Agenda item

20202123 - 28 St Barnabas Road

Ward: North Evington

Proposal: Change of use from function hall, to function hall and restaurant (Sui Generis): single storey extension to side; installation of ventilation flue to side of main building.

Applicant: MR E. SABAT

20202124 - 28 St Barnabas Road

Ward: North Evington

Proposal: Listed Building

Applicant: MR E. SABAT

The Chair informed the Committee that there were two applications for 28 St Barnabas Road. The first application would be to consider the change of use proposal, and the second application would be to consider the listed building proposal. It was noted that the two applications would be taken together, but that the two decisions would be taken separately.

The Planning Officer presented the reports and the supplementary reports which included further representations from the applicant for both applications and a correction to the report on page 37 in relations to application 20202124 28 St Barnabas Road.

Mr Stephen Bradwell, on behalf of the applicant, addressed the Committee and spoke in support of the applications.

Councillor Luis Fonseca, Ward Councillor for North Evington, addressed the Committee and spoke in support of the applications.

Members considered the reports and officers responded to any comments and

queries raised.

The Chair moved that, in accordance with the officer recommendation, the application be refused. This was seconded by Councillor Gee and, upon being put to the vote, the motion to refuse was CARRIED.

20202123 - 28 St Barnabas Road

RESOLVED:  That the application be REFUSED for the reasons set out below:

              REASONS FOR REFUSAL

1.           The applicant has not shown that the extension by reason of its size, design and position would not result in harm to the historical, aesthetic and evidential value of the heritage asset and therefore its significance through the concealment of historic architectural features - buttresses and side entrance arch.  Although this harm is less than substantial this is not outweighed by any public benefit of the proposal, contrary to policy CS18 of the Leicester Core Strategy and NPPF paragraph 196.  

2.           The extension and the addition of the ventilation flue would disrupt the appearance of the listed building and the nearby historic assets.

              The applicant has not shown that the proposal would not harm the building’s historic and architectural significance and value.  Although this harm is less than substantial this is not outweighed by any public benefit of the proposal.  The proposal is therefore contrary to policy CS18 of the Leicester Core Strategy and NPPF paragraph 196.

              NOTES FOR APPLICANT

1.           For avoidance of doubt, this Planning Application is refused on the basis of the application form and plans received on 3/11/2020.

20202124 - 28 St Barnabas Road

RESOLVED: that the application be REFUSED for the reasons set out below.

REASONS FOR REFUSAL

1.           The extension by reason of its size, design and position would result in less than substantial harm to the historical, aesthetic and evidential value of the heritage asset and therefore its significance through the concealment of historic architectural features - buttresses and side entrance arch,  contrary to policy CS18 of the Leicester Core Strategy and NPPF paragraph 196.  

2.           The extension and the addition of the ventilation flue would disrupt the appearance of the listed building and the nearby historic assets and would result in less than substantial harm to the building’s historic and architectural significance and value.  The proposal is therefore contrary to policy CS18 of the Leicester Core Strategy and NPPF paragraph 196.

              NOTES FOR APPLICANT

1.           The City Council engages with all applicants in a positive and proactive way through specific pre-application enquiries and the detailed advice available on the Council’s website. On this particular application no pre-application advice was sought before the application was submitted and no negotiations have taken place during the course of the application. The City Council has determined this application by assessing the proposal against all material considerations, including planning policies and any representations that may have been received. As the proposal is clearly unacceptable, it was considered that further discussions would be unnecessary and costly for all parties.

At this point Councillor Rae Bhatia left the meeting.