Agenda and minutes

R. Lawrence (Vice Chair), D. Fountain (DMU), P. Ellis (VS), S. Sharma (DMU), M. Davies (RICS), C. Sanliturk (LU).

None.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 14^th February 2024 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)   Land South of 155 Humberstone Drive

Planning Application 20240170

The Panel felt the design of the proposed dwellings was still mediocre and did not reflect the specific context of the Conservation Area. They acknowledged that the proposed height of the development had been reduced and considered this to be beneficial. However, the other changes were considered to not address the lack of contextual responsiveness. While the panel were comfortable with the principle of developing the site for housing, they felt the current proposal would not preserve or enhance the significance of the Old Humberstone Conservation Area. They also objected to the use of less contextual materials, such as uPVC windows/doors and tarmac, which are inappropriate in settings such as this. They concluded that the design needed to be reconsidered, with a mews typology potentially explored that takes more inspiration from its setting. More detail on the rationale behind the proposed design was requested, as well as better visuals.

SEEK AMENDMENTS

B)   71 Princess Road West – Waterloo House, 80 Regent Road – Regent House & Land South of Regent Road bewteen Tigers Way and West Street

Planning Application & Listed Building Consent 20232213 & 20232214

The panel noted the high-quality urban environment in this part of the Conservation Area and the landmark quality of the Grade II Listed Building sitting within the proposed development site. The panel focussed initially on the extension to the Listed Building and concluded that the proposed single storey mansard was less harmful than the previous two storey proposal but would still undermine the character and architectural integrity of the building and the wider area. This was considered with respect of harm from the increased massing and a discordant architectural style. They were critical of the detailing of the extension which exacerbated its incompatibility as a new element and crudely cut across the tryptic composition of the former trio of detached buildings. The panel contended that the existing parapet and the silhouette it presented on the skyline were important and additional mass in this section were not compatible with the most significant and sensitive elevation of the Listed Building.

The panel considered the existing landscaped car park space to the south to have a strong function in terms of the character of the area, providing both key views across it to the wider townscape and being compatible with the wider morphology of New Walk. It was noted that it had historically been garden space and that the boundary walls and trees were complementary to the historic character of the area. Although the panel acknowledged that the scale of the new build block had been reduced, which had reduced some of the harm, they still considered it would be harmful to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. They also considered the open aspect of the space had a direct impact on the setting of the listed building opposite, being the former private gardens of the original trio of houses. The scale and mass of the new block  ...  view the full minutes text for item 268.