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

81.

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Minutes:

R. Gill (Chair), R. Lawrence (Vice-Chair), D. Martin (LRGT), N. Stacey (LSA)

 

82.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

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

Minutes:

None.

83.

MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING pdf icon PDF 93 KB

The Minutes of the meeting held on 12th September are attached and the Panel is asked to confirm them as a correct record.

Minutes:

The Panel agreed the notes.

84.

CURRENT DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS pdf icon PDF 79 KB

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

Minutes:

A) LEICESTER CATHEDRAL

PRE-APPLICATION PRESENTATION

 

A presentation was made regarding a revised design for a scheme.

 

B) 96 JARROM STREET

Planning Application 20180801

DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDING; CONSTRUCTION OF NINE STOREY MIXED USE BUILDING COMPRISING OF 180 RESIDENTIAL FLATS (2X 1BED, 1X 2BED, 177X STUDIO) (CLASS C3); GROUND FLOOR UNIT FOR NURSERY/RETAIL/RESTAURANT (CLASS D1/A1/A3)

 

The panel commented on the proposal in terms of its setting. The scale and massing were focused on, and some concerns were expressed in relation to the close proximity of the new development to the Grade II* and Grade II Listed properties across the street from the site. Some positive comments were voiced regarding the new multi-storey structure proposed, while others commented on the lack of contextual responsiveness of the design. The existence of several larger modern developments elsewhere in close proximity to the Designated Assets was mentioned, but the reduction in scale away from the hospital site was noted.

 

The panel concluded that verified views (already requested by the LCC) are required to reach a firm decision on the proposal.

 

MORE INFORMATION REQUIRED


 

C) GYPSY LANE, LAND TO REAR OF GRANGE COTTAGE

Planning Application 20182053

CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE (1X 4BED) (CLASS C3); INSTALLATION OF 1.8 METRE HIGH GATE/FENCE AND HARD SURFACING TO FRONT; ALTERATIONS

 

The majority of the comments received on this application focused on the low quality and unsympathetic relationship of the proposed house in relation to the neighbouring Grade II Listed properties. Although no objections were voiced in regards to the potential development of the plot and the relative scale of the development, its spatial relationship to the above mentioned properties was criticized.

 

In all, due to poor quality of design, as well as lack of adequate reference of the scale, form and materials of the proposed structure to its context, an objection was advanced.

 

OBJECTION


 

D) 341 LONDON ROAD, MARTIN HOUSE

Planning Application 20180703

CONSTRUCTION OF SINGLE AND TWO STOREY EXTENSIONS TO SIDE AND REAR; ACCESS RAMP; ALTERATIONS (AMENDED PLANS RECEIVED 17/09/2018 & 28/09/2018)

 

The changes made to the scheme were acknowledged, but it was noted that they were limited in terms of the layout and scale of the extensions. The changes to the landscaping were supported, whilst the panel proposed that the avenue of trees be restored and a grass reinforcement mesh system be used for the areas of parking.

 

Comments received included the critique of the horizontal emphasis of the rear extension, disturbing the predominantly vertical emphasis of the existing rear elevation, as well obscuring current elements of the exterior façade that make a positive contribution to the Stoneygate Conservation area. The lack of context and inappropriate form of the new extension to the rest of the building was also mentioned, regarded as unsympathetic to the site. Although the more limited views of the rear part of the site was mentioned, the potential for new development to open up this part of the Conservation Area in the future was noted. The panel considered that the extension had limited architectural merit.

 

OBJECTION  ...  view the full minutes text for item 84.