Agenda and minutes

P. Ellis (VS), N. Feldmann (LRSA)

None.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 20^th August 2025 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.   Application for development at Chevron Court, 15 Henshaw Street
Refs: 20250997 and 20251001

Panellists began by emphasising the architectural quality of the host building, notably its symmetry, expression of materials and composition, in addition to its status as Leicester’s first metal-framed building and the importance of its chimney. Some members remarked that the standard of the application was inadequate, with information relating to the interior of the building and the existing roof structure lacking, and the opinion that the elevation plans failed to accurately illustrate the proposed development. Regarding the proposed extension itself, there was consensus among members that the design failed to respect the character and quality of the host building, such as the scale of its openings and special architectural interest. Criticism was levelled at the choice of materials, particularly the glass blocks and how these would sit uncomfortably against the existing fenestration, as well as concerns over the positioning of the solar panels. Other problems identified included the setback and overhang of the extension to the front and rear of the building respectively, the impact of additional loading and loss of light on the lower floors. All of these issues led panellists to conclude that the principle of extending the building was in itself problematic. The conclusion was that the proposed extension was not good enough and questions were raised over the principle of development. 

Objections

B.   Redevelopment of Odeon Arcade, 36 & 38 Market Place
Ref: 20251596

The previous iteration of this scheme was presented in January 2025 with the conclusion being that the panel sought amendments. This time, some concerns were raised over the impact of the roof extension on the distinctive parapet to the Market Place elevation but the reduction in scale and massing of the mansard was supported. There were mixed views on the additional roof element closer to Cank Street, but it was felt that it was set back sufficiently to mitigate its visual impact on the Market Place frontage. The importance of materials was emphasised to determine how the new extension would impact to the historic façade. Turning to the Cank Street elevation, comments specifically related to the gable elevation when viewed from the west. Plans had shown an indicative mural or artwork feature, compared to the scarred brickwork detailing of the previous scheme. There was no consensus on what the best solution would be here, though it was acknowledged that this was a good opportunity to do something interesting for a new piece of townscape. However, there was consensus that a mural or artwork would not be a good idea, due to maintenance issues and potential for visual clutter in what is already a very architecturally varied street. Some panellists preferred a minimalist approach, such as retaining the existing scarred brickwork, while some sought a more modern presentation of the former roof lines. There was an overall agreement that the gable could be improved. However, the scheme overall itself raised no objections.

No objections

The panel made no comment on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 312.