This is a default template, your custom branding appears to be missing.
The custom branding should be at https://www.leicester.gov.uk/cabinet-pages-template/ if you cannot load this page please contact your IT.
Venue: City Hall, 115 Charles Street, Leicester, LE1 1FZ
No. | Item |
---|---|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Minutes: R. Lawrence (Vice Chair), Cllr S. Barton, S. Bird (DAC), S. Eppel (LCS), M. Richardson (RTPI)
|
|
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 230 KB The Minutes of the meeting held on 22nd July 2020 are attached and the Panel is asked to confirm them as a correct record. Minutes: The Panel agreed the notes. |
|
CURRENT DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS PDF 297 KB The Director of Planning, Development and Transportation submits a report on planning applications received for consideration by the Panel. Minutes: A) 170 London Road Planning Application 20200839 and 20200840
Change of use from offices (Class B1(a)) to 9 student flats (sui generis); alterations
Internal and external alterations to grade II listed building
The Panel commented on the regrettable alterations that already took place and highlighted the fact that in its current form both applications are not considered acceptable, causing significant harm to the Grade II Listed asset. Whilst some alterations undertaken/proposed (e.g. partitions) were considered reversible and thus not objected to, most other works (e.g. removal of internal finishes with integral features, bricking up/blocking up existing openings and concealment of fireplaces) were unanimously objected to.
The members criticised the incompleteness and lack of adequate detail in the applications and concluded that the applicant failed to grasp the significance and architectural merit of the designated asset under consideration. The Panel objected to the principle of the development (change of use and internal & external alterations to the Grade II Listed building), and requested that a new scheme, adequate for the designated asset under consideration is developed. The members also requested that the damage already caused is rectified and all remaining historic features/finishes preserved.
OBJECTIONS
B) Melbourne Hall Evangelical Free Church, St Peters Road Planning Application 20200481 and 20200482
Installation of handrails and construction of replacement ramp to front; installation of lighting, bollards, hard surfacing and 1.4m high railings and construction of 0.3m high walls to front and sides; installation of 1.1m high railings and reconstruction of retaining walls to side and construction of ramp and steps to rear of place of worship (Class D1); works to trees covered by tree protection order; alterations
Internal and external alterations to grade II* listed building
The members of the Panel expressed conflicting opinions regarding the installation of glazed aluminium doors to primary elevations of the Grade II* Listed building. Whilst some welcomed these alterations, regarded as positive addition to the church that would result in its modernisation and visual ‘opening up’, others regarded the new doors as ‘inappropriate’ and regrettable, of potential to adversely affect the definition and architectural merit of the Grade II* Listed asset.
The Panel concluded that uPVC doors and windows to Hall and the new railings to light well are not acceptable (of inappropriate standardised design). They suggested that existing railings are either repaired or replaced on a like-for-like basis. The reduction of the ramp to frontage (St Peter’s Road) was welcomed, as were the installation of steel railings on site. The panel requested that these railings are black in finish, to match existing lamp post and other railings within the curtilage of the site.
The members criticised the diversity and quantity of the lighting features proposed, considered excessive and collectively causing irreversible damage to the historic fabric of the church (through numerous fixtures and fittings). The principle of increased definition to curtilage was supported, with no further comments on design/ materially. The members also commented on the existing vegetation to the curtilage and requested that this is retained and/or improved. ... view the full minutes text for item 140. |