Agenda item

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

A) ALL SAINTS BREWERY, HIGHCROSS STREET

Planning application 20110435

The application was for the demolition of buildings and associated site clearance, alterations to a wall and demolition.

A structural survey carried out had reported that the building was unsafe.

The Panel noted that they would only support the demolition of the buildings if there was a redevelopment scheme for the site in place. They also noted that these buildings should have been secured by the owner under the conditions for the previous application. Their concerns with the loss of the buildings were the loss of medieval street pattern and the degradation of the conservation area.

B) 40-46 WESTERN ROAD (EQUITY SHOES SITE)

Planning application 20110539

The application was for student halls of residence (no use class) comprising 712 bed spaces in a five storey building to Western Road and a 7-9 storey building above undercroft to old River Soar with ancillary amenity space, parking, administration and communal space. The Equity Shoes building had already been converted to student accommodation.

The panel felt that the Western Road elevation was acceptable. However, they did not support the buildings fronting the Old River Soar for the following reasons:

• Overdevelopment
• Too high
• Overwhelm the Equity Shoes building

The Panel suggested the building should be set further back from the river. They felt there was an opportunity to enhance the heritage asset and area through well designed buildings with space around them.

C) BATH LANE, FORMER MERLIN WORKS SITE

Planning application 20110541

The application was a variation of condition 43 (approved plans) to amend planning permission 20100610 (one 22 storey and one 27 storey tower block and 8 storey podium building; 388 apartments, non-residential uses and basement parking), to amend the design of buildings, change the layout and omit the basement car park.

The Panel commented that there was not enough information on the application, but that it was a completely different scheme. The Panel also queried as to why the car park proposal had been removed. It was noted that the previous proposal was for a hotel.

The panel did not feel this was a minor amendment. They thought that there were fundamental changes to the approved plans which affected the historic environment and needed to be fully considered.

They were concerned over the monolithic nature of the scheme along with its general design quality.  It was added that this site needed to be carefully considered as any building of this scale would be viewed as a gateway building when entering the City.

D) LAND ADJACENT TO REGENT COLLEGE

Planning application 20110846

The application was for a new Medical Teaching Building. A presentation had previously been received pre-application.

The Panel were broadly supportive of the scheme. They welcomed the orientation, keeping the building on grid and framing the views of the war memorial. They noted that it would not affect the setting of the surrounding heritage assets. They did regret the loss of open space.

E) ENGINEERING BUILDING, LEICESTER UNIVERSITY

Planning application 20110772

The application was for internal alterations to a Grade II* listed building.

The panel expressed no real concerns over the proposal.

Late Items

F) 25 DE MONFORT STREET

Planning application 20110666

The panel supported the principle of development in the location but objected to the current proposal for the following reasons:

• Out of context with the conservation area
• Too high
• Did not compliment the existing built form
• Did not follow the existing building line on De Montfort Street

They suggested something which picked up the articulation of the surrounding built form, was set back to the building line and made use of landscaping should be considered.

G) INTERNATIONAL HOTEL, HUMBERSTONE GATE

Advice on discharge of condition

The application was for the change of use to student accommodation on the upper floors.

The Panel welcomed the re-use and redevelopment of the building. They noted that the existing treatment of the upper floors on Rutland Street and Wimbledon Street were well considered and reflected the character of the conservation area and adjacent listed building. They thought the finish on these two elevations should be retained. They felt that whilst still in keeping with the building, there was more scope for improvement on the Humberstone Gate elevation.

It was noted that the concrete on the tower was thought to be in a very poor state of repair and that any alterations to the tower should be undertaken with this in mind.