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.

Agenda and minutes

Agenda and minutes

Venue: Meeting Room G.02, Ground Floor, City Hall, 115 Charles Street, Leicester, LE1 1FZ

Items
No. Item

1.

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Minutes:

D. Lyne (LIHS), L. Blood (IHBC), M. Queally (UoL), M Johnson (LAHS)

 

2.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Members are asked to declare any interests they may have in the business to be discussed.

Minutes:

None.

3.

MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING pdf icon PDF 87 KB

The Minutes of the meeting held on 24th August 2016 are attached and the Panel is asked to confirm them as a correct record.

Minutes:

The Panel agreed the notes.

4.

CURRENT DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS pdf icon PDF 72 KB

The Director, Planning, Transportation and Economic Development submits a report on planning applications received for consideration by the Panel.

Minutes:

A) Jewry Wall Museum, 150-160 St Nicholas Circle

Planning Application 20161702 Listed Building Consent 20161703

Ramp, lift

 

The panel supported the proposal, as the scheme of works was sympathetic and complimentary to the design of the grade II listed Vaughan College.

 

They discussed how the proposed access ramp was of an appropriate design, complementing the strong right angles of the listed building, whilst the location of the new internal lift and stairwell was the best solution, causing minimal impact to the significance of the listed building.

 

NO OBJECTIONS

______________________________________________________________

 

 

B) 53 New Walk, New Walk Museum

Listed Building Consent 20161734

Internal alterations

 

The introduction of a new feature staircase and lift within the entrance lobby of the museum was supported by the panel, as the works will have minimal impact upon the original fabric of the listed building.

 

The panel welcomed the design of the new staircase, noting that it would restore some grandeur to the museum, following the loss of the original principal staircase in the 1970s.

 

Some concern was raised over the location of the new lift shaft and how it relates to the space, but on balance it was considered to be acceptable.

 

NO OBJECTIONS

______________________________________________________________

 

C) Former International Hotel, 57 Rutland Street

Planning application 20161507

Demolition and redevelopment

 

The panel raised strong concerns to the proposed redevelopment, as it will fail to preserve the character and appearance of the St Georges Conservation Area and fails to preserve the setting of multiple Grade II listed buildings nearby.

 

The panel had no objection in principle to the demolition of the existing tower, but there was a range of views as to whether the side wings were worthy of being retained. However, they considered the proposal in its current form was wholly inappropriate as it is of excessive size and scale.

 

The panel noted that the building was too tall and too bulky, making no reference to its setting. It was out of scale with the streetscene and would have an overbearing impact upon both Rutland Street and Wimbledon Street. It also had no reference to the local context.

 

If a tower is desired by the applicants, it was recommended that it be slim and elegant. They stated that the applicant cannot justify the height of the building on grounds that it would be a landmark building and that the proposal needs to relate better to the streetscape, including the palette of materials.

 

OBJECTIONS

 

 

D) 46 Humberstone Gate, Clarence House

Planning Application 20161478, Listed Building Consent 20161772, Advertisement Consent 20161479

New single storey building, signs

 

There are concerns over the proposal, as the new single storey building to the front would fail to preserve the setting of the listed building and fails to preserve the character and appearance of the St Georges Conservation Area.

 

Although it was appreciated by the panel that the applicants wish to improve their street presence, this was considered the wrong approach, as the new build sits uncomfortably within the curtilage of the listed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.