Agenda item

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

A) 21 CAREYS CLOSE, FORMER A E HOLT FACTORY

Planning Application 20061206

Demolition and Redevelopment

 

The Director said that the application was for the demolition of the existing factory and the redevelopment of the site with a seven storey building for student accommodation with ground floor retail units.

 

The Panel reluctantly accepted the loss of the existing building as it is currently out with a conservation area but opposed the replacement building as completely inappropriate to this sensitive site. It was thought the proposed development was out of scale with its surroundings and would be detrimental to the setting of Wygston’s House.

 

B) 45 GALLOWTREE GATE, 49-51 MARKET PLACE

Advertisement Consent 20061276, Planning Permission 20061253 & Listed Building Consent 20061312

New Projecting signs

 

The Director said that the application was for internal alterations, a new aluminium shopfront, halo lit aluminium signage and a change to the windows on Gallowtree Gate.

 

The Panel had no objections to the proposed works but felt that the applicant could have been more adventurous with the Gallowtree Gate frontage. The Panel also supported the retention of the existing windows on the Gallowtree Gate elevation as per the amended plans.

 

C) 8 – 18 ST PETERS ROAD

Planning Application 20061368

Demolition and Redevelopment

 

The Director said that the application was for the demolition of the petrol filling station and the redevelopment of the site with a four storey building for flats.

 

The Panel judged that the new building was too high, of poor quality and would be overdevelopment of the site. They recommended that an alternative scheme should follow the historic building line and be of a modern style, not a pastiche.

 

D) GIPSY LANE, TOWERS HOSPITAL

Listed Building Consent 20061546

Self contained flat

 

The Director said that the application was for alterations to the old watch tower to create one self contained flat. The flat would be within the tower and spread over five levels.

 

The Panel raised no objection in principle to the proposal but opposed the new balcony. It was suggested that the roof could be lowered to allow the existing parapet to be used as a protective barrier.

 

E) 19 STONEYGATE ROAD

Planning Application 20061419

Extension to rear

 

The Director said that the application was for a two storey extension to the rear of the building which extended the roofline of the building lower and dormers to the front and rear of the building.

 

The Panel opposed all the proposed alterations as detrimental to the appearance of this notable building.

 

F) 31 KNIGHTON DRIVE

Planning Application 20061490

Extension to rear

 

The Director said that the application was for a two storey extension to the rear of the building. The Panel had previously made observations on two similar schemes in recent years.

 

The Panel reiterated their previous observations that any extension to this building must be subservient and in keeping with the character of the building. The current proposal was felt to be no better than the previous submissions and would still constitute overdevelopment of the site because of its size.

 

G) ST JAMES TERRACE

Planning Application 20061162

Change of use

 

The Director said that the application for the conversion of the house to four self-contained flats involving a first floor extension over an existing double garage and other external alterations was considered by the Panel in July 2006. A revised scheme for three flats omitting the extension had now been received for three flats omitting the extension. The only external alterations proposed were for the demolition of the garage and new roof lights.

 

The Panel had no objection to the loss of existing garage but felt that the proposed gates should be set back from the elevation slightly and asked for details of the gates design to be agreed by officers. The Panel also asked officers to encourage the owner to reinstate the original chimneys.

 

H) 158 LONDON ROAD

Planning Application 20061526

Antennas & equipment cabinets

 

The Director noted that applications for antennas and equipment cabinets had been considered for this building in the past. The current application was for two pole-mounted antennas and one face mounted antenna with associated equipment cabinets.

 

The Panel felt that the proposed antennae had a very crude, utilitarian design that was unfortunate but raised no formal objection to the proposals.

 

I) LONDON ROAD, HOLLYBANK COURT

Planning Application 20061526

Replacement antennas & equipment cabinet

 

The Director noted that applications for antennas and equipment cabinets had also been considered for this building in the past. The current application was for the replacement of some of the existing antennas with new ones and additional equipment cabinets.

 

The Panel raised no objections to the proposal, as this building was less sensitive than the previous case.

 

J) 224 EAST PARK ROAD

Planning Application 20061174

Vehicular access new fencing

 

The Director said that an application for the use of the front garden as a car standing area and the erection of a 2 metre high fence to the side boundary at the front of the house was considered by the Panel in November 2005 and was subsequently refused. The current application was a revised scheme.

 

The Panel raised an objection to the retention of the panel fencing between the properties as detrimental to the appearance of the terrace. They also felt that the existing picket fence complemented the buildings and its removal would set an unwelcome precedent for other property owners to do the same. It was suggested that a policy should be made for boundary treatments in areas like this, where front gardens were being lost to parking.

 

K) HUMBERSTONE GATE / CLOCKTOWER

Advertisement Consent 20061192

Signs

 

The Director said that the application was for new signage at the former Littlewood’s building. This was a revised scheme to that discussed at the Panel’s July meeting.

 

The Panel opposed the additional sign to the top of the Belgrave Gate elevation as it would distort the vertical rhythm of the building. They also stated that the minor amendments to the other signs were insufficient to overcome their previous objections. The Panel still requested a comprehensive scheme for the building.

 

L) 35 STRETTON ROAD

Planning Application 20060744

Replacement windows

 

The Director said that the application was for the replacement of the front windows and doors with ‘like for like’ double glazed working timber sashes.

 

The Panel raised no objection to the replacement windows.

 

M) LEICESTER UNIVERSITY, THE ATTENBOROUGH TOWER

Pre Application enquiry

Replacement of windows

 

The Director said that the university were seeking to replace the windows on the Attenborough Tower and sought the comments of the Panel on what might be appropriate.

 

The Panel thought that the profile of the windows was important to the form of the building and that any new windows should respect this. The applicant should explore various options including secondary glazing.

 

N) 2 – 4 COLTON STREET

Planning Application 20061383

Replacement of windows

 

The Director said that the application was for the replacement of existing timber framed windows with uPVC framed units.

 

The Panel oppose the use of PVC windows in conservation areas and felt that in this case the timber windows are important to the character of the building and should be retained.

 

The Panel raised no objection to the following, therefore they were not formally considered:

 

S) 36 MIDDLETON STREET

Planning Application 20061142

Canopy and carport

 

T) 20 SOUTHERNHAY ROAD

Planning Application 20061170

Rear Extension

 

U) 1-3 MARKET STREET

Planning Application 20061254 and Advertisement Consent 20061255

New Shopfront and signage

 

V) 51 GALLOWTREE GATE

Planning Application 20061069

Condenser Units