Agenda item

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

A) Burleys Way, Corah Factory Site

Planning Application 20220709

 

Hybrid planning application comprising: Full planning application for the demolition of existing buildings on site (excluding 2 chimneys and the façade of the 1865 OTB building), the retention and alteration of the southern façade of the 1865 building (OTB) the erection of new building to the rear to provide residential (Use Class C3) accommodation and/or commercial uses (Use Class E and F2). Outline planning application with all matters reserved for the erection of buildings to provide up to 1,143 dwellings (Classes C2 and C3), commercial uses (Classes E, F2 and Sui generis (public houses, wine bars, drinking establishments and hot food takeaways)), hotel (Use Class C1), a multi-storey car park and a pedestrian footbridge with associated landscaping, public realm and associated infrastructure.

The panel considered the Corah complex was an historically important site within the city that was a visual reminder of the city’s manufacturing past and the particularly significant socio-economic role played by the company on a national scale. They contended that the frontage to the ring road had landmark quality and aspects of the site had potential to underpin a high-quality regeneration scheme between the city centre and Abbey Park.  

 

The panel felt that a large number of the buildings were of distinctive architectural quality and the condition reports showed many were in active use and had the structural integrity for re-use, which would be the preferred approach. It was accepted that some elements of demolition would likely be necessary but that there was no justification for the wholesale demolition of the wider site, something which would cause significant harm to the historic visual and cultural landscape of the city.

 

The panel welcomed the retention of the chimneys in the northern part of the site but did not feel these had the same significance to the city as other parts of the building, particularly the strong imposing façade along Burleys Way. Their retention, along with other public art proposals, was considered token and not adequate for a site of this scale.

 

There was some discussion over the proposed outline elements with a feeling that some form of scale close to the canal could be supported. The panel considered Abbey Park to have an urban setting and that new development at is margins could be successfully delivered if of high-quality design. The lack of clarity over the design of the bridge element was raised, although the panel were generally comfortable with the principle of new access being provided here. However, the scale of the larger development proposed was considered unacceptable in terms of the setting of the Grade I Listed St Margaret’s Church. Here it was felt that the 18-storey tower would be a harmful addition to the skyline and particularly harmful to the setting of the tower of St Margaret’s Church, when viewed form Sanvey Gate which is a historic route.

 

In terms of the more detailed design for the original headquarters building of the textile company, the architectural response was considered to be poor, with the new rear elevation design not matching the quality of examples detailed in the design codes and other supporting documents. The lower quality of the detailed design gave concerns about the wider outline proposal in these terms but was also not considered acceptable as a response to the existing building form. The juxtaposition between the older elements and new was considered awkward, both in terms of materials and external detailing, but also in terms of floor levels not matching existing window openings. In addition, there were concerns raised about the cramped setting of the former headquarters building and the large scale of new buildings sitting closely to it – including the multi-storey car park. This new development would overwhelm the setting of the partially retained structure and undermine its significance.

 

In conclusion, the panel considered that the development proposed was the wrong approach for such a complex and historically rich site, with a new approach required that worked from the principle of contextually responsive design that sought to repurpose the higher quality structures and craft new development off and around them.   

 

OBJECTIONS

 

B) 25-27 Lincoln Street; rear of

Planning Application 20220699

 

Demolition of single storey warehouse at rear (Class B8); construction of single and two storey building with dormers to create 6 self contained flats (6x1 bed) (Class C3); repairs to boundary wall; works to trees within a conservation area

 

 

The following applications were reported for Members' information but no additional comments were made.

 

Further details on the cases below can be found by typing the reference number into: http://rcweb.leicester.gov.uk/planning/onlinequery/mainSearch.aspx

580 Gipsy Lane

Planning Application 20212831

 

Change of use from house (3 bed) (Class C3) to two flats(1 x 1 bed, 1 x 2 bed) (Class C3); demolition of outbuilding; installation of 1.8 metre high fence; dropped kerb; alterations (new window at rear)

 

24 Waldale Drive

Planning Application 20220443

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2-6 Gallowtree Gate

Planning Application 20220823

 

 

2-6 Gallowtree Gate

Planning application 20220597

 

 

University Road

Planning application 20221094

 

 

43-45 Granby Street

Planning application 20220773

 

 

5 Market Street

Planning application 20220399

 

Installation of four internally illuminated fascia signs; one internally illuminated projection sign; two internally illuminated roundel signs

 

109 Catherine Street, The Woolpack

Planning application 20220811

 

 

82-84 Humberstone Gate, 2-2A Wharf Street South

Planning application 20220976

 

Retrospective application for Installation of non-illuminated fascia signs with non-illuminated letters and installation of plastic box fascia signs with black background and white and green non-illuminated letters; posters to be installed to the Humberstone Gate & Wharf Street South (Class E)

Installation of four internally illuminated fascia signs; one internally illuminated projection sign; two internally illuminated roundel signs

 

 

88 Woodgate, Car Wash Adjacent

Planning application 20220654

 

Demolition of existing car wash (Sui Generis); Construction of a four storey and a part four and part five storey building comprising 42 flats (29 x 1bed, 13 x 2bed) (Class C3); associated parking and landscaping

 

NEXT MEETING – Wednesday 13^th July 2022

 

Meeting Ended – 18:50