOOTWAY CROSSING(S) (%) (T14) 11. (0207) REINSTATE REDUNDANT FOOTWAY CROSSINGS/FOOTWAY


64

12. The development shall not be occupied until the widening of the pavement has been carried out in accordance with the details submitted and to the satisfaction of the City Council as Local Planning Authority

(To ensure the footway is of a satisfactory width and in accordance with Policy T29 of the City of Leicester Local Plan)

OTHER APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL 20032028 8-10 HIGHFIELD STREET 23/10/2003 AREA: E WARD: Stoneygate COU CHANGE OF USE FROM RETAIL STORAGE (CLASS A1) TO

RESTAURANT (CLASS A3). VENTILATION FLUE AT REAR. JP MR N RANA

Introduction The application relates to an area between numbers 8-10 and 12 Highfield Street. The adjoining properties are three storeys high with retail supermarket (Class A1) and a restaurant (Class A3) on the ground floors with residential above (Class C3). Terrace properties on Victoria Avenue abut to the rear. The property is located within a designated shopping area and within the South Highfields Conservation Area. Background Planning permission was granted in 1987 for alterations to the first, second and third floor living accommodation to provide seven self contained flats at 8 � 10 Highfield Street (871699).


65

A separate application has been received for a three-storey infill extension comprising three self-contained flats adjacent to 8-10 Highfield Street. This application is reported elsewhere on the agenda. The Proposal It is proposed to change of use of basement retail storage area (Class A1) to restaurant (Class A3). The restaurant would be accessed from Highfield Street, from a door located to the right hand side of the existing supermarket and no other alterations are proposed to Highfield Street. It is proposed to install a ventilation flue at rear of the existing building. The flue would rise up the rear elevation from the ground floor, terminating 1m above the highest ridge. The applicant has advised that amended plans detailing the flue to be surrounded by a brick chimney will be submitted. Alterations at the rear include the erection of spiral fire escape. The proposed opening hours of the restaurant are between 15.00 to 24.00 hours daily. Development Plan Policies S11 Use of premises within shopping areas for Class A3 (Food and Drink)

normally permitted, but with exceptions. S12 Outside the Central Core, restrict opening hours for A3 (Food and Drink)

except where no detriment to residents. EN11 Development or demolition in Conservation Areas only approved if it

preserves or enhances the area's character. EN15 Changes of use likely to have adverse effects on Conservation Areas not

normally approved. Policy Considerations Policy S13 states that Proposals for the use of premises within shopping areas for food and drink purposes (Use Class A3) will normally be permitted except where:

(a) the development would be likely to prove detrimental to the amenities of the occupiers of nearby residential properties;

(b) the traffic generated by the development would be likely to result in or aggravate congestion or be a road safety hazard;

(c) any required ventilation flue would be likely to prove detrimental to residential or visual amenity;

(d) the scale and design of the proposal is unsympathetic to the surrounding area;

(e) the addition of another A3 use within any particular shopping area or part of a shopping area would have a cumulative detrimental effect in terms of: traffic, amenity, character or function.

(f) the shop front would not be retained. Similar guidelines are contained in policy R07 in the Replacement City of Leicester Local Plan (Second Deposit Copy). Further guidance is provided within the supplementary guidance �Class A3 Uses in Local, District and Town Centres�. This states that within the London Road Local Shopping Area, opening hours of 0730-2400 will normally be permitted Monday to Saturday providing the amenity of nearby residents is not unduly harmed. Further guidelines cover issues such as number of A3 uses, size of restaurants and clustering.


66

Consultations The proposal was reported to the Conservation Advisory Panel who have no objections to the change of use however, suggest that the ventilation flue should be enclosed within a chimney. Representations Site and press notices were posted. I have received 7 objections summarised as follows:

• increase in noise, often late at night • increase in pollution, litter and cooking smells and vermin such as rats, mice

and pigeons • enough restaurants in the area • detrimental impact on the conservation area • close proximity of gardens to ventilation flue at rear of property and proposed

flue would be an eyesore • potential fire hazard caused by restaurant and flue • concerns over use of rear alleyway for restaurant bin collection • Increase in parking demand in an already congested area

Consideration There are already a number of A3 uses in the area however, this proposal is limited to the basement below the supermarket at 8-10 Highfield Street which is currently in use for storage. As such this proposal would not result in the loss of retail unit and I do not consider it would adversely impact on the character or function of the retail area as a whole. The proposal would generate an increase in parking demand especially in the evenings. However, the site is close to London Road, which has good public transport service, and there are existing traffic regulation orders to restrict and control on-street parking. Therefore I do not consider the proposal would be detriment to highway safety or lead to a significant increase in parking demand. Given the location close to the City Centre I do not think that the proposal would result in an increase in pedestrian activity that would have significant impact on residential amenity. Within the London Road Local Shopping Area, the proposed opening hours are acceptable, however, I have recommended that the restaurant close earlier on Sundays, given the reduction in overall noise at this time. The ventilation flue at the rear would be most visible to occupiers of houses on Victoria Avenue. As proposed I consider the ventilation flue to be an incongruous addition that would not be acceptable. The applicant has stated that he is willing to amend the plans to enclose the proposed flue within a brick chimney and this would be acceptable. The ventilation flue is of a sufficient height to adequately disperse fumes from the proposed restaurant. Given that the proposed is a restaurant and not a take away, I do not consider that this would add to litter in the area. Residents concerns regarding the use of the shared alleyway would not be a matter for planning.


67

No significant alterations are proposed to the front elevation. The proposal, subject to amended flue details, would preserve the character and appearance of the South Highfields Conservation Area. Subject to the receipt of amended plans detailing the flue enclosed within a appropriate chimney, I recommend APPROVAL subject to the following conditions: CONDITIONS 1. (0101) START WITHIN FIVE YEARS 2. (0501) NO DETRIMENT TO AMENITY (%) (S11) 3. (0504) NO DETRIMENT FROM LIVE/AMPLIFIED MUSIC OR VOICE (%)

(S11) 4. (1006) NO NOISE/VIBRATION FROM VENTILATION SYSTEM (%) (S11) 5. (1007) VENTILATION SYSTEM INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED (%) (S11) 6. The use shall not be carried on outside the hours of 0800-2400 Monday to

Saturday and 0800-2300 Sundays. (In the interests of the amenities of nearby occupiers, and in accordance

with policy(ies) S11 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.) 7. The fire escape at the rear of the property shall be used only in emergency

and not as a genral access or egress. (In the interests of residential amenity and in accordance with policy(ies)

S11 of the City of Leicester Local Plan). 8. Notwithstanding what is shown on the hereby approved plans, further plans

showing the ventilation flue enclosed within a suitable chimmney shall be submitted to and agreed with the City Council as Local Planning Authority prior to the development commencing. The flue shall be installed and maintained as agreed.

(In the interests of visual amenity and in accordance with policies EN11 and S11 of the City of Leicester Local Plan).


68

OTHER APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL 20032129 73 NARBOROUGH ROAD 29/10/2003 AREA: W WARD: Westcotes COU CHANGE OF USE FROM RETAIL (CLASS A1) TO

RESTAURANT (CLASS A3) TDS DOMENURE PROPERTIES LTD

Introduction This application relates to a terraced property on the western side of Narborough Road close to the junction with Shaftesbury Avenue. The property has an authorised use as retail (Class A1) at ground floor with living accommodation above (Class C3) and is located within a defined shopping area. The Proposal The application proposes a change of use at ground floor from retail (Class A1) to a restaurant (Class A3). Details of a proposed extraction system have also been submitted. Development Plan Policies S11 Use of premises within shopping areas for Class A3 (Food and Drink)

normally permitted, but with exceptions.


69

Policy Considerations The adopted Guidelines for Class A3 Uses in Local, District and Town Centres contains the following guidelines: Guideline 2 Opening hours in the local and district centres will normally be

restricted to 0730 to 2300 hours on Mondays to Saturdays. Guideline 4 [On Sundays] in the district centres a closing time of 2300 will normally

be permitted. Guideline 5 In the district and local centres, not more than 30% of the total frontage

length of any one side of a street in the defined shopping centre shall consist of non-retail uses (Classes A2 and A3).

Guideline 6 To maintain a diverse and active shopping street not dominated by

groups or individual non retail uses, it is recommended that no more than two non retail uses should be adjacent to each other; and that between individual or groups of non retail uses there shall be at least two intervening retail (Class A1) uses.

Representations Councillor Connelly has requested that the application be referred to the Development Control Committee. Consideration The nearest A3 uses along this side of Narborough Road are at numbers 77, 69 and 45 and the proposal would not result in more than 30% of the street frontage being in non retail use, thus satisfying Guideline 5. There are two retail units between the application site and number 77 and therefore the proposal meets the Guideline 6. I do not consider that it would have any detrimental impact on the character and function of the shopping centre. A condition is attached restricting the hours of opening to between 0730 and 2300 daily in accordance with Guidelines 2 and 3. The rear yard has already been extended over and therefore it is not necessary to attached a condition restricting the yard from use by customers. The submitted extraction system details are not adequate and therefore a condition is attached to ensure that this matter is satisfactorily addressed prior to the commencement of the use. I recommend APPROVAL subject to the following conditions: CONDITIONS 1. (0101) START WITHIN FIVE YEARS


70

2. The use shall not be carried on outside the hours of 0730 and 2300 hours daily.

(In the interests of the amenities of nearby occupiers, and in accordance with policy S11 of the City of Leicester Local Plan and the adopted Guidelines for Class A3 Uses in Local, District and Town Centres.)

3. (0504) NO DETRIMENT FROM LIVE/AMPLIFIED MUSIC OR VOICE (%)

(S11) 4. Before the use commences, a design for a ventilation system without a cap

or cowl shall be submitted to and agreed by the City Council as local planning authority and installed.

(In the interests of the amenities of nearby occupiers and in accordance with Policy S11 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.)

NOTE FOR APPLICANT 1. Please note that the submitted extraction system details are not adequate

to comply with condition 4. For further guidance please contact James Plant, Pollution Control Group on 0116 252 6617.

OTHER APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL 20032178 33 KITCHENER ROAD 10/11/2003 AREA: E WARD: Coleman OUT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT(CLASS C3) JB2 SS & BK TOOR


71

Introduction The site is occupied by a two storey building which is currently used for textile manufacturing (Class B2). The building currently occupies most of the site with limited land around its periphery for access purposes only. Residential property is located to the south on Kitchner Road, with St Barnahas School to the north west and employment use to the western boundary. The site is located within a primarily residential area. Background All previous planning history relates to its use for industrial purposes. The Proposal Outline planning permission is sought in principle for the use of the site for residential purposes. All details have been reserved for subsequent approval. The proposal will involve the demolition of the existing industrial building. The site has a site area of 1000s.qm. Development Plan Policies H6 Within the Primarily Residential Areas, permission normally granted for

residential development, subject to criteria. Policy Considerations Detailed design guidance relating to standards for new housing development is set out in Appendix 5 of the City of Leicester Local Plan. Representations Six letters of objection have been received from local residents. Their main concern relates to the lack of detail submitted with the application in regards to numbers and type of residential unit�s size and location. They consider that without this information it is difficult to form a judgement on the application. Four of the objectors accept the principle of development but would wish to see residential development restricted to either one house or a pair of semi-detached properties. The remaining two objectors area concern about any development of the site for residential purposes on the grounds that it will result in loss of privacy and light to adjoining residential properties. It would also increase local traffic and on street parking in an area suffering from severe on street parking and on street parking as a result of existing commercial properties in the area. Any development over two storeys in height would not be consistent with the urban fabric. Consideration This is an outline application where all details have been reserved with no request to consider a specific number or type of dwelling. The landowner prior to the sale of the site wishes to seek some comfort that the principle of residential development


72

will be acceptable. The details of the residential development will then be assessed at the time of a reserve matters application including its impact on residential amenity, the existing street scene and the developments traffic implications. The site whilst currently being used for commercial purposes is located within a primarily residential area as defined by the City of Leicester Local Plan. I therefore consider that the use of the site for residential purposes will be in principle acceptable. The site has a site frontage of 19m and a depth of approximately 45m. Given the size of the site I consider that it would be sufficient in size to accommodate some form of residential development with an acceptable level of off street parking and amenity space and would not have a detrimental impact on the amenities of the neighbouring properties. I consider the use of the site for residential purposes to be acceptable and recommend APPROVAL subject to the following conditions: CONDITIONS 1. (0102) START BY - OUTLINE 2. (0107) DETAILS - SITING, DESIGN, APPEARANCE, ACCESS,

LANDSCAPE NOTE FOR APPLICANT 1. The applicant is advised that with development of the site for residential

purposes care will need to be taken in the to design of the site layout to protect both the outlook and light aswell as privacy between the windows on the side elevation of St Barnahas Primary School and any development on the site.


73

OTHER APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL 20032212 135 GIPSY LANE, OOM HOUSE 13/11/2003 AREA: E WARD: Belgrave TEL 15M HIGH TELECOMMUNICATIONS MAST, THREE

ANTENNAE, TWO MICROWAVE DISHES, EQUIPMENT CABINET

AS O2 (UK) LIMITED

Introduction The application site is within the Catherine Street Industrial Estate located at the junction of Gipsy Lane and Catherine Street. The site is within an Employment Area. The Proposal The proposal is for a 15 metre high pole with 3 antennas and 2 microwave dishes with associated equipment cabinet. It is proposed to be located to the rear of the site on the boundary with the redundant �Parkers Plant�. The proposal would be approximately 110 metres in from Catherine Street and 70 metres from Gipsy Lane. To the west of the site is the main railway line. There is an existing mast immediately to the rear of 347 Catherine Street. Development Plan Policies None


74

Policy Considerations Policy BE28 within the Draft Replacement City of Leicester Local Plan states the following: Planning permission for telecommunications development will only be approved where:

a) the structure and any ancillary apparatus is designed site and landscaped to minimise its visual impact on the skyline, particularly in Green Wedges and other areas of open space, and also in relation to adjacent residential areas;

b) it can be demonstrated that the proposed site is the least environmentally damaging, given the technological requirements of the installation;

c) for new masts, all reasonable efforts have been made to secure the sharing of an existing mast or other structure.

Representations Fourteen letters of objection have been received from local residents whose main concerns are outlined below:

1. Concern over the health risks associated with mobile phone or radio transmission sites and close proximity of the proposal to surrounding residential properties and to nearby schools.

2. Have suggested other more appropriate sites. 3. The proposal would be an eyesore. 4. Concern that the equipment would be a danger to children who would be able

to climb the pole. Consideration In 1999 the Government asked the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) to set up the Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones (IEGMP) chaired by Sir William Stewart. The Group published its report and recommendations in May 2000. It stated that, �The balance of evidence does not suggest that mobile phone technologies put the health of the general populations at risk. There is some preliminary evidence that outputs from mobile phone technologies may cause in some cases subtle biological effects although importantly these do not necessarily mean that health is affected.� Stewart proposed a precautionary approach until more robust scientific information becomes available. The Government advises Local Planning Authorities to continue to deal with planning applications on the basis of current legislative arrangement and policy guidance, and that a blanket ban on mobile phone applications on health grounds is wholly unjustified. The Government accepts the precautionary approach advised by the group. It emphasised that individual local authorities should not introduce their own precautionary policies for determining planning applications for mobile phone base stations. However, it accepts that health considerations and public concern can be material in determining applications for planning permission and prior approval, but it is for the local planning authority to determine what weight to attach to such considerations in any particular case, and in doing so the authority may have regard to the Stewart Report. The key advice from Government is that if a proposed development meets the ICNIRP guidelines (as recommended by Stewart on a precautionary basis) it should not be necessary for a planning authority in


75

processing an application to consider the health effects further. Most existing base stations meet those guidelines and it is expected that all new base stations will do so. The applicant has considered other sites and considered sharing existing masts with other uses and for various reasons all other possibilities have been discounted and the chosen site has been put forward. The applicant has stated that to share the mast to the rear of 347 Catherine Street would not be appropriate, as the site would have to be redeveloped and an increase in height of 5 metres would be necessary to get the separation of both the users. That mast is directly to the rear of a house and the proposed mast would be over 90 metres away. The applicant states that the proposed telecommunications apparatus will comply with the ICNIRP public exposure guidelines. Therefore, the only criteria the proposal can be considered against is visual amenity. As the proposal is within an employment area and is positioned to the rear of the Catherine Street Industrial estate I would consider its location to be acceptable. It would be 90 metres away from the nearest residential property on Gipsy Lane. I therefore consider that the proposal would not have an adverse visual impact on the character of the area and that the application accords with national policy guidance and local policy requirements, particularly BE28 in the Draft Replacement Local Plan. I recommend APPROVAL subject to the following condition: CONDITION 1. (0101) START WITHIN FIVE YEARS


76

OTHER APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL 20031922 428 UPPINGHAM ROAD 30/09/2003 AREA: E WARD: Thurncourt DEV SINGLE STOREY EXTENSION TO REAR OF HOUSE

(AMENDED PLANS) TLT MR & MRS DORAN

Introduction This application was deferred from the 26 November meeting for a site visit. The site is located on the eastern side of Uppingham Road and contains a two-storey semi-detached dwelling. The site is located within a Primarily Residential Area, as defined in the Adopted CLLP. The Proposal The applicant proposes to construct a single storey extension to the rear of the dwelling comprising an extension to the existing living room, and extension to the existing kitchen to form a larger kitchen/breakfast area. The living room extension measures 3.6m adjacent to the common boundary with 426 Uppingham Road. The kitchen extension measures 3.45m at the other side, adjacent to 430 Uppingham Road. The extension forms the full width of the existing dwelling. In response to my concerns that the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the outlook from the rear of the adjacent property at 426 Uppingham Road, the applicant has submitted an amended plan, which reduces the depth of the extension adjacent to the common boundary. The depth of the proposed living room extension will be 2.3m. The kitchen extension remains as originally proposed.


77

Development Plan Policies H6 Within the Primarily Residential Areas, permission normally granted for

residential development, subject to criteria. EN18 Extensions to houses should normally match the existing house in

materials, roof form, scale and proportion of openings. Appendix 5 Development Control Criteria (Housing Design) Policy Considerations Appendix 5 of the Adopted City of Leicester Local Plan states that for semi detached dwellings a single storey extension on or close to the boundary of up to 2.4m will in most cases be acceptable. Deeper extensions may be acceptable in some cases, depending on the orientation of the property and relationship of the extension to windows of the adjoining house. These should not intersect a line taken at 45º from the centre of the ground floor window of the adjacent house closest to the boundary. Consultations None. Representations An objection has been received from the occupier of 426 Uppingham Road, who objects to the proposal on the grounds that:

- The proposed extension is too high; - The extension projects too far from the party wall; and - The extension is too close to the party boundary. - The proposal will result in complete loss of direct natural sunlight,

considerable loss of privacy and loss of views. Following notification of amended plans; the occupier at 426 Uppingham Road has written to further object to the proposal. Their grounds for objection are the same as outlined in their first objection. Councillor Allen objected to the application and has requested that it be considered by your Committee. The applicant, through a representation sent to the Chair, points out that these are the second set of plans submitted following rejection of the first application. The plans have been amended as per the advice of officers, reducing the proposed extension to the size of the existing outbuilding. The only difference to the neighbour will be the use of brick as a opposed to wood; the roof has been designed to be a hipped type in line with the Building Regulations. Consideration Depth of extension and 45º line


78

The depth of the living room extension has been reduced and does not project beyond the existing rear building line created by an existing canopy at the rear of the living room. In addition, the depth of the living room extension is less than 2.4m, and as such it is considered that the proposal will not affect the outlook from the adjacent property at 426 Uppingham Road. The occupier at 426 Uppingham Road notes that the measurement taken to the centre of the ground floor window is actually 2.0m. Using this measurement, the proposed extension would intersect with the 45º line by approximately 300mm. This infringement is considered to be minor and as the proposal does not exceed 2.4m, it is considered that the proposed extension is acceptable. The depth of the kitchen extension is 3.45m. Although this exceeds 2.4m, the extension is located approximately 5m away from the common boundary with 430 Uppingham Road and will not affect the outlook from the rear of this property. Materials The applicant proposes to construct the extension using facing brickwork, natural slate roof tiles, two velux roof lights, windows and a door to match the existing. These materials are considered acceptable. Roof The applicant proposes a hipped roof for each part of the extension. The roof adjacent to the common boundary with no. 426 will replace an existing pitched roof and will slope away from the boundary, reducing the effect of the extension upon the adjacent property. In addition, the roofs are not visible from the front of the property and are therefore considered acceptable. Amenity Space The site is 760m² in area and will retain sufficient amenity space following the construction of the proposed extension. Therefore I recommend APPROVAL of the application subject to the following conditions: CONDITIONS 1. (0101) START WITHIN FIVE YEARS 2. The new walls and roof shall be constructed in materials to match those

existing. (In the interests of visual amenity, and in accordance with policy(ies) EN18

of the City of Leicester Local Plan.) 3. This consent shall relate solely to the original Plan ref no.P4-1a and the

amended plan received by the City Council as local planning authority on 30 October 2003 Plan ref. no.P4-2b.

(For the avoidance of doubt.)


79

wards: see individual reports. · development control committee 16th december 2003 1 wards: see...

Documents