Agenda and minutes

P. Ellis (VS), D. Fountain (LSA), S. Bowyer (LCS), S. Sharma (DMU), M. Davies (RICS). D. Martin (LRGT)

None.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 11^th December 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)   Development Application at 101-107 Ratcliffe Road, former Mary Gee Halls of Residence

Planning Application 20241345

Members agreed the scheme had come a long way and welcomed the fact the most recent amendments addressed specific comments from this Panel. They agreed that the viable re-development of the site would be a benefit to the area, that the proposed use was suitable, and that the current scheme would preserve the special interest of the Stoneygate Conservation Area. They felt that the scheme would blend in well as part of the streetscene and would not compete visually. They agreed that the spaces created were interesting, and echoed values found elsewhere in the Conservation Area. The view of the Panel was that the amendments satisfied their previous concerns, particularly in respect to improved detailing and material information. As such, Members agreed they held no further objections to the application.

No Objection

B)   Development Application at 36 and 38 Market Place, Odeon Arcade

                     Planning Application 20241596

The panel welcomed investment in the area on a site with an interesting history. The restoration works to the main front façade were considered to be positive and the clarity of the arcade was praised. However, the design of the mansard was questioned, with the panel assessing that it was over dominant and oppressive. Concerns were raised that it was too steep, and the recess was too shallow. Some members suggested a single storey roof extension would work better, although a greater pitch and setback of the mansard in general would overcome some of the harm. The detailing of the mansard was also critiqued, with concern that it was too busy and needs to be treated more as a secondary volume that allows the historic façade to retain its visual prominence. The roof extension is read as being a wall rather than roofscape and this needs to be redesigned. The central courtyard and large lantern to the lower arcade were looked on positively. The Cank Street elevation was considered to have design merit and enhance the townscape over the existing bland presentation of the current structure. The side elevations were debated, with some support for retaining aspects of the ’scars’ of former junctions and some concern about whether the upper floor treatment was contrived. Overall, subject to improvements to the design of the mansard roof element, the panel could support the application.    

Seek Amendments

The panel made no comments on the following:

153 Narborough Road, Service Station

Planning Application 20242015

Removal of Jet Wash, repositioning of car care facilities and installation of a new EV Charging Hub including associated plant, and associated works (Sui Generis)

30 Regent Street, C E C O S House

Change of Use Application 20240913

Change of Use from Financial Services (Class E) to Adult College (Class F1)

115 Charles Street, City Hall

Advertisement Consent 20242087

Installation of two flags at front of building (Class E)

13-17 and 21-25 Abingdon Road

Planning Application 20241644

Installation of replacement doors and windows to 6 houses (Class  ...  view the full minutes text for item 292.