Agenda and minutes

C. Sawday, N. Stacey (LSA), P. Ellis (VS), Cllr S. Barton, K. Durkin (Student), D. Sharma (Student), C. Hossack (LIHS), C. Laughton, D. Martin (LRGT), C. Jordan (LAHS)

None.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 12^th February 2020 are attached and the Panel is asked to confirm them as a correct record.

The Panel agreed the notes.

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

A) Pre-application presentation on Western Park Open Air School and site adjacent to the Eco House (MAS Architecture)

The schemes were presented and commented on.

B) 132-140 Highcross Street and rear of 61 Great Central Street

Planning Application 20182111

Initial comments focused on the broadly unsuccessful amendments in light of the Panel’s recommendations in relation to the initial scheme. Some members expressed concerns in regard to the additional bulk to the southernmost portion of the site, considered as contributing to an ‘overwhelming’ impression of the scheme, especially in relation to the relatively narrow host street. The drop in level to the northmost portion, resulting in a break in the horizontal consistency of the shopfront line, was criticized.

The materials and elevation design (e.g. shopfronts and entrance) were considered of inferior quality and of too generic in relation to the heritage sensitive location. 

Re-introduction of additional set-back(s) to the primary volumes facing onto Highcross Street was recommended.

Although the principle of a new development was not objected to, the Panel concluded that the amended scheme would contribute to the spatial loss of the Grade I Listed All Saints Church and would have an adverse effect of the character and streetscene of the All Saints Conservation Area. Major amendments in regard to elevation treatment, design, materials (more cohesive material pelette) and total height were considered necessary to render the application admissible.

SEEK AMENDEMENTS

C) 24 Ratcliffe Road, Land Rear of

Planning Application 20192136

The Panel objected to the principle of the development but appreciated an outstanding approval has been granted in the past. Nonetheless, the scale and height were criticised as significantly excessive, with the finish, design and materiality all considered inferior to the quality and character Stoneygate Conservation Area. The Panel concluded that the infill development fails to adequately reflect its context and preserve / enhance the designated locality.

OBJECTIONS

D) 580 Gipsy Lane

Planning Application 20190080

The Panel reiterated their previous comments on the heritage merit and positive contribution of the existing dwellinghouse to the conservation area.  The modern design was commended, but members questioned the scheme’s relation to its setting. Despite some appreciation of the concept of two legibly modern dwellings, it was highlighted that the submitted drawings lack relevant detailing (e.g. guttering, glazing frames), while the visuals are highly ‘unrealistic’ (e.g. void through the dwellinghouses), while the scheme’s reads as detached from the existing context. 

The Panel concluded that based on the questionable contextual relationship of the new scheme to the existing character and streetscene of the conservation area, lack of relevant detailing and ‘idealized’ visualizations, while also constituting loss of a historic dwelling that does contribute to the merit of the designated locality, the development will fail to preserve or enhance the Old Humberstone Conservation Area.

E) 9 Holy Bones, Guru Nanak Gurdwara

Planning Application 20192036