Agenda item

The Service Director, Planning and Policy submits a report on planning applications received for consideration by the Panel.

A) 7 STANLEY  ROAD, EASTFIELD

Planning Application 20080217

Housing development

 

The Panel made observations on the redevelopment of the site to the rear of Eastfield last October and that application (20071741) was refused. The Director said that the application was for a revised scheme that addressed some of the Panel's comments.

 

The Panel were critical of the proposal. They commented that the site was full of potential to accommodate a few well designed houses set in open space that would both compliment the adjacent listed building and make the best use of the setting to add quality to the conservation area. They thought that 24 units within the site was far too excessive and that the proposed design of the new build was standardised and did not reflect the high quality of architecture found elsewhere within the area. It was also noted that the previous proposed flat scheme reflected the footprint of the 1950s rear extension and retained a good proportion of open space, which was more complimentary to the setting of the listed building. The Panel reluctantly had accepted the principle of 24 houses however they stated that they would still like to see a better design with more traditional materials and features.

 

The Panel recommended seeking amendments to this application.

 

B) 136-140 LONDON ROAD

Planning Application 20071577 & Conservation Area Consent 20071585

Demolition and redevelopment

 

The Director said that the applications were for the demolition of the existing buildings and the redevelopment of the site with a mixed use development comprising of 41 self contained flats and 4 retail units with associated car parking and landscaping.

 

The Panel stated that it was an important part of the City and expressed their dislike of the proposed development. They stated that it was too high and did not reflect the individual plots that had been present on the site since the area of London Road was developed. The Panel felt that the current buildings cascaded down the hill, which created a desirable townscape to emulate. They thought that the proposed design, which presented a stairwell on the principle elevation, should have offered something better. Some Members of the Panel commented that the rear elevation was more sympathetic than the front. Overall the Panel stated that they would have liked a better design that reflected the scale of the existing buildings and paid some regard to the individual plots. They had no objection to the demolition of the existing buildings.

 

The Panel recommended refusal on this application.

 

C) 20 ELMS ROAD

Planning Application 20080234

Change of use, demolition and extension

 

The Director said that the application was for the conversion of the former student halls of residence to 14 self contained flats. The proposal involved a ground floor side extension, new dormers and the demolition of the detached boiler room and chimney.

 

The Panel felt that there were too many flats and that they should be reduced by half. They did not like the front extension or the double access for cars. The Panel also felt that the grounds should not become a car park however they had no objection to the demolition of the boiler house.  The Panel also thought that the area was not suitable for one bedroom flats.

 

The Panel recommended seeking amendments to this application.

 

D)  LAND ADJACENT TO MEADOWS COURT, OLD CHURCH STREET, AYLESTONE

Planning Application 20080022

New building for eight flats

 

The Director said that the application was for a new two storey building for eight flats. The Panel made observations on a similar proposal for ten flats in the summer of 2002 that was subsequently withdrawn.

 

(It was reported that an application for an extension to the adjacent care home was discussed by the Panel at the meeting on 23 January.)

 

It was noted that this was similar to a scheme approved in 2002. The Panel felt that the proposal was similar in style and scale but did not have the subtle details such as chimneys and decorative string course that the previous scheme had. The Panel felt that as the proposal was a watered down version of the approved scheme they preferred to see the previous scheme built rather than the current proposal. It was noted by the Panel that houses would be more appropriate and desirable than a block of flats.

 

The Panel recommended seeking amendments to this application.

 

E) DILLON WAY

Planning Application 20080290

Nine dwellings

 

The Director said that the application was to redevelop the disused lock up garage site with nine dwellings.

 

The Panel stated that they would have liked to see the air shaft made into a focal feature within the new housing layout and also mentioned that it was important to provide access around the whole shaft for future maintenance. The Panel had no objection to it being included into a garden however requested that a formal request for the tunnel to be scheduled be submitted to English Heritage.

 

The Panel recommended seeking amendments to this application.

 

F) 3-5 KNIGHTON PARK ROAD

Planning Application 20080244

Conversion to four houses

 

The Director said that the application was for the conversion of the care home to four houses. The proposal also involved a rear extension. It was noted however that the Panel made observations on extensions to the building last year.

 

The Panel thought that the proposal was a good scheme. They stated that would like to see the newer flat dormer removed and replaced with one to match the traditional dormer already there. They also noted the problem of waste bins with the inner two properties, which had no external access to the rear gardens.

 

The Panel recommended approval on this application.

 

G) 22 KNIGHTON PARK ROAD

Planning Application 20072308

New development

 

The Director said that the application was for the redevelopment of the site with two new three/four storey blocks to form ten flats and four town houses with associated car parking and landscaping.

 

Overall the Panel were in favour of the application and thought it had imaginative design and landscaping.

 

The Panel recommended approval on this application.

 

H) LAND ADJACENT TO 18 PENDENE ROAD

Planning Application 20080233

Detached house

 

The Director said that the application was for a new detached house on land at the end of Pendene Road.

 

The Panel had no objections in principle although they agreed that the loss of allotment space was unfortunate. They also commented that they would have preferred a cleaner design without so much clutter such as the roof lights in the front roof slope.

 

The Panel recommended seeking amendments to this application.

 

I) 223 SPENCEFIELD LANE

Planning Application 20080324

Flats

 

The Director said that the outline application was for the demolition of the existing bungalow and the redevelopment of the site with two new two-storey buildings to create a total of eight flats.

 

The Panel stated that they would have preferred to see two well designed houses that exploit the corner plot rather than the proposed flat blocks.

 

The Panel recommended refusal on this application.

 

J) FORMER ODEON CINEMA (THE ATHENA), RUTLAND STREET

Listed Building Consent 20072184

Lighting

 

The Director said that the application was for external lighting.

 

The Panel had no objections to the application.

 

K) 5 MARKET STREET

Planning Application 20080145

Condensers & safety rail

 

The Director said that the application was for two condenser units and a safety rail on the rear elevation of the building facing the service yard, visible from Pocklingtons Walk.

 

The Panel stated that the condenser units should be concealed from the street scene. They felt that an acceptable way to conceal the units would be to increase the height of the fence.

 

The Panel recommended approval on this application.

 

L) 29 MARKET STREET

Planning Application 20080124

Sign

 

The Director said that the application was for a new fascia sign.

 

The Panel had no objections to the sign that has been installed or the canopy.

 

M) 332 NARBOROUGH ROAD

Planning Application 20080217

Fence

 

The Director said that application was for a 2.4 metre high security fence around the perimeter of the building.

 

The Panel queried why there was a need for a fence. They stated that they would support a temporary approval to protect the building from vandalism but not a permanent approval.

 

The Panel agreed that further information was needed on this application.

 

N) 115 LOUGHBOROUGH ROAD

Planning Application 20080253

Change of use

 

The Director said that application was for the conversion of the building currently in use as offices to a day nursery involving a two storey side and single storey rear extension. It was reported that this was a revision to a previously approved scheme.

 

The Panel felt that given the previous approval they were satisfied with the revised pitched roof to the rear but commented that they would prefer to see the fenestration retained at the front.

 

The Panel recommended seeking amendments to this application.

 

Extra Item

 

87-91 GRANBY STREET

Planning Application 2008

Retention of uPVC windows

 

The Director said that the application was for the retention of uPVC windows.

 

The Panel supported a refusal and reinstatement of metal windows to match the originals. They raised concern that no action had yet been taken on the unauthorised windows on the Wellington Hotel on Rutland Street and asked for reassurance that something would be done to reinstate the original style timber sashes.

 

The Panel recommend refusal on this application.

 

The Panel raised no observations on the following application, it was therefore not formally considered.

 

O) 54 KING STREET

Advertisement Consent 20080159

Fascia sign and projecting sign