Agenda and minutes

There were no apologies received.

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

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

Simon Britton stated for the avoidance of doubt with regards to item 15: Pre-Application, Fielding Johnson Building, University of Leicester, that he was nominated by the University of Leicester to sit on the Panel, but currently had no direct links to the University.

The minutes of the meeting held on 20 January are attached and the Panel is asked to confirm them as a correct record.

It was noted that Deborah Martin was not listed as present when she was in attendance.

RESOLVED:

that the minutes of the Conservation Advisory Panel meeting held on 20 January 2010, be confirmed as a correct record.

There were no matters arising from the minutes.

The Director introduced the Panel to Jennifer Timothy, the newly appointed Senior Building Conservation Officer and welcomed her to her first meeting of the Panel.

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

The Director, Planning and Economic Development 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 Chair agreed to take a late item first to facilitate the Panel’s understanding of an upcoming application, and give the Panel the opportunity to input their views at an early stage in the design process.

The Panel received a presentation from Steven Pidwell of Shepherd Epstein & Hunter architects regarding the proposed re-working of the interior of the Council Chamber, remodelled by Trevor Dannatt in the 1970s. The Panel were generally supportive of the scheme subject to some fine-tuning and additional details, such as how the mezzanine floor would be fixed. They would like the Italianate windows on both end elevations restored to their original height thereby removing the 1970s window on the east elevation.  They would also like an assurance that the Trevor Dannatt interior is not a significant piece of his interior design work. If it were found to be of National importance at the very least it should be properly recorded.

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

A)  BELGRAVE HALL

Listed Building Consent 20100040

Replacement of rainwater goods

The Director said that this proposal was to make castings of the originals and fit Glass Reinforced Plastic (GRP) 'lead lookalike' replicas.

The Panel were sympathetic to the problems of lead theft. However GRP was not an acceptable replacement for lead on a Grade II* listed building and the Panel would like to see the original lead-work reinstated. They suggested that copies of the decorative brackets and hoppers were made so that if the lead was stolen at some point lead replicas could be made.

The Panel recommended refusal on this application.

B)  230 LONDON  ROAD

Planning Application 20091727

Demolition and redevelopment

The Director said that this application was for a new four and five storey building for commercial use and student flats.

The Panel accepted the principle of a building in these proportions. However they did not like the heavy massing of the design and would like to see some additional drop in height in the roofscape to create some drama. They thought that the proposal did not address the sweep around the corner from London Road to Mayfield Road and the introduction of a landmark feature would create more visual interest. This was a very desirable and important site and the Panel felt a building of real quality is needed to do it full justice, and the building as proposed was not good enough.

The Panel recommended that amendments be sought, refusal of this application in its current form.

C)  215 & 219 EVINGTON LANE

Planning Application 20090668, Conservation Area Consent 20090697

Demolition, redevelopment with four detached houses

The Director said that this proposal was to demolish both houses and redevelop the site with five detached houses.

The Panel maintained their views that the two Edwardian Houses should be kept. They noted that these could be retained along with the two additional houses previously granted outline consent, and the addition of one at the rear of the site currently proposed would achieve the five detached houses that the applicant wanted from the site.

The Panel recommended refusal on this application.

D)   56 ST JAMES ROAD, 69 EVINGTON ROAD

Planning Application 20091633

Change of use.

The Director said that this application was for the change of use of the building from offices to two houses in multiple occupation.

The Panel were in the main supportive of a scheme that tidied up this rather unsightly rear. They would like to see access retained for car parking and some members thought that stepping the roofline as it falls down the hill would be an improvement. The rooflights on the main building were visible but they were not on the front elevation and therefore reluctantly acceptable, providing they were the flush conservation style.

The Panel recommended that amendments be sought.

E)  68 DERWENT STREET

Planning Application 20100134

Rear dormer

The Director said that this application was for a new rear dormer.

The Panel did not like the large dormer proposed to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.

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 Democratic Services Officer in advance of the meeting if they have urgent business that they wish to be considered.

There were no items of urgent business.

The meeting closed a 6:46pm.