Agenda item

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

A) 11-13 ERSKINE STREET

Planning Application 20080272

Change of use, extension, infill building

 

The Director said that the application was for the conversion of the building to flats involving a two-storey roof extension.

 

B) CLYDE STREET

Planning Application 20080226

Change of use, extension, external alterations

 

The Director said that the application was for the conversion of the building to flats involving a two-storey roof extension. The location was on the adjacent site to the previous application.

 

The Panel considered both of these applications and then discussed them together. They had no objections to the proposed change of use but were unanimous in their view that the roof extensions would completely destroy the character of the buildings and damage the character of the conservation area. They noted that whilst some buildings had roof extensions approved, these were on flat roofs and for where there had been proposals for extensions on pitched roofs previously, it had been resisted such as St George’s Mills on Wimbledon Street)

 

The Panel recommended refusal on this application.

 

C) 47-51 GALLOWTREE GATE/1-7 MARKET PLACE APPROACH

Planning Application 20080387

Change of use to flats, external alterations

 

The Director said that the application was for change of use of the upper floors to flats and change of use of the existing ground floor café to a cycle store with associated external alterations.

 

The Panel had no objections to the change of use, but stated that they did not wish to see the retail unit on the ground floor lost.  They commented that an active street frontage was considered essential in a prime location such as the application site. The Panel also did not like the proposed top hung windows, which they thought, would be detrimental to the character of the building and agreed that casements would be a more appropriate option.

 

The Panel recommended seeking amendments to this application.

 

D) 580-594 GIPSY LANE, THE BEECHES

Planning Application 20080596

New development

 

The Director said that application was for a new two storey building of ten self contained flats

 

The Panel noted that historically the site had always been an open space which complemented the adjacent listed buildings and felt that this latest proposal would over develop the site.

 

The Panel recommended refusal on this application.

 

E) 21 CENTRAL AVENUE

Planning Application 20080549

Side & rear extension

 

The Panel had made observations on a side and rear extension to the property last year and that application had been subsequently refused. The Director said that the application was for a revised scheme that had taken on board the Panels comments.

 

The Panel generally thought that the new application was a greatly improved scheme. They stated that they would ideally have liked the extension to have been set back behind the side window but accepted that it would have caused design issues elsewhere in the scheme, which would have weakened the main façade of the extension.

 

The Panel recommended approval on this application.

 

F) 37 EAST AVENUE

Planning Application 20080417

Rear extension & new walls and railings

 

The Director thought that the application was for extensions to the side and rear with 2m high walls and gates.

 

The Panel were satisfied with the garage. They commented that they would have liked to see the step down within the outbuilding retained. They were unhappy with the loss of the current boundary treatment and commented that would have preferred to see it retained if possible. The Panel also felt that any new boundary treatment should not exceed a metre in height.

 

The Panel recommended seeking amendments to this application.

 

G) 6 BEECHCROFT ROAD

Planning Application 20080297

Extension and alterations

 

The Director said that the application was for extensions and alterations to the detached bungalow.

 

The Panel raised no objections to this application.

 

The Panel recommended approval on this application.

 

 

H) 46 CLARENDON PARK ROAD

Planning Application 20080386

Rooflight & replacement window

 

The Director said that the application was for the replacement of a dormer window and a roof light in the front roof slope.

 

The Panel were satisfied with the replacement window but felt that the roof light should be omitted as it would spoil an otherwise intact roofscape and set a precedent similar applications to be submitted.

 

The Panel recommended seeking amendments to this application.

 

I)  39 NARROW LANE, AYLESTONE

Planning Application 20080493

Front & side extension

 

The Director said that the application was for a new front porch and extension to the side of the 1930s semi detached house.

 

The Panel thought that the front porch was too large and along with the pitched roof looked out of character with the main house. They commented that the side extension was thought to be a little heavy, especially the raised parapet and also had reservations about removing the external access to the rear garden. They had no objections to a smaller porch with perhaps a flat roof that followed the line of the adjacent window.

 

The Panel recommended refusal on this application.

 

J) 20 HOME FARM WALK

Listed Building Consent 20080394 &Planning Application 20080371

Roller shutters

 

The Director said that the application was for roller shutters.

 

The Panel commented that they liked the existing timber shutters and would like to see these retained. They thought that the difficulties in opening and closing could be addressed by improving the tracking system perhaps by automating the doors.

 

The Panel recommended refusal on this application.

 

K) TRINITY HALL, TRINITY LANE

Planning Application 20080400

External alterations

 

The Director said that the application was for external alterations to the building.

 

The Panel had no concerns over the proposal but they felt that the brickwork would be difficult to match and therefore recommended infilling the arch with panelling.

 

The Panel recommended seeking amendments to this application.

 

L) 136-138 NEW WALK

Planning Application 20080467

Change of use, external alterations

 

The Director said the application was for the conversion of the building to flats involving external alterations to the building.

 

The Panel had no objections to the conversion to flats but they felt there were too many and a smaller number of larger flats would be better. They felt that the rooflights should be omitted from the front elevation, which would spoil an otherwise intact roofscape and set a precedent for other buildings on New Walk to do the same. The Panel also queried the need for the railings to the ground floor bay windows.

 

The Panel recommended seeking amendments to this application.

 

M) 142 LONDON ROAD

Planning Application  20080283

Reinstatement of shopfront

 

It was noted that the building was the subject of an ongoing enforcement case after the original 1930’s shopfront was replaced without planning permission. The Director said that the application was for the reinstatement of the shopfront in painted timber and stone.

 

The Panel felt that the poor facsimile proposed was not an acceptable replacement for such a fine historic shopfront. 

 

The Panel recommended refusal on this application.

 

N) 60 LONDON ROAD

Advertisement Consent  20080477

New signage

 

The Director said that the application was for a new externally illuminated sign to replace the existing signage.

 

The Panel raised no objections to this application.

 

The Panel recommended approval on this application.

 

 

 

 

O) 54 WESTCOTES DRIVE

Planning Application 20080576

Change of use

 

The Director said that the application was for the conversion of the building from storage to one self contained flat. The proposal involved external alterations.

 

The Panel had no objections to the principle of a conversion but felt that the ground floor main elevation should draw on the proportions of the first floor and the side windows should be retained if possible.

 

The Panel recommended seeking amendments to this application.

 

P) 195 MERE ROAD

Planning Application 20071229

Retention of windows

 

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

 

The Panel reiterated their usual feelings in that uPVC was unacceptable as a replacement for timber in historic buildings.

 

The Panel recommended refusal on this application.

 

Q) RUTLAND STREET THE EXCHANGE BUILDING

Listed Building Consent 20072185

Lighting

 

The Director said that the application was for lighting. It was mentioned that the application was another in the recent series for improved lighting and reduced street clutter around the new theatre that the Panel have discussed over the last few meetings.

 

The Panel thought that the proposed lights looked very large and would have a detrimental impact on the building. They stated that they would have liked some assurance on the actual size of the units and if possible would like to see a sample at the next meeting before making a recommendation.

 

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

 

R) 232 LONDON ROAD

Planning Application 20080464

Change of use and external alterations

 

The Director said that the application was for change of use to flats with extension and external alterations.

 

The Panel thought that the flat conversion was acceptable but the front dormer to the main house should be removed from the scheme and commented that they would have liked to see a more sensitive conversion of the outbuilding with more traditional windows.

 

The Panel recommended seeking amendments to this application.

 

S) 206 EAST PARK ROAD

Planning Application 20080402

Change of use to flats with extension and external alterations

 

The Director said that the application was for conversion to six flats with rear extension and external alterations to rear, side and front elevations.

 

The Panel considered the proposal to be an over development of the site and felt that the two storey extension should be removed from the scheme. They felt that the proportions of the windows within the workshop should be retained. The Panel also commented that the attractive fanlight above the French windows to the rear should also be retained.

 

The Panel recommended seeking amendments to this application.

 

LATE ITEM

TAYLOR ROAD SCHOOL

 

The Director said that the application was for the removal of the current building and the development of a new school on the same site.

 

The Panel lamented the loss of this fine landmark building however they reluctantly accepted that the condition of the building was too poor to be repaired. They did not feel that the proposed new school was of sufficient quality to replace the existing building and requested that a better design that looked more like a school with similar landmark qualities be sought.

 

The Panel recommended seeking amendments to this application.

 

The Panel raised no observations on the following applications, they were therefore not formally considered.

 

T) 145 LOUGHBOROUGH ROAD

Planning Application 20080428

Change of use

 

U) FLAT 12 ALBERT COURT, 20 STONEYGATE ROAD

Planning Application20080513

Alterations to rear of flat

 

V) 3 STONEYGATE AVENUE

Planning Application 20080452

Rear extension & new walls and railings

W) 66 LONDON ROAD

Planning Application 20080597

Change of use

 

X) 7 WELFORD ROAD

Planning Application 20080625

Change of use and external alterations