Issue - meetings

Application for part demolition and conversion of existing factory to 4 apartments and erection of 4 new houses and 9 new apartments.

Late items:

Consultations:-

Notwithstanding the initial response on behalf of NHS England that confirmed that no healthcare facility contributions would be requested in respect of this development, an additional response has been received on behalf of University Hospitals Leicester. The latest response seeks a contribution of £5,784.00 towards the gap in funding for healthcare facilities for each potential patient from the development in respect of accident and emergency and planned care. Detailed explanation, calculation and justification have been provided to support the request.

Appraisal:-

Infrastructure contributions

A new contribution request of £5,784.00 has been received in respect of healthcare facilities to mitigate the potential impact on such facilities from the occupiers of the proposed development. In this case, the planning application was supported by an affordable housing viability report which has been independently assessed on behalf of the local planning authority. The independent assessment concludes that the scheme cannot sustain any affordable housing or section 106 infrastructure contributions and therefore no such contributions have been pursued from the development in this case.

Recommendation:-

Minded to approve subject to:

·         Planning conditions outlined at the end of Appendix A to the agenda report.

That the Interim Head of Planning be given powers to determine the final detail of planning conditions.

Application for part demolition and conversion of existing factory to four apartments and erection of four new houses and nine new apartments.

The applicant had appealed non-determination and therefore the authority could not determine the application. Members were required to note what their decision would have been if they had powers to determine the application. This information would be passed onto the Planning Inspectorate.

Councillor Roberts, seconded by Councillor RG Allen, proposed that members be minded to refuse permission due to the access being unsuitable and the impact upon pedestrians and cyclists. Upon being put to the vote, the motion was LOST on the casting vote of the chairman.

It was subsequently moved by Councillor Bray, seconded by Councillor Hollick and upon the casting vote of the chairman

RESOLVED – the Planning Inspectorate be notified, in relation to the appeal, that if the committee had been in a position to determine the application it would have approved the application subject to the conditions contained within the officer’s report.

Application for part demolition and conversion of existing factory to 4 apartments and erection of 4 new houses and 9 new apartments.

‘Late items:’

Appraisal:-

Affordable Housing and Infrastructure Contributions

Lambert Smith Hampton have undertaken an independent valuation analysis of the financial viability assessment submitted to support the proposed scheme. Their report concludes that the scheme cannot support any affordable housing or Section 106 contributions and that such an obligation would prejudice the delivery of the proposed 17 residential units.

As a result and in order to enable the site to come forward, the recommendation has been amended to reflect the outcome of the independent valuation analysis of the scheme and the completion of a section 106 agreement to secure affordable housing and infrastructure contributions is no longer required.

Recommendation:-

Amend Recommendation to:

11.       Recommendations

11.1.    Grant planning permission subject to:

·         Planning conditions outlined at the end of this report.

11.2.    That the Interim Head of Planning be given powers to determine the final detail of planning conditions.

Application for part demolition and conversion of existing factory to four apartments and erection of four new houses and nine new apartments.

Councillor Wright left the meeting at 7.45pm and returned at 7.57pm.

Notwithstanding the officer’s recommendation that permission be granted subject to a section 106 agreement and conditions, some members felt that the design and layout was inappropriate contrary to policy DM10 of the SADMP and had concern with highway safety contrary to policy DM17 and DM18 of the SADMP. It was moved by Councillor Roberts and seconded by Councillor Smith that members be minded to refuse permission. Three members stood to request voting be recorded on this motion. The vote was taken as follows:

Councillors Bill, Cook, Crooks, Ladkin, Richards, Roberts, Smith and Wright voted FOR the motion (8);

Councillors Sutton, Witherford and Ward voted AGAINST the motion (3);

Councillors Hollick, Lynch, Nichols and Surtees abstained from voting.

The motion was declared CARRIED and it was

RESOLVED - the committee be minded to refuse permission and the application be brought back to a future meeting for determination.