Agenda item

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

A) LAND TO REAR OF 10-14 NEW STREET

Planning Application 20170967

Construction of two houses (2 x 3 bed) (class C3); associated landscaping and parking

 

The panel supported the principle of the proposal, accepting that the two new houses would have no adverse impact upon the conservation area, as they are hidden away from the streetscene behind the existing buildings.

 

Concerns were however raised over the design of the houses, with the panel wanting to see a more traditional palette of materials; the houses should be of red brick construction with slate roofs. Improved landscaping would also be welcomed.

 

SEEK AMENDMENTS

______________________________________________________________

 

B) GREAT CENTRAL SQUARE (GREAT CENTRAL STREET/HIGHCROSS STREET)

Planning Application 20171085

Construction of part 5 - 11-storey blocks

 

The proposal was welcomed by the panel as they supported the conversion of the former GCR station into an exhibition space, as the creation of an active use would secure the future preservation of the locally listed building. The removal of the parapet and its replacement with a glazed roof was supported.

 

There were no concerns raised over the size, scale and design of the two new buildings (2 hotels & office block) as the new builds would create a good contrast between new and old.

 

The panel noted that the detail of the materials would be the key to the success of the scheme and that they hoped that the exhibition space would be a fundamental part of the sites redevelopment.

 

NO OBJECTIONS

______________________________________________________________

 

C) LAND TO REAR OF 49-55 SANVEY LANE

Planning Application 20171168

Construction of a two storey dwellinghouse (1 x 3 bed) (class C3)

 

The majority of the panel felt that the principle of the house was acceptable and that the long-distance view of St Andrew’s Church spire wasn’t a deliberate view and as such it’s setting was unaffected.

 

They did however comment that the house was of a poor and basic design and that a higher standard of design should be required, due to the sites sensitive location within the Aylestone Village Conservation Area.

 

SEEK AMENDMENTS

______________________________________________________________

 

D) 1 ST ALBANS ROAD

Planning Application 20170973

Demolition of part of building; change of use (class A2) and erection of 5 & 6 storey rear extension to form 35 student flats (25 x studio, 10 x 5 bed) (sui generis); alterations to existing building

 

Although the panel accepted the principle of the proposal, there were strong concerns over the development in its current form, which would have a detrimental impact upon the historic environment.

 

There were concerns over the proposed changes to the ground floor of the existing building, as the new shopfront failed to relate to the architectural merits of the upper floors, harming its appearance. It was suggested that the applicant should seek to restore the original ground floor design, but in a simplified version. Concerns were also raised over whether the amount of glazing proposed would be achievable, without creating structural issues.

 

The panel accepted the principle of redeveloping the car park, introducing a new block of residential accommodation. It was however felt that a 6-storey building as proposed was too high and that in its current form would have an overpowering impact upon the streetscene. It was agreed that a 4-storey block would be more appropriate for the location.

 

Strong concerns were raised over the design of the upper two floors, with the cladding system proposed considered wholly inappropriate for the location. The design of the 4-storey element was more positively received, but they felt that it needed more horizontal emphasis and a better relationship between the original building and the 1^st two floors of the new build. The introduction of a roofscape, as opposed to a flat roof, was also recommended.

 

OBJECTIONS

______________________________________________________________

 

The panel had no objections/observations on the following applications:

 

E) 34 VICTORIA PARK ROAD

Planning Application 20171018

Installation of 1.2m high bow top railings to front of house (class C3) ______________________________________________________________

 

F) 3 MAIN STREET HUMBERSTONE

Planning Applications 20171122 & 20170986

External alterations to grade II listed building & construction of boundary wall at the front of office (class B1) ______________________________________________________________

 

G) 10 HIGHFIELD STREET

Planning Application 20170806

 

H) 38 DANESHILL ROAD

Planning Application 20171035

 

I) 3A KNIGHTON PARK ROAD

Planning Application 20171069

 

J) 39-41HIGH STREET

Advertisement Application 20171023 & Planning Application 20171022

 

K) 11 STONEYGATE AVENUE

Planning Application 20170928

 

L) GRANBY ROAD, GRANBY PRIMARY SCHOOL

Planning Application 20171129

 

M) 9 NEWTOWN STREET

Planning Application 20171134

 

N) 30-32 SHAFTESBURY AVENUE, 88 NEWINGTON STREET

Planning Application 20171148

 

O) 18 HIGHFIELD STREET

Planning Application 20170202

 

P) 77 LONDON ROAD

Planning Application 20171151

 

Q) 18 PREBEND STREET, BRADGATE HOTEL

Planning Application 20171066

 

Q) 7-9 POCKLINGTONS WALK

Planning Application 20171062

 

R) 2 ST MARTINS

Listed Building Consent 20171061

 

S) WHARF STREET SOUTH, TELEPHONE EXCHANGE

Planning Application 20171173

 

T) 4-8 GRANBY STREET

Advertisement Application 20171196 & Planning Application 20171195

 

U) 58A LONDON ROAD

Planning Application 20171212

 

 

Next Meeting – Wednesday 9^th August 2017, G.03 Meeting Room 3, City Hall

 

 

Meeting Ended – 18:30