Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from S Britton, C Sawday, R Lawrence and A. McWhirr,

M. Elliot declined to attend the meeting as he objected to the fact that the Council were not taking the views of the panel seriously.

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

D. Smith declared an interest in Reports item A) Spa Building, Queen Street and Aylestone Hall which was contained within the minutes.

The minutes of the meeting held on 16 May 2007 are attached and the Panel is asked to confirm them as a correct record.

RESOLVED:

that the minutes of the Panel held on 16 May 2007 be confirmed as a correct record.

Membership

The Panel agreed in principle to Joan Garrity becoming a member of the Panel as a person of specialist knowledge due to her previous experience as chair of the Planning and Development Control Committee. The Panel also agreed in principle to accept Mr Lyne form The Leicestershire Industrial Society as a member of the Panel. Officers noted that there was only specific vacancy, which both of these people could fill. The Committee Administrator undertook to raise this matter with the Political Group Whips to see if it would be possible to allow both individuals to join the Panel and report back to the next meeting.

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.

Members raised no comment on this report.

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

A) SPA BUILDING, QUEEN STREET

Planning Application 20070933, Conservation Area Consent 20070934

Demolition, redevelopment

The Director said that the application was for the demolition of the existing buildings and redevelopments of the site with a four to nine story block of 87 flats with bar, restaurant and shops.

The Panel reiterated their previous views, which were that this is a fine quality building at the vernacular end of the architectural scale and that in this area so full of big buildings, these smaller buildings add drama to the street scene with the dramatic drop in scale and should be preserved.It was recommended that the whole building should be retained. It was further suggested that with all the flats already in the area a more diverse use such as workshops would be welcomed. The Panel urged that the building be properly marketed in order to find a suitable re-use, commenting on the proposed new build, the Panel thought that it did not reflect the character of St Georges Conservation area in design, materials or height.

B) 21 CAREYS CLOSE

Planning Application 20070954

New development

The Director said that the application was for a demolition of the existing factory and the redevelopment of the site with a seven-storey building for student accommodation with ground floor retail units. This was considered by the Panel last September. Following comments by the Panel the application was refused. This is a revised scheme, which lowers the rear by a storey and pulls back the top storey from Peacock Lane.

The Panel were pleased that the building had been reduced in height but were still unhappy with the design. It was thought that the proposed building did not exploit this prominent corner site and the corner treatment in particular was bland. The Panel also thought that the fenestration could be improved by drawing on elements from the adjacent building.

C) 157-159 GRANBY STREET, CALAIS HILL

Planning Application 20071056

Change of use to flats, rear extension and new build adjacent

The Director said that the application was for the change of use of the ground floor of the public house to shops and the conversion and extension of the remaining parts to create seven flats. A five-storey block of eight flats was also proposed to the rear, facing onto Calais Hill, which is outside the conservation area boundary.

The Panel were generally happy with this proposal but thought that the rear extension could be improved with larger windows which would improve the look of the building and make it a better place to live in. It was also thought the conversion would be a good time to reinstate a better ground floor shopfront. The Panel also considered that the proposed new build would not impact on the character of the adjacent conservation area.

D) FIVEWAYS HOUSE (FORMER THREADS FACTORY), TUDOR ROAD

Listed Building Consent 20070730

Partial demolition, internal and external alterations

The Director noted that Members made observations on the conversion of this building to flats a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

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.

Panel Minutes

Officers noted that they had received a letter from Malcolm Elliott. In the letter he raised a number of comments in particular in relation to the way in which the discussion on the recent Granby Street application was minuted.

Panel members considered a proposal to be sent the minutes of a meeting for comment prior to them being published. Members overall welcomed this idea but felt that it would only really be necessary if the Committee indicated that they wanted to see them for a particular item.

Further discussion was held around the wider issues of CAP’s influence and the trigger for committee consideration of an application.

Rowan Roenisch commented that she had written to Councillor Kitterick on this issue of committee decision triggers. Officers noted that currently an application would go to committee if the Panel and Conservation Officers recommended refusal to an application. This however was now being reviewed as it may be seen as giving too much influence for conservation matters. Further consideration was given to ways in which the Panel could push for a Committee decision such as making individual representations, possibly at the guidance of the Chair or filling in an objection pro forma at meetings.

Officers noted that it wouldn’t be possible to give an over-riding priority for the Panel’s view in planning decisions. There were a number of factors which came into play in decision making. Panel members felt that they were balanced in their deliberations and further expressed disappointment that no Labour Councillors were taking part in the meetings. It was also commented that it may be a better idea for the Panel to become more involved in developing planning policies. In addition it was stated that there were large numbers of people who supported conservation issues and that they should have their views democratically represented as part of the planning application process.

AGREED:

that Panel members would be sent draft copies of the minute where they indicated that there was a specific item that they wished to comment on prior to its publication.

The meeting closed at 6.57pm.