Agenda and minutes

There were apologies from S.Bowyer, S.Britton, S. Dobby, P. Draper, M. Elliot, A. McWhirr, Cllr. O’Brien and D.Smith.

Members are asked to declare any interests they may have in the business to be discussed.

C. Sawday declared a personal interest in Appendix D, item X, 1 Albion Street.

The minutes of the meeting held on 26 April 2006 are attached and the Panel is asked to confirm them as a correct record.

J. Dean commented that his declaration regarding 32/34 Elms Road had not been included.

Rowan Roenisch commented that her name had been spelt incorrectly.

RESOLVED:

that subject to the above amendments, the minutes of the Panel held on 26 April 2006 were confirmed as a correct record.

There were no matters arising from the minutes.

The Service Director, Environment submits a report on decisions made by the Development Control Committee on planning applications previously considered by the Panel.

Members of the Panel noted that 118 Charles Street had been approved despite the Panel’s refusal recommendation. Officers commented that they felt and Development Control were of the opinion that it wouldn’t be possible to defend an objection to the roof extension as there were a number in the are already.

The High Street Conservation Area Character Statement is attached to the papers for the Panel to give their comments.

Members of the Panel were asked for their comments on the draft High Street Conservation Area Character Statement.

It was queried whether there was a presumption against tall buildings and units of a certain size in this area in the local plan, particularly in relation to the Cathedral spire. Officers commented that there wasn’t currently any such restrictions in the current Local Development Framework, there was however a tall buildings policy currently being written and consulted on.

As a point of interest it was noted that the High Street suffered a decline in its fortunes following the closure of the Great Central Station.

Paragraph 4.61 regarding the car park at St. Nicholas Circle was referred to. It was noted that nothing could really be done with the site due to the archaeology. It was also noted that there were still a number of archaeological remains in the St Martins Area.

It was requested that this be added as an agenda item for the next meeting.

The Service Director, Environment submits a report on planning applications received for consideration by the Panel.

A) BATH LANE, MERLIN WORKS

Planning Application 20060614

Residential Development

The Director noted that the application was located within the Waterside Regeneration Area and was the second development to come forward in the area. The owners of the site also developed the adjacent Westbridge Wharf development which rises to 10 storeys. A new 11 storey residential development adjacent to the Donisthorpes site was approved in 2005.

The Panel had previously discussed plans for a residential development on this site in 2002. The current application was for two towers, one 22 storeys and the other 26 in height, providing 354 apartments, restaurants and retail use. The development would be taller than the cathedral spire, which at 220 feet was currently the tallest building in Leicester, although St. Georges Tower near the station was taller in the landscape because of ground level differences.

Members of the Panel raised the following points as part of the discussion:-

- There was little to commend the building, it was too high and didn’t release any groundspace for the public realm.

- The building could flood the market for flats and it was queried whether it was the right type of housing that the city was short of.

-  There was a concern that the road system and emergency services access would not be sufficient.

- The building did not fit in with its surroundings and it didn’t respect the adjacent Donisthorpe’s site or fit in with the Leicester character generally.

- The building looked to ‘lumpen’ from certain angles, although the landmark elements were to be welcomed.

- There was a feeling that the current proposal looked truncated and that it came to an abrupt stop; it could be better to make the building taller to lose some of the bulkiness that was proposed at ground floor level.

Overall members of the Panel felt that they would welcome further information and a presentation on the proposals. The building would need to be of exceptional quality if it was to serve the purpose as acting as a catalyst for regeneration of the area and a landmark building.

B) SOUTHAMPTON STREET

Conservation Area Consent 20060594

Demolition of existing building

The Director said that the application was for the demolition of the existing building, which dated from the mid 19^th Century. The building was recently turned down for statutory listing but was still judged by English Heritage to be an important building in the Conservation Area. The Panel made observations on the scheme to replace the building at the last meeting.

The Panel was of the opinion that the building made a positive contribution to the conservation area and therefore shouldn’t be demolished. They were not satisfied with the applicant’s justification that the new building was of sufficient quality to justify demolition.

C) 2 WYCLIFFE STREET

Listed Building Consent 20052337

Roller Shutter

The Director noted that the entrance to the rear of 2 Wycliffe Street accessed the rear yards of 18-28 Friar Lane and 2 Wycliffe Street.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

To consider such other business as, in the opinion of the Chair, ought, by reason of special circumstances, to be considered urgently.

Members are asked to inform the Chair and Committee Administrator in advance of the meeting if they have urgent business that they wish to be considered.

Date of next meeting

This would be notified in the week following the meeting.

Design Champions and Heritage Design Champions

It was noted that there was a networking event taking place on 30 May at the Leicester Creative Business Depot.

1 Knighton Park Road

The applicant lost the appeal for this development and was now having to repair a number of the illegal works that took place.

Spreadeagle Pub

It was noted that the applicant had appealed against the enforcement notice served due to the unauthorised changes made to the pub.