Agenda and minutes

There were apologies from P. Draper, M. Elliot, A. McWhirr and Cllr. O’Brien.

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

Councillor Garrity declared that she was a member of the Development Control Committee and therefore undertook to give no opinions on any of the business on the agenda for the meeting.

K. Chhapi declared that he had a personal interest in the late item, Former Church Rooms, Clarendon Park Road.

The minutes of the meeting held on 13 December 2006 are attached and the Panel is asked to confirm them as a correct record.

RESOLVED:

that the minutes of the Panel held on 13 December 2006 be confirmed as a correct record.

Former Spread Eagle Pub

Members of the Panel hoped that lessons would be learnt from the loss of this building and that where enforcement notices were given, then they should be pursued, before any other action was taken. Officers explained that it would have been their preference to pursue the enforcement notice, but once the planning approval had been given this was pointless.

A query was raised regarding the façade design of the proposed building and whether changes were included in the planning approval conditions. Officers explained that design changes couldn’t be included as a condition of the planning approval.

A Panel member noted that this was a wide issue that was occurring across the country. It was difficult to address at Government level because the responsibilities for planning and conservation matters were split between two departments, Communities and Local Government and Culture, Media and Sport.

Jeremy Crooks

Congratulations were given to Jeremy on his recent appointment to the Building Conservation Officer post.

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

A) QUEEN STREET / ST GEORGE STREET

Pre-application enquiry

Major development

The Director said that a pre-application enquiry was received for a twelve-storey building to provide a ground floor restaurant and visual and audio arts centre with flats above.

The Panel raised no objection to the space being redeveloped.  It was felt that the proposed use – rock music venue, might conflict with flats adjacent because of noise. The Panel also thought that there were too many flats proposed and again raised the issue of demand for the ever increasing number of flats being built. They considered the building height to be excessive, the design poor and should convey the mixed use of the building.

The Panel thought that the lower floors could be exploited creatively to reflect the ground floor use – to make a statement. The upper floors were very repetitive especially the window elements. It was suggested that the designers look at the industrial buildings nearby with their fine window proportions & brickwork and use them as a reference for a new design. The overall design needed to harmonize with the existing building adjacent. With regard to materials, Leicester was seen as still mainly red brick and they would prefer to see an indigenous pallet, the use of silver cladding signalled a business park/out of town image.

B) LONDON ROAD, ST JAMES THE GREATER

Pre-application enquiry

External alterations

The Directions said that a pre-application enquiry for alterations to the church to provide a lift and disabled toilets.

The Panel raised no objections.

C) 80 LONDON ROAD

Planning Application 20062125, Listed Building Consent 20062127

Antennae & equipment cabinet

The Director said that the applications were for a 3.5 metre flagpole to incorporate three internal antennae, a pole mounted dish and equipment cabinet to be located on the roof of the early 20^th century part of the building to the rear of the Georgian building.

The Panel had no objections to the flagpole but asked if the equipment cabinets could be located in a less prominent place so that they were hidden from view. The application also mentioned a dish and it was not clear from the plans where this would be or what size it was. The Panel indicated that they would be opposed to a large dish mounted on the roof that was visible from the conservation area.

D) 9 CANK STREET

Planning Application 20062231

New shopfront

The Director noted that the Panel had previously made observations on the change of use of the ground floor of the building to a casino last year and more recently, new signage. This was a retrospective application for a new shopfront including moving the doorway to its original position to retain the symmetry of the entire frontage.

The Panel reiterated their thoughts from the earlier meeting, that the red first floor panels would be better if they were white to match the second floor. They considered that the proposal was acceptable providing the door was repositioned to match the adjoining shop  ...  view the full minutes text for item 68.

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.

A Panel Member queried whether the note in the Leicester Mercury about a refused application in Granby Street related to the 109-133 Granby Street application which the Panel had previously considered. Officers confirmed this was the case.

Officers reported that following a long period of negotiation a scheme had been agreed with the owners of 78-80 Rutland Street for its residential conversion. It was expected that the work would commence soon.

The meeting closed at 6.40pm.