Agenda and minutes
PDF 120 KBVenue: City Hall, 115 Charles Street, Leicester, LE1 1FZ
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Minutes: M. Davies (RICS), S. Sharma (DMU), S. Yazdan-Joo (Student) |
|
|
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 The Minutes of the meeting held on 10th December 2025 are attached and the Panel is asked to confirm them as a correct record. Minutes: The Panel agreed the notes. |
|
|
CURRENT DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS The Director of Planning, Development and Transportation submits a report on planning applications received for consideration by the Panel. Minutes:
A. Development at 94-98 Regent Road Planning application 20251441
The panel began by emphasising the quality of existing architecture within the street, with attention paid to the corner building, a 1960s modernist office block by Anthony Drew-Edwards, and the Victorian terraces to the east of the application site, designed by Joseph Goddard. The application buildings were also praised for their architectural merits, such as how the right-hand building, Readson House, respects the scale of the adjacent Victorian buildings and their distinctive roofscape. It was concluded that both application buildings had carefully considered frontages and massing that positively contributed to the streetscape, but panellists felt that each building needed to be treated separately.
Beginning with the principle of development, the change of use to residential accommodation was viewed as positive and adding a roof extension to Prospect House (the left-hand building) could be possible.
However, the panel had significant concerns over the design of the development itself. The roof extensions were seen as too boxy and lacking in subservience. It was felt that a roof extension of the scale proposed to Readson House would upset the relationship with the Victorian gabled buildings and create visual dominance, something which had been carefully considered when Readson House was built. A roof extension to Readson House is therefore unlikely to be supported. To avoid harming the character of the street, the roof extension to Prospect House needs to be set back and the design reconsidered, with features such as the proposed windows seen as too small and the proportions unbalanced. There were further concerns raised over the choice of materials used on both the roof extension and the new facade, which the panel believed would jar with the existing materials of the buildings, in particular the choice of vertical hanging roof slates, aluminium capping, the uncharacteristic application of render, and the choice of new bricks. The redevelopment of the frontages was criticised by panel, as it would result in the considerable loss of character of the existing buildings. For Prospect House, the horizontal emphasis created by the fenestration would be lost and the extensive masonry surfaces would alter the orientation of the building. This is particularly emphasised through the treatment of the ground floor, which would lose its active frontage and create an unwelcoming impression at street level. Also, at Readson House, the remodelling of the projecting bays was considered an unacceptable loss of an original feature.
Overall, the panel summarised that the proposed development is overworked and unnecessary, which would result in more harmful and lower-quality frontages with extensions that are unrefined and risk dominating the Victorian terrace next door. A more sensitive approach is needed that retains much more of the existing frontages and is more respectful of the established architecture, both within and surrounding the site, while new additions need to be of a higher standard of detailing.
Objections
B.
Development at 16 Morland Avenue
|