Issue - meetings

21/00775/FUL - 102 Druid Street, Hinckley

Meeting: 21/09/2021 - Planning Committee (Item 164)

164 21/00775/FUL - 102 Druid Street, Hinckley pdf icon PDF 98 KB

Application for change of use from six person house in multiple occupation (class C4) to eight person house in multiple occupation (sui generis), roof light.

 

Late items received after preparation of main agenda:

 

Consultations:-

 

A consultation response has been received from the Leicestershire Police Architectural Liaison Officer. They raise no objection to the proposal however they do make the following recommendations:

 

1)        Consideration of CCTV coverage in this area is recommended

2)        A door release access control to prevent unauthorised entry is recommended

3)        All pedestrian and cycle walkways should be illuminated

4)        Wheelie bin storage and cycle storage should be in secure locations to avoid the potential for criminal use

5)        Alarm coverage to flats is recommended

6)        Fencing should be used to enclose the perimeter

7)        Natural surveillance should be provided with foliage no higher than 1 metre and trees no higher than 2 metres recommended 

 

Appraisal:-

 

The above is advice from the Leicestershire Police Architectural Liaison Officer with the above recommended changes not falling within the planning remit.

 

Recommendation:-

 

The recommendation remains unchanged from that set out in the agenda.

Minutes:

Application for change of use from six person house in multiple occupation (class C4) to eight person house in multiple occupation (sui generis), roof light.

 

Notwithstanding the officer’s recommendation that permission be granted, members felt that the loss of amenity space for existing residents was unacceptable and the size and standard of accommodation would have an adverse impact on future residents. It was felt it was therefore contrary to policy DM10 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD. Upon being put to the vote, the motion was CARRIED and it was

 

RESOLVED – permission be refused as the size and standard of the accommodation would have an adverse impact on the amenity of future residents and was therefore contrary to policy DM10 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD.