Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from S. Britton, A. McWhirr and S. Heathcote.

Councillor O’Brien informed the Panel that this would be his last meeting as he was not standing in the forthcoming election. A number of members of the Panel thanked Cllr. O’Brien for his long association with the Panel and wished him well for the future.

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 Planning and Development Control Committee and therefore undertook to give no opinions on any of the business on the agenda for the meeting.

The minutes of the meeting held on 14 March 2007 are attached and the Panel is asked to confirm them as a correct record.

It was noted that the attendance at the previous meeting was incorrect in the minutes. The Committee Administrator undertook to correct this for the record.

RESOLVED:

that the minutes of the Panel held on 18 April 2007 be confirmed as a correct record, subject to the above amendments.

Officers informed the Panel that a site visit had been organised to the Glenfield Railway Tunnel on Thursday 10 May at 11am, meeting at the Glenfield end.

Richard Lawrence, Derek Hollingworth, Rowan Roenisch, Malcom Elliott and Cllr. Garrity all indicated that they were going to attend.

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 of the Panel enquired about details of the amended plans which were approved as part of the 76 Clarendon Park Road application. Officers commented that the proposals to alter the windows were dropped.

It was also enquired why the Silver Street signage application was approved despite the Panel being opposed. Officers commented that the proposed signage was thought to be no worse that that already there. However a side issue regarding projecting signs was dealt with as part of the process.

Attached to the agenda is a briefing note detailing the key points for the White Paper, Heritage Protection for the 21^st Century.

A briefing note detailing the key points for the White Paper, Heritage Protection for the 21^st Century was attached to the agenda for the Panel’s views.

A comment was made regarding the ability of English Heritage to undertake any further duties and responsibilities as it was already under resourced.

Officers encouraged the organisations that Panel members represented to make their own representations on the White Paper.

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

A) 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 and the redevelopment of the site with a seven-storey building with retail and restaurant use on the ground floor and offices on the upper floors. This is a revised application from one considered by the Panel in November 2006.

The Panel wasn’t happy with the loss of the existing buildings and in particular it was felt that the Thomas Cook Temperance Hotel building should have its façade retained and restored. Thomas Cook, it was pointed out was very important not only locally but nationally as well. It was considered that the new building was out of scale with the majority of historic buildings within the conservation area. A suggestion of staggering the building back from the second floor (retaining the Thomas Cook façade) so that the building would appear more in keeping with the historic street was recommended as a possible option.

B) 111 HIGHCROSS STREET

Planning Application 20070271

Redevelopment

The Director said that the application was for the redevelopment of the site currently occupied by a three storey 1980’s building, with a new six-storey building to create ground and part first floor restaurant/café with 21 self-contained flats and associated car parking.

The Panel accepted the principle of a new build in this location as the existing building had no redeeming architectural qualities. It was however recommended that the new build should draw on the adjacent church for its colour palette and should be subservient to the church both in scale and appearance which meant not brightly coloured. The design and height of the building should allow existing views of the 12^th century tower to be retained.

C) 307 LONDON ROAD, SOUTH LODGE

Planning Application 20070519

Assisted living scheme

The Director said that the application was for a new building ranging between two and four storeys in height and the retention and refurbishment of the main body of South Lodge to create 82 assisted living units. The new building was to be attached to the rear of the retained front section of South Lodge; the rear wings and the cottage were to be demolished.

The Panel applauded the level of information provided for this proposal and the positive way that the applicants had canvassed local residents. The retention of the main section of the historic house was welcomed. It was however thought that the proposed building was like an enormous maze and ideally it was thought that it would have been nicer to have a series of buildings rather than the one large one but accepted that it was designed this way in order to facilitate efficient management of the facility.

D) 34 KNIGHTON DRIVE (LAND ADJACENT)

Planning Application 20070407

New House

The Director said that the application was for a new six-bedroom house on the land adjacent to number 34 Knighton Drive.

The Panel was happy  ...  view the full minutes text for item 93.

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.

Labour Group Attendance at CAP Meetings

A letter was circulated from Councillor Patrick Kitterick suggesting that Labour Councillors start attending CAP meetings for discussion on matters relating to policy, but they still felt unable to attend the applications section of the meeting for fear of being seen to pre-judge planning applications.

Members of the Panel made a number of comments. They didn’t agree that there was a difficulty with Councillors attending Panel meetings to hear the discussion on planning applications. It was felt that this would enhance their knowledge of a planning application and lead to better decision making.

Members also felt that it would be difficult to separate meetings between the policy and application sections; also discussion on policies relating to conservation matters was limited and infrequent at Panel meetings.

Panel Members commented further that Labour Group members used to attend the CAP meetings, the contributions of the former Councillor Stuttard were noted as being particularly positive. It was felt that it was very positive to have Councillors at Panel meetings because of their local knowledge. It was suggested and hoped that a Labour Group Councillor could attend some meetings as an observer to view the work of the panel.

The meeting closed at 7.05pm.