Agenda and minutes

There were apologies from S. Bowyer.

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

Councillor Garrity declared a personal interest in all the business on the agenda as she was Chair of the Planning and Development Control Committee. She undertook to give no opinions on any of the business on the agenda.

The minutes of the meeting held on 25 October 2006 are attached and the Panel is asked to confirm them as a correct record.

D. Martin pointed out that the wrong organisation had been put next to her name on the attendance list.

RESOLVED:

that the minutes of the Panel held on 25 October 2006 be confirmed as a correct record, subject to the above amendment.

John Dean pointed out with regard to Jack Simmons, that the 100-year anniversary of his birth would arrive before that 20 year anniversary of his death, at which point consideration could be given to the provision of a blue plaque commemorating his work. He noted that Simon Britton would have the exact dates.

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

The Panel welcomed the fact that the Council’s decisions largely mirrored their own views.

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

A) BATH LANE, MERLIN WORKS

Planning Application 20061999

Residential, hotel Development

The Director noted that the Panel had previously discussed plans for a residential development for this site in 2002. In May of this year the application for two towers one of 22 storeys and the other 26 in height, providing 354 apartments, restaurant & retail use was also discussed by the Panel. This new application was for a third tower on this site 39 storeys high to provide a bed hotel, 176 self-contained apartments, basement car parking and retail and leisure uses.

The Panel debated this matter in detail.  The proposal was met with mixed opinions. Some Panel Members thought this was, architecturally, the best designed of the three blocks. However there was also a general view that this type of development was not appropriate for Leicester. Some were unhappy with the piecemeal approach to the redevelopment of the waterside area and they felt that this proposal, including the two approved towers should have been discussed as a whole. 

In summary the Panel:

1.         did not recommend this proposal.

2.            requested a dialogue with planners as a matter of urgency to discuss the impact on the surrounding area and the historic environment and how the infrastructure requirements for this number of residential units- for example the increased traffic that will be generated- would be addressed. The proposed bridge was also raised as an issue. The view was that the redevelopment of this whole area was being done in a piecemeal way and there were grave concerns about this.

B) 109-133 GRANBY STREET

Conservation Area Consent 20061838 Planning Application 20061793

Demolition and Redevelopment

The Director said that the application was for the demolition of the row of buildings 109-133 Granby Street (inclusive) and the redevelopment of the site with a 7 storey building for retail and restaurant use on the ground floor and offices on the upper floors.

The Panel was opposed to the demolition of the historic buildings and in particular the Temperance Hotel - one of very few buildings that link the city to Thomas Cook. It was felt that these character buildings made a contrast to office quarter. The Panel accepted the loss of the 1960s building that was built on the old Temperance Hall site. It was suggested that the façade of the old Hotel could be retained and restored with new development to the rear.

The Panel commented that the new build was not a bad building in terms of design but not appropriate for this location and it did nothing for the character of the Conservation Area.  They thought the proposal to be too long, too tall. Any new build should pick up the pattern of development already in the area and it needed to replicate the existing variations in size and scale, such as the buildings opposite which were small scale.

C) 14-16 KING STREET

Pre Application Enquiry

Change of use

The Director noted that the building had been in use as a restaurant  ...  view the full minutes text for item 54.

The meeting closed at 7.00pm.