Agenda item

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

A) 13 SOUTHAMPTON STREET

Planning Application 20052293 Conservation Area Consent 20052294

Demolition & residential development

 

The Director said that the application was for the demolition of the existing Spa buildings which were formerly the hide skin and fat market and the redevelopment of the site with a multi-storey building for 87 flats, offices and shops with two bars on the ground floor.

 

The Panel noted that this building was amongst the oldest and most important industrial vernacular in the area. The demolition of the building should be resisted and that conversion should be pursued to complement other conversion schemes in the area, perhaps as live/work units. The Panel felt that the proposed replacement building would not respect the character of the conservation area or the adjacent listed building.

 

B) 42/48 BELGRAVE GATE, FORMER ABC CINEMA

Planning Permission 20052172

Redevelopment

 

The Director said that the application was for the redevelopment of the site with buildings ranging from six to ten storeys for residential, hotel, casino, retail, financial and professional services, restaurant and café with basement car parking.

 

The Panel thought that the proposed new building did not respect the context of the site and would dominate Belgrave Gate. They also felt that the proposal lacked the architectural quality that should be sought for new buildings in the city.

 

C) BISHOP STREET, REFERENCE LIBRARY

Listed Building Consent 20052246

Internal Ramp

 

The Director noted that the Panel had previously discussed a new lift shaft for the external rear elevation of the building in November. The current application was for a new internal ramped access.

 

The Panel made no adverse observations.

 

D) 25-27 BEDE STREET

Planning Application 20052209

Rear extension

 

The Director noted that the Panel had previously discussed the conversion of this building to flats at a meeting in the summer of last year. This new application was for an extension to the rear elevation, which would be visible from Braunstone Gate.

 

The Panel were opposed to the design of the proposed extension as it would ruin the attractive roofline of the building. There was no objection to an extension in principle.

 

E) 62-64 CHURCH GATE

Planning Application 20052353

Three storey building

 

The Director noted that the Panel had considered an application for the demolition of the two storey building on the corner of Church Gate and St. Peters Lane and redevelopment with a three storey building in September 1996. It was the resultant archaeological report that led to the building being listed. The building has recently been de-listed and subsequently demolished and the current application was for a new three storey building.

 

The Panel accepted the principle of the new build and commended the use of natural materials. Concerns were raised over the blank east elevation expressing a desire for more detailing on this elevation. They noted that Leicester had a good history of developing corner sites and they felt that this proposal did not exploit the opportunity afforded a corner plot.

 

F) 8-10 MILLSTONE LANE

Listed Building Consent 20052338 & Planning Application 20052341

Awnings

 

The Director noted that the Panel had previously discussed external alterations to this building at a recent meeting. This application was for awnings to the interior and exterior of the building.

 

The Panel expressed no concerns over the addition of the awnings.

 

G) EAST GATES, HIGH STREET, CHURCH GATE, NEW BOND STREET

Planning Application 20052347

New entrances

 

The Director noted that the application was for new entrances to the Shires.

 

The Panel considered that all the proposed entrances were inferior to the existing. Concerns were raised in particular that the High Street entrance would block views of the old Co-op façade that returns along what used to be Union Street. Therefore it was felt that the proposals did not preserve or enhance the character of the building or the conservation area.

 

H) 11 – 13 MARKET STREET

Advertisement Consent 20052049

Signage

 

The Director noted that the Panel had discussed new shopfronts to this building at the last meeting. This application was for new internally illuminated fascia and projecting signs.

The Panel made no adverse comments.

 

 

I) 31 MARKET STREET

Advertisement Consent 20052180

Signage

 

The Director said that the application was for a new internally illuminated fascia sign and one internally illuminated projecting sign.

 

The Panel expressed concerns that the work had been carried out without planning permission but thought that the signage was acceptable. They also made observations on the unauthorised shopfront and thought that it was not as good as the one removed. It was noted that the ground floor level character of Market Street, which had one of the finest collection of quality, diverse architectural styles in the city, was gradually being eroded. It was queried whether any funding could be used to improve the shop frontages along Market Street to halt this trend.

 

J) HIGHCROSS STREET, RED LION PH

Planning Application 20052053

Change of use & external alterations

 

The Director said that the application was for the conversion of the upper floors of the pub to two flats with minor changes to the rear was on the B list at the December meeting. This application was for alterations to the front elevation which included the removal of the existing bay window and the insertion concertina style windows.

 

The Panel considered that the proposed alterations to the frontage were detrimental to the character of this historic building and the adjacent Grade II listed building.

 

K) 24 CAREYS CLOSE

Planning Application 20052319

Antennae and equipment cabinet

 

The Director said that the application was for three antennae within a chimney shroud and an equipment cabinet on the roof.

 

The Panel accepted the principle of undertaking the work but felt that the cable runs were unnecessarily convoluted and they should be shortened and located within the left hand corner ‘L’ of the rear elevation where they would have less visual impact.

 

L) 8-10 HIGHFIELD STREET

Planning Application 20052328

New Shopfront

 

The Director said that the application was for a new shopfront, external roller shutters and a canopy to the front of the restaurant.

 

The Panel thought that the symmetrical shopfront was an improvement but felt that the stall risers would be too high and should be timber. The roller shutter was acceptable in principle subject to it being an approved conservation type i.e. chain mail or punched and powder coated.

 

M) PREBEND STREET, THE BRADGATE HOTEL

Planning Application 20052149

New Porches

 

The Director said that the application was for two new porches to the front of the hotel.

 

The Panel were of the opinion that the proposed porches were out of character with the building and would ruin the appearance of the elegant front door. This was considered to be a key feature of the building and therefore the proposal did not preserve or enhance the character of the building or the conservation area.

 

N) 9 PORTLAND ROAD

Planning Application 20052356

Demolition, rebuild

 

The Director said that the application was for the demolition of a lean to as the side of the house and the demolition and rebuilding of a single storey building to the rear.

 

The Panel were happy with the demolition of the side lean to and the new entrance. It was noted though that consideration should be given to the surface treatment of the newly exposed side elevation, which was currently painted white.

 

There was some confusion regarding the use of the rear ‘workshop’ and the Panel wanted more information on the intended use before making any decisions.

 

O) 57 RUTLAND STREET

Planning Application 20052405

Antennae & equipment cabinet

 

The Director said the application was for three antennae and associated equipment cabinet etc.

 

The Panel made no adverse observations.

 

The Panel raised no objection to the following and they were therefore not formally considered.

 

P) 44 ST JAMES ROAD

Planning Application 20051885

Replacement windows to rear

 

Q) 34 STRETTON ROAD

Planning Application 20051882

Replacement windows to rear

 

R) 8 GORDON AVENUE

Planning Application 20051886

Replacement window to rear

 

S) 177 MERE ROAD

Planning Application 20051888

Replacement windows to rear

 

T) 6 AVENUE ROAD

Planning Application 20052332

Rear extension