Agenda item

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

A)  LANCASTER ROAD, FORMER ALLOTMENTS TO REAR OF FIRE STATION

Planning Application 20081943

New research building

 

The Director said that the application was for a new two storey laboratory building for use by the university. It was noted that this former allotment site was granted consent for a car park in 2002.

 

The Panel felt uneasy about this proposal. They felt that the new build would dominate the site and was too close to the listed building. They commented that the whole proposal would overcrowd the workshops.  They thought that the proposed flue was also very big and would conflict with the prominence of the fire station tower. The Panel commented that the space was important to appreciate the group of fire station buildings and should be retained without any building on the site.

 

The Panel recommended refusal on this application.

 

B)  ABBEY PARK ROAD, SANGRA & SHONKI BUILDING

Planning Application 20090045

Change of use to flats, new building

 

It was noted that the Panel made observations on the conversion of the two buildings to flats last year with extensions. The Director said that the application was for the demolition of the Sangra building and its replacement with a new block of flats, and the conversion of the Shonki building with an amended extension.

 

The Panel noted that both buildings were great buildings of listable quality and should be treated sensitively. They felt that the two buildings together currently told a story of Leicester’s riverside.  They stated that as a fine industrial building like the Sangra building should remain as intact as possible, and they thought that it could be converted without too much alteration.  They also did not support the design of the roof extension to the Shonki building, which they felt would spoil the existing roofscape and would dwarf the watertower. The Panel felt that if the application was approved despite the Panel’s objection, a detailed recording of the building should be required before demolition.

 

The Panel recommended refusal on this application.

 

C) WELFORD ROAD PRISON

Listed Building Consent 20090038, Planning Application 20090079

Internal and external alterations

 

The Director said that the applications were for internal and external alterations to the main prison building including enlarged windows, rendering and extensive repairs.

 

The Panel stated that it needed to be made sure that the new work could be distinguished from the old by the careful selection of materials. Apart from this they had no objections.

 

The Panel were also asked to comment on the planning permission for the proposal of three flagpoles on the front of the building and they had no objections to this.

 

The Panel recommended approval on both applications.

 

D)  REGENT ROAD, REGENT COLLEGE

Planning Application 20090044

Temporary building, replacement windows to college

 

It was noted that the Panel looked at an application for an extension to this building at its January meeting. The Director said that the application was for a temporary building until the extension was complete, and for works to the existing local interest building including replacement windows.

 

The Panel were concerned about the appearance of the new temporary building but accepted this on a limited period basis. They had no objections to the proposed alterations to the main college building.

 

The Panel recommended approval on this application.

 

E)  112 REGENT ROAD

Planning Application 20090087

Change of use to 11 flats, 3 storey extension to rear

 

It was noted that the building was most recently used as offices by the Salvation Army. The Director said that the application was for the conversion of the existing building to eleven flats plus a three storey rear extension to provide office accommodation.

 

The Panel noted that this building was a great Victorian gem which could be of listable quality had it not been for the unfortunate rear extensions. They thought that obscuring the upper floor details was a shame but had no real objections to the proposed conversion or extension.

 

The Panel recommended approval on this application.

 

F)  40 GRANBY STREET, FORMER WELLINGTON HOTEL

Planning Application 20090016/17, Advertisement Consent 20090019

External alterations

 

The Director said that the applications were for external alterations including a new shopfront, ATM machine and internally illuminated signage to the front elevation, and condenser units to the rear.

 

The Panel thought the new shopfront was not an improvement. They stated that it should made of timber as aluminium would look out of character and the small lights below the fascia should be retained. They thought that the ATM should be moved to the side elevation and thought It made sense to have the entrance on the corner. The Panel thought that only the letters on the new signage should be illuminated and the proposed projecting signs should be moved to the fascia.

 

The Panel raised concerns once again regarding the unauthorised uPVC windows and asked for enforcement action to be taken to reinstate authentic timber sliding sashes.

 

The Panel recommended seeking amendments to this application.

 

G)  70-74 CHURCH GATE

Planning Application 20080928

Replacement windows

 

It was noted that consent was granted in 2006 for conversion to 21 flats. The Director said that the application was for the replacement of the existing windows with double glazed aluminium windows to the front and side and PVC units to the inner courtyard.

 

The Panel thought that the new windows should be timber to match the style of the existing upper windows and the integral glazing bars should not be stuck on.

 

The Panel recommended seeking amendments to this application.

 

H)  73 CHURCH GATE

Advertisement Consent 20090085

New signs

 

The Director said that the application was for three new fascia signs.

 

The Panel raised no objections to the new signage.

 

The Panel recommended approval on this application.

 

I)  5 GLENWOOD CLOSE (CORNER LONDON RD/STOUGHTON RD)

Planning Application 20090059

Extension

 

The Director said that the application was for a second floor extension to form two new flats.

 

The Panel noted that this was a well proportioned group of 1930s two storey flats and that if the roof were raised the proportions of the building would be ruined and the character of the whole ensemble affected. They were also concerned about the precedent this would set for the other buildings in the complex to be heightened too.

 

The Panel recommended refusal on this application.

 

J)  15 HORSEFAIR STREET

Planning Application  20090032

Change of use

 

The Director said that the application was for the change of use of the building to café/restaurant use.

 

The Panel stated that they required more details of any external alterations before making a decision on this application.

 

The Panel recommended seeking further information on this application.

 

K)  9 BATH STREET

Planning Application 20081976

Change of use & alterations

 

The Director said that the application was for the redevelopment of the site with a two storey community centre building.

 

The Panel considered that the proposal did not affect the character of the nearby Belgrave Conservation Area.

 

The Panel recommended approval on this application.

 

L)  33 EAST AVENUE

Planning Application 20090078

Extension & satellite dish

 

The Director said that the application was for a small extension to the rear and a satellite dish to the front elevation.

 

The Panel thought that the satellite dish did not affect the character of the building or the conservation area but did raise concerns that it might set a precedent for granting consent for other dishes on front elevations. The Panel raised no objections to the rear extension.

 

The Panel recommended approval on this application.

 

LATE ITEMS

 

66 – 70 HUMBERSTONE GATE

Pre-application enquiry

 

The Panel were asked to give their views on reinstatement of pilasters to the front of the building.

 

The Panel welcomed anything that improved the building.

 

13 NEW WALK

Planning Application 20082009

Demolition and rebuild

 

The Director said that the proposal was for the demolition of the current building and for the building of a new outbuilding

 

The Panel felt that these outbuildings were not original and appeared to have been badly altered over time. They had no objections to the proposed rebuilding subject to materials being agreed.

 

The Panel recommended approval on this application.

 

LAW SCHOOL

UNIVERSITY OF LEICESTER

Planning Application 20082064 & 20090176

New entrance

 

The Director said that the application was for alterations to the building and the building of a new entrance.

 

The Panel thought that overall the internal alterations looked to be an improvement. However they commented that the proposed entrance and door was thought to be out of character with the building and they would like something cleaner and simpler. The Panel advised that it would be more useful to see the improvement schemes together rather than in separate applications.

 

The Panel recommended seeking amendments to the application.

 

The Panel raised no observations on the following applications, they were therefore not formally considered.

 

M)  223 LONDON ROAD

Planning Application 20090073

Variation of condition

 

N)  90 GRANBY STREET, CITY GALLERY

Planning Application 20090048

Change of use

 

O)  332 NARBOROUGH ROAD

Planning Application 20081966

Change of use & alterations