Agenda and minutes
PDF 113 KBVenue: Meeting Room G.02, Ground Floor, City Hall, 115 Charles Street, Leicester, LE1 1FZ
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Minutes: R. Lawrence (Vice-Chair), S. Eppel (LCS), N. Feldmann (LRSA)
|
|
|
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 13th June 2018 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, Planning, Transportation and Economic Development submits a report on planning applications received for consideration by the Panel. Minutes: A) 15 HORSEFAIR STREET Planning Application 20181413 DEMOLITION OF THREE STOREY SHOP AND OFFICE BUILDING (CLASS A1 AND CLASS B1); ALTERATIONS AND CONSTRUCTION OF WALL ADJACENT TO 11 HORSEFAIR STREET; AND PROVISION OF NEW HARDSURFACE AND STRIP LIGHTING TO FORM A NEW PEDESTRIAN LINK BETWEEN MARKET SQUARE AND TOWN HALL SQUARE
The panel support the proposal, as the demolition of the existing 1970’s building would be an enhancement on the area, improving the link between Town Hall Square and the Market Place.
It was noted that the existing building had a negative impact on the conservation area and that this proposal would be less intimidating to pedestrians using the route, having an indirect positive impact upon the historic environment. It was commented that the surface treatment to the new route was important, citing the example of the nearby Jetty.
NO OBJECTIONS
B) 28 SOUTHERNHAY ROAD Planning Application 20181416 DEMOLITION OF HOUSE (1x 4BED) CONSTRUCTION OF ONE TWO STOREY HOUSE (1X 5BED) (CLASS C3)
Objections were raised to the principle of the demolition, as the works would result in the loss of an original 1930s dwellinghouse, which individually isn’t the best example of this architectural style, but collectively adds to character and appearance of Southernhay Road.
It was noted by the panel that later additions and the replacement of the windows with Upvc have reduced the architectural qualities of the building, but that it still retains a number of architectural details that complement the wider streetscene.
It was also felt by the panel that the applicant has provided no clear and convincing justification as to why the property cannot be restored and that demolition and rebuild is the proposed option.
Notwithstanding the panel’s objections to the principle of demolition, it was felt that a pastiche design was the wrong approach and that any new house should be of a contemporary design, clearly distinctive from the existing building stock.
OBJECTIONS
C) 35 RUTLAND STREET Planning Application 20171913 CHANGE OF USE OF BASEMENT AND GROUND FLOORS FROM LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (CLASS B1(c)) TO RETAIL (CLASS A1), FINANCIAL AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (CLASS A2), CAFE/RESTAURANT (CLASS A3), OFFICES (CLASS B1(a)), NON-RESIDENTIAL INSTITUTIONS (CLASS D1) AND ASSEMBLY AND LEISURE (CLASS D2); CHANGE OF USE OF UPPER FLOORS FROM LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (CLASS B1(c)) TO OFFICES (CLASS B1(a)), NON-RESIDENTIAL INSTITUTIONS (CLASS D1) AND ASSEMBLY AND LEISURE (CLASS D2); TWO STOREY EXTENSION TO ROOF; ALTERATIONS
The panel agreed that the revised scheme is an improvement on the original plans, as it better respected the appearance of the original building and the setting of the adjacent designated heritage assets.
They were however unconvinced by the proposed materials of the single-storey roof-top extension. It was felt that the materials of the extension needed to be either a completely contrasting material (i.e. cladding), or matching brickwork (to the original building). It was felt that the linear bricks option proposed was the middle ground and did not work.
The panel also agreed that the glazed parapet should be replaced with an undulating parapet, ... view the full minutes text for item 76. |