Agenda item

2 Frearson Road, Hugglescote, Coalville

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report.

Ms N Hassell, objector, addressed the Committee.  As the owner of the neighbouring property, she expressed concerns relating to parking, traffic and highway safety.  It was noted that on street parking on Frearson Road was already full to capacity during weekday mornings and weekends, and the proposed application with unrestricted parking would exacerbate the problem and contribute further to the congestion on the roads.  In reference to the proposed parking arrangements, concerns were made that the driveway to the property was very narrow and therefore users would be required to step onto the neighbouring property.  Also, the tandem parking proposal would lead to constant manoeuvring of vehicles.  It was commented that along with the already restricted visibility along the street, which was a highway safety risk, the property was located on the narrowest part of the estate, and an increase in number of vehicles would only worsen the obstruction for emergency services access.  To conclude, reference was made to a recent traffic accident involving a child and the proposals added to the highway concerns for the area.  Members were urged to refuse the application.  

Mr S Salt, agent, addressed the Committee. Details of the proposal were highlighted, and Members were informed that the property was selected due to its location in proximity to a range of facilities and services that can be used by the children and the care team.  The need for the facility was stressed along with the importance of the need to operate as close as possible to a typical family home.  It was noted that staff handovers would be conducted outside of peak hours, therefore that was also when vehicle movements would be.  Members were reminded that there were no Highway Authority objections and conditions were included to restrict the number of staff and children.  Members were urged to support the application.

Councillor T Eynon, Ward Member, addressed the Committee.  It was felt that the application was uniquely sensitive compared to similar applications due to the petition and number of objections received, some of which detailed concerns of the welfare of the children.  Although there were no Highway Authority objections, residents disagreed and felt that highway safety was a concern due to the congestion in the area.  Members were asked to reflect on several material planning considerations relating to parking provision, vehicle movements and the fact it was not a straightforward resident dwelling.  Members were asked that if minded to permit the application, then mitigations for the concerns raised be considered.

In determining the application, the concerns of residents were acknowledged and were shared by some Members, however it was noted that there had been no objections from the Highway Authority and some concerns were unfortunately not planning considerations.  Some concerns were raised in relation to the proposed location, as the bus service had been withdrawn some time ago and the fact it was a business operating in a residential area. 

Following a discussion relating to similar applications, during which concerns were reiterated, the Legal Advisor referred to a recent decision taken by the Planning Inspector for a similar application at a neighbouring authority, in which it was deemed that there was insufficient evidence that proved the proposed use would likely result in greater levels of noise, disturbance and vehicle movements than the existing authorised use.  Members were also reminded that the application in front of them was for a change of use, and considerations should be whether the proposal was materially different from what the property was built for. 

Although Members were reminded about the Highway Authority opinion, some felt that local knowledge was important and should be considered.

Following concerns raised regarding the parking allocation, the Head of Planning and Infrastructure referred to the proposed note to applicants as detailed within the update sheet and confirmed that they would be included should the application be approved.

The officer’s recommendation was moved by Councillor R Canny and seconded by Councillor D Everitt.

The Chair put the motion to the vote.  A recorded vote being required, the voting was as detailed below.

RESOLVED THAT:

The application be permitted in accordance with the officer’s recommendations.

At this point the Chair announced a slight change in the order of the agenda, the next item considered would be item A4 followed by item A3.