Agenda and minutes

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 10 July 2024 be confirmed and signed by the Chair as a true record.

An update sheet was circulated to members of Planning Committee in relation to planning applications to be considered this evening, which included additional information for Members attention, received after the original agenda documents had been published.

RESOLVED that the update sheet be received by Planning Committee.

Please note that, in accordance with the Members' Code of Conduct, when declaring interests members must disclose the existence and nature of the interest, and whether it is a disclosable pecuniary interest (DPI) or personal and/or pecuniary.

No declarations of interest were received.

Dave Walker, Arboricultural Officer:

a)    advised Planning Committee that the main purpose of his report was reasons for proposed works to trees predominantly in the City Council's ownership, although it may include other trees at times where special circumstances applied and officers were both able to do so and thought it was helpful

b)    sought consent to progress the works identified, as detailed at Appendix A of his report, with the exception of ‘Item No 2- 56 St Faith’s Street - housing property’ which already had previous consent

c)    highlighted that the list did not represent all the work undertaken to Council trees, it represented all the instances where a tree was in City Council ownership and identified for removal, or where a tree enjoyed some element of protection under planning legislation, and thus formal consent was required

d)    explained that ward councillors had been notified of the proposed works.

RESOLVED that the tree works set out in the schedules appended to the report be approved.

The Planning Team Leader:

1. referred to the application premises, a two-storey semi-detached property located on Queen’s Crescent, previously used as a house in multiple occupation having been granted a flexible C3/C4 use (2023/0382/C4)

2. advised that planning permission was sought for change of use from C3/C4 to a children’s home (C2)

3. outlined the history to the application site as detailed within the officer’s report

4. provided details of the policies pertaining to the application, as follows:

5. provided details of the issues to be assessed in relation to the planning application, as follows:

6. confirmed that the use of the property was required to be OFSTED registered and would offer accommodation for up to three children at any one time between the ages of 7 and 17

7. outlined the responses made to the consultation exercise

8. referred to the Update Sheet circulated at the meeting which contained further responses received after the agenda bundle had been despatched

9. concluded that:

·      In planning terms, the proposal was for residential accommodation in a residential area, albeit for care purposes and as a business enterprise.

·      There were no planning policies which prevented such uses from being located within residential neighbourhoods, in fact policy resisted such uses in isolated locations.

·      In this case the number of children and the use could be controlled by conditions so it was considered appropriate and compatible with the residential area.

·      The use, when appropriately managed, should not result in undue harm to the amenities of neighbouring occupants.

·      The LCC has raised no objections in terms of parking or impact upon highway safety.

·      Officers were therefore satisfied that the use would meet the requirements of CLLP Policies S2, S23 and S53 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Dr Simon Smith addressed Planning Committee in objection to the proposed planning application. He covered the following main points:

• He spoke also on behalf of Mr Dixon-Smith who had intended to speak this evening, however, was unable to attend due to personal circumstances.
• Queens Crescent was a Victorian narrow terraced kerbed street with Residents Parking down one side.
• There was no room to turn a car around; reverse gear would be required.
• Each property was entitled to only two residents parking permits.
• The suggested timetable for the operation of the application site with support vehicles arriving at 7.30am, 8.00am and 8.30am, departing again at 9.00am would conflict with busy traffic during school times when there would be lots of pedestrian/vehicular movements.
• Children walked across the West Common and across the road to attend St Faiths and St Martins School at those times.
• There were highway safety concerns.
• There was unrestricted parking along the street during the evenings/ Sundays. There was no chance of  obtaining a car parking space whilst the students were there.
• The intended use for the application site was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.