Agenda and minutes

Cllr. S. Barton, N. Finn (LAHS), M. Taylor (IHBC), S. Bowyer (LCS), M. Richardson (RTPI), D. Martin (LRGT), M. Davies (RICS)

None.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 12^th November 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.   Development at ISKCON, 31 Granby Street
Refs: 20251365 and 20251366

The panel voiced significant concerns with the proposed development. Beginning with the application itself, it was felt that there were inconsistencies between plans, drawing inaccuracies, an overall lack of detail and that the heritage impact assessment was substandard. This was particularly in relation to the M&E works, which the panel felt was not sufficiently represented on the plans, and it was therefore difficult to carry out a thorough assessment of its impact on the significance of the building. One panellist suggested that the applicant should consider submitting separate applications for the extension and the M&E works.

Turning to the proposed internal works, the panel emphasised the significance of the building as a grade II* listed heritage asset and that this had not been adequately considered within the proposal. Features such as the banking hall, stained glass windows and the old service counter were highlighted as particularly interesting features that needed to be respected by proposed interventions. M&E works were seen as quite extensive and clumsy, consisting of various boxes and ducts, and their relationship with the historic features had not been represented or considered properly, such as the impact on the banking hall ceiling and ducting through the windows. Other elements that the panel felt were too simplistic and lacked thought included the proposed shutters to the Granby Street entrance and the concertina doors to the back of the banking hall, again noting that this was a highly significant building and detail was crucial. A discussion was held specifically around the treatment of the glazed colonnade screens, and how the architectural detailing of the columns would be eroded by the interventions. The screen panels were not considered to be of a high enough material quality, with the black frame making the screens look heavy and clunky. Further concerns were raised over how the quality would be diluted as the proposal was costed. It was suggested that the screens should be moved to the corridor side of the colonnade where it had less of an impact on the historic fabric.

The panels’ misgivings continued with discussions turning to the rear canopy extension facing Town Hall Square. It was felt that the proposed canopy design lacked consideration and did not draw on the architectural language of the host building. Structurally, the canopy was seen to be heavy and industrial in character and lacking refinement around features such as its frame and rainwater goods. This sense of weight is exacerbated by the canopy covering the whole of the courtyard area and the rather heavy green roof, which itself lacked justification and featured rooflights seen as clumsy. Furthermore, the panel felt the lack of reference to the host building was shown in the poor relationship between the canopy and the sills and string courses of the building, and the curtilage of the host building to its extension. Other design issues included the treatment of the end bay of the canopy  ...  view the full minutes text for item 320.