Venue: ROOM G.53 (FORMERLY COMMITTEE ROOM 2) - GROUND FLOOR, TOWN HALL, TOWN HALL SQUARE, LEICESTER
No. | Item |
---|---|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Minutes: R. Gill, D. Martin (LRGT), M. Johnson (LAHS). |
|
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Members are asked to declare any interests they may have in the business to be discussed. Minutes: None. |
|
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING PDF 94 KB The minutes of the meeting held on 24th February 2016 are attached and the Panel is asked to confirm them as a correct record. Minutes: S. Eppel queried minutes of January meeting, which she had requested be amended. Revised minutes will be sent to members. |
|
CURRENT DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS PDF 93 KB The Director, Planning, Transportation and Economic Development submits a report on planning applications received for consideration by the Panel. Minutes: A) YORK STREET Planning Application 20160610 Seven storey student block
Panel was generally happy with the height as this is in keeping with the general character of the area (although some members thought it was too tall for the width of the street).
Discussion about the level of articulation of the windows, the set-back of the top floor and use of materials. Query about level of window recesses. Concerns raised over the darkness of the materials and fenestration but the panel were satisfied that the general development would not harm the character or appearance of the Granby Street Conservation Area or nearby heritage assets. Requested amendments to materials and fenestration.
Seek amendments.
B) STAMFORD BUILDINGS, STAMFORD STREET Planning application 20151730 Change of use from factory to student accommodation, 6-storey side extension & 2-storey roof extension
Revised proposal is substantially better. No further objections.
No objection
C) 65-75 PRINCESS ROAD EAST Planning Application 20160758 New student development
Revised proposal is substantially better, particularly the height and scale. Concerns about the canopy, which does not fit well with the context or use.Suggested that this element be removed. Query over the number of flats and their internal size and layout. General concern about the legibility of the plans.
No objection ________________________________________________________________
D) ABBEY MEADOWS, SITE OF FORMER WOLSEY WORKS Planning Application 20160614 Demolition, redevelopment
Link between water tower and housing considered to be crude. Suggestion that the tower should be freestanding with an extension, rather than part of a new terrace - looks cramped and loses role as focal point.
Mix of views on the style of houses, some are welcomed but others a missed opportunity. New houses by water tower are too plain and boring (better examples on wider site).
Loss of second chimney regretted but the overall site layout, including pathways and parks, was welcomed.
Seek amendments
________________________________________________________________
E) CORPORATION ROAD, ABBEY PUMPING STATION Planning Application 20160483 Events space, marquee
Panel sought clarification on landscape implications. Following additional explanation, they raised no objections.
No objection
________________________________________________________________
F) 12 APPLEGATE, WYGSTON’S HOUSE Planning Application 20160569 Change of use, alterations
No objection to change of use. Support bringing asset back into use. More flue details requested; ideally located in existing chimney. Panel raised concern to air exchange in the main restaurant (silver flue at ASK restaurant being of concern). Could bar be freestanding, rather than attached to timber frame (SPV explained fixings would be in mortar work). Lift in Victorian section; more details requested. Subtle approach requested for lift with minimal structure.
No objection _____________________________________________________________
G) 52-56 HIGH STREET Application 20160657 Roof extension
The existing building is very fine looking and the proposed development would ruin it Existing comparable scheme on St Nicholas Place is ungainly looking. Would result in the loss of an attractive roofscape and set an unwelcome precedent. Principle of residential use is fine, but needs to be done a lot more sensitively.
Objection
H) R/O 24 RATCLIFFE ROAD Planning Application 20160335 Demolition, new development
Panel expressed some concerns ... view the full minutes text for item 4. |