Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Joan Garrity, Rowan Roenisch and David Smith,

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

There were no declarations of interest.

The minutes of the meeting held on 21 February and the minutes of the special meeting held on 6 March are attached and the Panel are asked to confirm them as a correct record.

RESOLVED:

that the minutes of the Panel held on 21 February and on 6 March be confirmed as a correct record.

The Head of Planning Policy and Design presented a response from the developers on the Bath Lane, Donisthorpes application to the queries raised by the Panel at the Special meeting on 6 March.

It was reported that the developers would not retain the boiler house and it was explained that the reason for its exclusion was so that the waterside would be more open. The Senior Building Conservation Officer commented that the developers had agreed to retain the historical wall to the riverfront and they had commented that the integrity of the courtyard would be retained. The developers had also agreed that the partitions in the cottages would only be removed if justification was presented. It was stated that there had been no written comments received from English Heritage. The Head of Planning Policy and Design reported that the developers had stated that the Panel had not received all the information to look at accurately in relation to the application. It was stated that there had been no agreement made on whether the application would go to the Planning and Development Control Committee.

The Service Director, Planning and Policy submits a report on decisions made by Leicester City Council on planning applications previously considered by the Panel.

The Service Director, Planning and Policy submitted a report on the decisions made by Leicester City Council on planning applications previously considered by the Panel.

RESOLVED:

that the report be noted.

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

A) 7 STANLEY  ROAD, EASTFIELD

Planning Application 20080217

Housing development

The Panel made observations on the redevelopment of the site to the rear of Eastfield last October and that application (20071741) was refused. The Director said that the application was for a revised scheme that addressed some of the Panel's comments.

The Panel were critical of the proposal. They commented that the site was full of potential to accommodate a few well designed houses set in open space that would both compliment the adjacent listed building and make the best use of the setting to add quality to the conservation area. They thought that 24 units within the site was far too excessive and that the proposed design of the new build was standardised and did not reflect the high quality of architecture found elsewhere within the area. It was also noted that the previous proposed flat scheme reflected the footprint of the 1950s rear extension and retained a good proportion of open space, which was more complimentary to the setting of the listed building. The Panel reluctantly had accepted the principle of 24 houses however they stated that they would still like to see a better design with more traditional materials and features.

The Panel recommended seeking amendments to this application.

B) 136-140 LONDON ROAD

Planning Application 20071577 & Conservation Area Consent 20071585

Demolition and redevelopment

The Director said that the applications were for the demolition of the existing buildings and the redevelopment of the site with a mixed use development comprising of 41 self contained flats and 4 retail units with associated car parking and landscaping.

The Panel stated that it was an important part of the City and expressed their dislike of the proposed development. They stated that it was too high and did not reflect the individual plots that had been present on the site since the area of London Road was developed. The Panel felt that the current buildings cascaded down the hill, which created a desirable townscape to emulate. They thought that the proposed design, which presented a stairwell on the principle elevation, should have offered something better. Some Members of the Panel commented that the rear elevation was more sympathetic than the front. Overall the Panel stated that they would have liked a better design that reflected the scale of the existing buildings and paid some regard to the individual plots. They had no objection to the demolition of the existing buildings.

The Panel recommended refusal on this application.

C) 20 ELMS ROAD

Planning Application 20080234

Change of use, demolition and extension

The Director said that the application was for the conversion of the former student halls of residence to 14 self contained flats. The proposal involved a ground floor side extension, new dormers and the demolition of the detached boiler room and chimney.

The Panel felt that there were too many flats and that they should be reduced by half. They did not like the front extension or the double access for cars.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 79.

The meeting closed at 6:54pm.