Agenda and minutes

Cllr. S. Barton, M. Davies (RICS), S. Yazdan-Joo (Student)

None.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 14^th January 2026 are attached and the Panel is asked to confirm them as a correct record.

The Panel agreed the notes.

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

A.   Development at Mayflower Primary School, Evington Drive

Preapp planning application 202690030P

A pre-app was discussed.

B.   Development at 31 Granby Street
Planning applications 20251355 and 20251366

The latest iteration of this scheme was presented, with key amendments including a revised M&E strategy, an alternate colonnade screen treatment and changes to the rear development fronting Town Hall Square. The panel again raised the principle of development and questioned what the purpose of the canopy was and why did the existing rear entrance need to be widened to the scale proposed. They also stated they were content to leave smaller scale details to the assessment of Officers, such as the specifics of the M&E interventions. More attention was paid to the treatment of the colonnade. The panel generally agreed that it would be best to offset the glazed screen from the arcade itself, so that it was reversible, but that being on the hall side was more harmful rather than in the corridor. The design of the screen was criticised as lacking in quality, notably the arrangement of horizontal and vertical glazing bars which could harm the appearance of the arcade. Other internal elements that concerned panel members included the impact of M&E panels on the windows – where an additional elevation showing the exterior was required, while a question was raised as to where parts of the historic banking counter had gone.

For the exterior, the addition of new railings to the entrance corner on Granby Street and Bishop Street was accepted, but the quality of workmanship would be critical on a highly graded building. It was suggested that a condition should be added to ensure new railings are provided by a specialist blacksmith. Turning to the rear, the development remained contentious. Panellists questioned the decision to use the vehicle loading bay as the datum for the height of the proposed canopy. The canopy design was criticised, notably that its height was imposing, the roof form would be oppressive and questions over details such as rainwater goods. The use of timber cladding inside the seating area was considered to be a somewhat incongruous choice. Concerns were raised over the widening of the rear entrance; the topography of the site and pavement had been carefully considered with the current format, so that the piers are level. Widening the gap would upset this visually.

Overall, the panel continued to view the rear development as poorly conceived, lacking in justification, and that it would be harmful.

Objections

C.   Land and Buildings on the East Side of Old Mill Lane, (Formerly) 81-95 Sanvey Gate

Planning application 20242258

This was an amended scheme, which the panel agreed was more acceptable in terms of its height, although they reserved judgment on its more detailed design. There were discussions regarding the building forming the datum line for future development which would extrude the city core, but ultimately the redevelopment of the site was viewed acceptable in terms of the setting impact on relevant heritage  ...  view the full minutes text for item 328.