Planning & Development Control Committee Date: 3 rd March ......Applicant: JAFFER KAPASI, HATIM...

Planning & Development Control Committee Date: 3rd March 2009 Applications and Contraventions: Supplementary Report

1

Wards: see individual reports

Planning & Development Control Committee Date: 3rd March 2009

SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT ON APPLICATIONS AND CONTRAVENTIONS:

INDEX APPLICATION ORDER

Page Main

Page Supp

Application Number Address

Area Ward Report Section

5

2 20071281

Eastern Boulevard/Jarrom Street Corner Of (Former Brewin Site). PR CA AG

18 5 20081976 9 Bath Street PO BE CO

29 8 20081985 22 Braunstone Gate; 112 Bede Street PF WC LP

32 9 20081994 33 Blackbird Avenue PE FS CO

35 10 20082015 125 Hinckley Road PF WP CO

44 - 20082016 125 Hinckley Road PF WP CO



47 - 20090016 40 Granby Street/2-4 Rutland Street PR CA CO

51 10 20090017 40 Granby Street/2-4 Rutland Street PR CA CO



53

11 20090045

Abbey Park Street, Abbey Mills & Wolsey Building (Formerly Sangra & Shonki Buildings) PR LA AG

63 - 20090088 Humberstone Gate, O/S 36-38 PR CA CO


INDEX ADDRESS ORDER

Page Main

Page Supp

Application Number Address

Area Ward Report Section

53

11 20090045

Abbey Park Street, Abbey Mills & Wolsey Building (Formerly Sangra & Shonki Buildings) PR LA AG

18 5 20081976 9 Bath Street PO BE CO

32 9 20081994 33 Blackbird Avenue PE FS CO

29 8 20081985 22 Braunstone Gate; 112 Bede Street PF WC LP

5

2 20071281

Eastern Boulevard/Jarrom Street Corner Of (Former Brewin Site). PR CA AG

47 - 20090016 40 Granby Street/2-4 Rutland Street PR CA CO




35 10 20082015 125 Hinckley Road PF WP CO







2

Recommendation: RECO subject to s106 Agreement

20071281 EASTERN BOULEVARD/JARROM STREET CORNER OF (FORMER BREWIN SITE).

Proposal:

2 TO 21 STOREY BLOCK OF 357 STUDENT STUDIO FLATS (NO USE CLASS); ACCESS; CAR PARKING; OPEN SPACE & LANDSCAPING (AMENDED PLANS) (SUBJECT TO S.106 AND S.278 AGREEMENTS)

Applicant: MEGACLOSE LTD

App type: Operational development - full application

Status: Largescale Major Development

Expiry Date: 14 April 2008

AP WARD: Castle

Page Number on Main Agenda: 5

Amended Block Plan:

The block plan shown in the agenda papers does not show the whole of the application site. An amended plan is attached. The correct site boundary will also be shown in the presentation to committee.

Amended conditions:

Conditions amended to remove policies that were not saved in January 2009.

Amended S106 Agreement clauses:

The s106 agreement will contain clauses to:

• control the keeping of cars at the site;


3

• a contribution of £40,000 to cycleway improvements including cycle lanes, additional traffic calming and improvements to crossings at Oxford Street; and

• a contribution of £70,902 towards off site open space provision. (This has increased in line with the increase in the number of units)

Representations

The applicant

The applicant has submitted representations providing the following information and comments:

• The sun path for the lower block will be an improvement in terms of the effects on adjoining properties. The shadow of the tower largely falls on the roofs of the Jarrom Street properties adjoining the site.

• The effects of wind around the scheme are strongest at the archway through the barrier block, which is unchanged from the previous proposal, the extra height on the tower being insignificant.

• When this proposed development was originally submitted to the authority in June 2007, the number of bedspaces on the site was greater than now proposed. Whilst the number of apartments has risen from 235 to 357, the actual number of bedspaces has decreased from 407 to 357. They state that student accommodation is not a niche market unaffected by the current economic climate, whilst building costs continue to rise, particularly when contemplating tall structures

• In spite of worsening economic circumstances, the applicant has persisted with the development of this site, if only because he genuinely believes that there is a market for his product and a need for student accommodation in Leicester. He notes that Leicester RFC in their mixed use proposals for the Granby Halls site have applied for student accommodation on part of the site.

• The principal changes are in accordance with the resolution and minute from the 16th December 2008 committee.

• Although they have again made significant amendments to the scheme in an effort to satisfy opposition to the proposals a point has been reached where the economic viability of the scheme has been put under substantial strain. Consideration should be given to additional costs incurred in preparation of this application and the implications of the significant movement in development costs. The increase in the height of the tower is in order to compensate for the loss of accommodation due to the reduction in height of the Eastern Boulevard elevation and annex. Construction costs in relation to any increase in the height of the tower are significantly higher than those in relation to the other buildings.

In the light of the above the applicant considers it very important that they obtain a favourable decision in line with the balanced report and recommendation, particularly as they have sought at all times to meet objections from local residents.

The applicant has also written direct to Members making similar and related points as follows:

• This proposal will make use of a former employment site, now considered unsuitable for such use, available to meet a housing need


4

• Mixed use schemes eg at the Granby Halls site are currently coming forward with student housing included demonstrating a continued demand. One of few remaining objections is on behalf of a competitor. The applicants have persisted despite the current economic climate because they believe there is a market and need for student accommodation.

• The application has been before the Committee three times with a recommendation for approval and the applicants have responded positively to concerns expressed by local residents and Members. This has been at considerable expense and the objections are now in single figures.

• There have been no objection from consultees to any of the amended schemes

• The applicant has met all the requirements of the Committee resolution in December 2008.

• The scheme has been significantly reduced in scale

• The Government is actively promoting student accommodation; however the scheme is on the margins of viability

• The current proposal balances conflicting considerations to allow broadening of the city’s economy and bring about environmental improvements.

Representations

Four further objections have been received from neighbouring residents/property owners and again from De Montfort University. The grounds of objection are:

• Mass student housing developments are contrary to national policy;

• Purpose built student accommodation defeats its purpose when placed in areas which already have an overwhelming proportion of students;

• Large amounts of student accommodation causes a loss of amenity to homeowners due to excessive noise, particularly due to pedestrian movements in the small hours as they move to and from university leisure venues;

• Loss of employment land;

• Overdevelopment of the site and size of the proposal “soaking up” demand for student accommodation leaving other sites undeveloped and discouraging inward investment;

• The proposal is not in line with the minute of the 16th December committee as the number of units has been increased;

• Development out of character and scale compared with the scale and design of other properties in the area;

• The amended plans, for an even higher tower at 21 storeys, are again further out of character. The tower will over dominate the local area, the materials would not be in keeping with the traditional red brick buildings which characterise the area, the curved nature of the tower would disrupt the traditional grid pattern of the area and would have a detrimental effect on the microclimate of the area, overshadowing public areas and residential


5

properties, reflecting sunlight and creating glare, and obstructing and channelling wind flow;

• The tower does not meet local plan policies UD01 and UD02, the guidance in the Tall Buildings SPD or the Residential Amenity SPD;

• The amended proposal increases the number of flats (there are now a larger number of smaller units).

An email has been received from Councillor Kitterick stating that he is now satisfied with the proposed height of the rectangular blocks. His concern relating to the tower block is that it will require high quality surface materials if it is going to be as tall as now proposed.

Consultations

The Highway Authority confirms that the development has been excluded from the existing residents parking scheme and future residents will not be eligible for a permit. The development is acceptable in parking terms due to parking now being controlled on-street through residents parking and pay and display.

Recommendation: Conditional approval

20081976 9 BATH STREET

Proposal: TWO STOREY BUILDING FOR COMMUNITY CENTRE AND PLACE OF WORSHIP (CLASS D1) (AMENDED PLANS)

Applicant: JAFFER KAPASI, HATIM JAFERJI & ANWAR KAPASI


Status: Smallscale Major Development

Expiry Date: 23 March 2009

SB1 WARD: Belgrave


Amended Description: No

Amended Recommendation: No

Amended/New Reasons/Conditions/Notes

The following conditions have been amended: Condition 5 landscaping –includes investigations into the use of permeable paving; Condition 13 site layout – wording clarified; Condition 14 parking area – repetitions of other conditions deleted; Condition 17 amended the name of the guidance Condition 20 Travel Plan – reference to use of car park of 127 Loughborough Road has been added; Condition 23 - updated to refer to revised plans.

Representations

The applicant has sent in a further representation clarifying certain points:

• The trustees are substantially in agreement with all the proposed conditions;

• The community also owns the former Place of Worship at 127 Loughborough Road (approx. 550m from the application site) which has around 20 car parking spaces and could be used as an overflow car park, with a minibus


6

shuttle service between the two properties for the larger occasions. The community is willing to buy two mini-buses for this purpose;

• 127 Loughborough Road is currently unused, and has not been used as a Place of Worship for about two years. If the current application is approved, this property is likely to be re-let as offices;

• Parking provision would be supervised by volunteer marshals. Neighbours have been promised that they would be given the mobile phone numbers of the volunteers and also a list of car registration numbers of community members. If a community member parks in the side streets they would be asked to remove their vehicle and measures would be put in place to ensure that it does not happen again;

• There would be two small minarets made of the same material as the external walls. The windows and doors would be wood or uPVC. Materials for the walls to are be agreed;

• The building would have sound-proofing.

Further Considerations

Revised layout

A revised parking layout and tracking diagrams have been submitted, and the boundary on the south side has been corrected. The revised layout shows 33 parking spaces, including 2 minibus spaces, plus double parking. The Local Highway Authority still has concerns over the location and size of some of the proposed spaces, the pinch point where the access leads to the rear car park, and the pedestrian route to the front of the building. The LHA estimates that there are potentially 25 useable spaces, which is a shortfall of 31 spaces on the maximum that would be required under the Vehicle Parking Supplementary Planning Document.

Landscaping The revised layout includes additional planting proposals to the front and sides, including some trees. The use of permeable paving will be investigated and part of the detailed landscape proposals.

Energy

An expanded energy statement has been submitted which suggests a number of ways in which the City Council’s energy targets could be met, including passive stack ventilation using the minarets.

Conclusion The LHA considers that the car park could provide 25 useable spaces. I consider that this would be adequate to cater for the day to day use of the centre for worship, classes and meetings by community members. The applicant has proposed additional measures to cater for the increased volume of traffic for larger events, including the use of the car park at 127 Loughborough Road with a minibus shuttle service, and these should be incorporated into the Travel Plan. I consider that the additional information submitted by the applicant on this and other matters is satisfactory and recommend that the application should be approved.

CONDITIONS

5. Before the development authorised by this permission is begun, a detailed landscaping scheme showing the treatment of all parts of the site which will remain unbuilt upon shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the City


7

Council as local planning authority. This scheme shall include details of: (i) new tree and shrub planting, including plant type, size, quantities and locations; (ii) means of planting, staking, and tying of trees, including tree guards; (iii) other surface treatments including all hard landscaped areas, including an investigation of the sue of permeable paving; (iv) fencing and boundary treatments including boundary walls and railings; (v) details of proposed lighting; (vi) any changes in levels; (vii) the position and depth of service and/or drainage runs (which may affect tree roots). The approved landscaping scheme shall be carried out within one year of completion of the development. For a period of not less than five years from the date of planting, the applicant or owners of the land shall maintain all planted material. This material shall be replaced if it dies, is removed or becomes seriously diseased. The replacement planting shall be completed in the next planting season in accordance with the approved landscaping scheme. (In the interests of amenity, and in accordance with policy UD06 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.)

13. Before the development commences, notwithstanding the details on site layout plan 020047/A/025B received on 2 March 2009, a site layout plan at 1:100 scale indicating the location of vehicle parking spaces, cycle parking spaces and bin store shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the City Council as local planning authority, and shall be implemented in accordance with the agreed details. (In the interests of highway safety, and in accordance with policies AM11 and PS10 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.)

14. Before the occupation of any part of the building, the parking bays shall be surfaced and marked out in accordance with details previously agreed in writing with City Council as local planning authority and retained as such. (To ensure that parking takes place in a satisfactory manner, and in accordance with policies PS10 and AM11 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.)

17. All streetworks shall be constructed in accordance with the City Council's adopted guidance 'Highways Transportation & Development Guide’. (To achieve a satisfactory form of development, and in accordance with policy AM01 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.)

20. A Travel Plan relating to the development, which shall identify modal splits, proposals, targets, objectives, time scales and monitoring techniques, for discouraging the use of private cars to and from the development and encouraging the use of alternative means of travel, including increased use of public transport, shall be submitted to and agreed by the City Council as the local planning authority before the development is commenced and implemented in accordance with the agreement. The Travel Plan shall include provision for transport mode, measures to minimise pollution, and travel pattern surveys to be conducted every twelve months or at intervals to be agreed from the first occupation of the development until 2015 , and shall examine the contribution that can be made by walking, cycling, use of public transport, coaches, car sharing, and the provision and control of car parking including the use of the car park at 127 Loughborough Road. The Plan shall identify a co-ordinator and point of contact for the purpose of the plan. The Travel Plan shall be carried out as agreed. (In the interest of sustainable transport system and in accordance with policy PS03 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.)

23. This consent shall relate solely to the drawings 020047/A/022 rev A, 020047/A/0223 rev A and 020047/A/024 rev A received on 9 December 2008


8

as amended by plans 020047/A/019 rev E, 020047/A/020 rev C and 020047/A/025B received by the City Council as local planning authority on 2 March 2009 unless agreed otherwise in writing with the City Council as local planning authority. (For the avoidance of doubt.)

Recommendation: Limited period approval

20081985 22 BRAUNSTONE GATE; 112 BEDE STREET

Proposal: CONTINUATION OF USE OF GROUND FLOOR AS TAXI BOOKING OFFICE (NO USE CLASS)

Applicant: MR IAN GUYLER

App type: Change of use

Status: Change of use

Expiry Date: 16 February 2009

OPP WARD: Westcotes


Consultations

The Service Director for Resources anticipates that the demolition of the Bowstring Bridge is likely to take place within the next 6 to 9 months and has therefore suggested that the limited period consent should be for 6 to 9 months

Representations

I have received a letter from the applicant that I understand has been copied to Members of the committee, which states that 2 letters of objection that have been covered in the main report, are not from the person\s named on the letters. I have been provided with two letters from the said objectors who state that they do not object to the proposal. The applicant is claiming that many of the letters of objections are identical and do not appear to be legitimate; hence weight should not be given to them.


9

Further three letters of objection have been received that raise the issues of parking, highway safety and noise problems in the area.

Consideration

I consider that a one year limited period consent is a reasonable time scale and if the demolition of the bridge were to commence before the expiry of the consent then the City Council, as the land owners, has the authority to terminate the lease agreement with the applicant for the use of the car park. Condition 3 attached to the consent would ensure that the use could not operate without the car parking provision. The council has a duty to carefully consider all representations because it is impossible to authenticate all letters.

The issues raised by the objectors have been covered in the main report.


20081994 33 BLACKBIRD AVENUE

Proposal: RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION FOR 8 FLOODLIGHT COLUMNS

Applicant: PAUL JOHN CONSTRUCTION (LEICESTER) LTD


Status: Minor development


SSB WARD: Fosse


Amended Description: No

Amended Recommendation: No

Amended/New Reasons/Conditions/Notes: No

Representations: Yes

A letter, copy of the petition already considered and photographs (dated 26th February 2009) addressed to Councillors have been submitted in relation to the application. Concern has once again been expressed re the lack of planting along the boundary with Blackbird Avenue, the removal of trees and the installation of a fuel tank. They consider that the fence and lighting columns have occupied the place designated for planting. Furthermore they feel that commercial interests have not shown any regard to residential concerns.


I am in negotiation with the applicant in order to improve the visual amenity of the residents on the Avenue. However as the planting condition has already been discharged there is no compulsion upon the applicant to come to any agreement on this issue.


10


20082015 125 HINCKLEY ROAD

Proposal: SHOPFRONTS; ATM AT FRONT; ALTERATIONS TO SHOP (CLASS A1)

Applicant: TESCO STORES LIMITED



Expiry Date: 12 February 2009

AVB WARD: Western Park

Page Number on Main Agenda: 35 (Joint reports)


Correction on page 37 under ‘The Proposal’ on planning application 20082016, line 2 should read 125 and not 175 Hinckley Road.


20090017 40 GRANBY STREET/2-4 RUTLAND STREET

Proposal: ATM TO FRONT OF RETAIL SHOP (AMENDED PLANS)

Applicant: TESCO STORES LTD




SSA WARD: Castle

CONDITIONS

3. This consent shall relate to the amended plans 8386- 12A, 15D, GRANELE 1F and 1FA received by the local planning authority on the 27 February 2009 unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority. (For the avoidance of doubt.)



Proposal: ALTERATIONS TO SHOPFRONT(AMENDED PLANS)





SSA WARD: Castle

THIS SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT RELATES TO 20090017 & 20090018

Page Numbers on Main Agenda: 51 & 52 Amended Description: (AMENDED PLANS) Further Considerations

• The location of the shop front entrance has been changed to the corner of the site;

• The ATM unit has been relocated from the corner to the front elevation;


11

• The existing wooden shop front and small window lights below the shop fascia are to be retained;

I consider that the above amendments overcome the previous concerns. CONDITIONS 3 This consent shall relate to the amended plans 8386- 12A, 15D, GRANELE 1F

and 1FA received by the local planning authority on the 27 February 2009 unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority. (For the avoidance of doubt.)



Proposal: INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED FASCIA AND PROJECTING SIGNS TO SHOP (AMENDED PLANS)


App type: Advertisement consent

Status: Other development


SSA WARD: Castle


Amended Description: (AMENDED PLANS)

Further Considerations:

The projecting signs have been repositioned as requested.

CONDITIONS

1. This consent shall relate to the amended plans 8386 -15D, GRANELE 1F and 1FA received by the local planning authority on the 27 February 2009 unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority. (For the avoidance of doubt.)

Recommendation: RECO subject to s106 Agreement

20090045 ABBEY PARK STREET, ABBEY MILLS & WOLSEY BUILDING (FORMERLY SANGRA & SHONKI BUILDINGS)

Proposal:

CHANGE OF USE FROM FACTORY (CLASS B2) TO 94 APARTMENTS (CLASS C3) (ABBEY MILLS BUILDING) AND NEW BLOCK OF 103 APARTMENTS (CLASS C3) INCLUDING EXTRA CARE FACILITIES (ON SITE OF WOLSEY BUILDING) (AMENDED PLANS) (SUBJECT TO A S106 AGREEMENT)

Applicant: LHA-ASRA GROUP

App type: Change of use

Status: Largescale Major Development

Expiry Date: 15 April 2009

WJJ WARD: Latimer



12

Amended Conditions: New conditions (19, 20 & 21) and a note (7) have been added. The former condition 19 has been amended and renumbered 22.

Further considerations

Highway and Parking matters The Highway Authority have concerns about the level of parking and would have liked to secure developer contributions towards crossing and cycle facilities. The scheme includes 197 flats and fifty car parking spaces. Of the 197 flats 64 will be ‘Extra Care’ and therefore residents in those units are likely to have less demand for car parking spaces than for ordinary flats. The previously approved scheme of 200 general flats would have had 35 parking spaces. That permission could presently be implemented. The new scheme is therefore likely to lead to significantly less on-street car parking that the previously approved scheme. Similarly, funding for a pedestrian crossing and means of sustainable travel were not secured under the previous permission. Given that the present scheme is likely to have less impact on on-street parking provision in the area than the previous scheme it would be unreasonable to seek to secure such contributions now. A clause may be inserted into the S106 Agreement confirming that residents will not be eligible for permits should a residents parking scheme be introduced in the area. The applicants have indicated that most servicing and taxi/ambulance vehicles would stop on Abbey Park Street and use the new pedestrian entrance onto that street. The Highways Authority consider that this arrangement could hinder the flow of traffic and could be detrimental to highway safety. A turning area for larger vehicles could be provided at the rear of the site however in doing so the site would lose the only part of the rear garden that would receive sunlight. In order for taller vehicles to access the rear the existing archway from the Abbey Mills Building to the Wolsey Building might have to be demolished. This archway is a fine feature that gives interest to the site. I consider that Abbey Park Road is a relatively minor road and that servicing from the street would not be significantly harmful. The previous approved scheme did not provide access and a turning area for larger vehicles. The amended plans received include glass canopies over three doorways that face onto Abbey Park Road, Ross Walk and the rear of the site. The first two overhang the pavement at a height of 2.4 (Abbey Park Road) and 2m (Ross Walk). The Highway Authority have objected to these on the grounds that they would be detrimental to highway safety. Consent under the Highways Act would also be required for them and the Highway Authority have indicated this is unlikely to be forthcoming. I therefore recommend a condition be attached stating that this consent does not cover the canopies and a note be attached informing the applicant that consent under the Highways Act would be required.

Other matters In order to ensure the existing corner of the Wolsey Building is protected during the demolition of the rest of the building I recommend a condition be attached to ensure a suitable scheme of demolition and protection is followed. I am also recommending a condition to ensure the Extra Care flats are only occupied by those who need such facilities and care.


13

CONDITIONS 19. The Extra Care units as detailed on the approved plans shall only be occupied

by those who need Extra Care or those who care for those in need of Extra Care who are living within this building. (To ensure the Extra Care flats are used for the purposes for which they have been granted planning permission.)

20. Prior to the commencement of development a scheme for the demolition of the existing Wolsey Building and retention of the corner facing Abbey Park Road and Ross Walk (as detailed on the approved plans) shall be submitted to and agreed with the local planning authority. Work shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed details. (To ensure the corner of the Wolsey Building is protected during the demolition of the rest of the building in accordance with policy UD01 of the City of Leicester Local Plan.)

21. Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved plans no consent is given for any structures that overhang the highway. (In the interests of highway safety.)

22. This consent shall relate solely to the amended plans (ref.no.7044/001,002RevA,003RevA,004RevA,005RevB,006RevB,007RevB,008RevB,009RevB,010RevB,011RevB,012,013,014,015,016,017RevB,018RevB,019RevB,026RevB,027RevB,029,030,031,032) received by the local planning authority on the 14th January, 26th February and 2nd March 2009 (For the avoidance of doubt).

NOTES FOR APPLICANT

7. Consent would be required under the Highways Act for the canopies facing Abbey Park Road and Ross Walk indicated on the submitted plans and such consent is unlikely to be given.

Planning & Development Control Committee Date: 3 rd March ......Applicant: JAFFER KAPASI, HATIM...

Documents

Transcript of Planning & Development Control Committee Date: 3 rd March ......Applicant: JAFFER KAPASI, HATIM...