Agenda item

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

A) EVINGTON HALL, SPENCEFIELD LANE

Planning Application 20081914 and Listed Building Consent 20081915

Conversion of listed building to 5 apartments, 18 houses in grounds

 

The Director said this was a revised scheme for the conversion of the listed building and new housing on the current school grounds. It was noted that the Panel made observations on a previous conversion and housing scheme for this site in September.

 

The Panel reiterated their previous comments that fewer larger houses would create a better setting for the listed Hall. Generally they thought that the housing scheme lacked imagination and was an over development. They felt that the scale and design of the new houses did not reflect those of the surrounding area. They suggested the idea of a 'London Square style development' as an example of how to create a high quality living environment.

 

The Panel had no objections to the revised scheme for the conversion of the listed building, or the demolition of the modern extensions.

 

The Panel recommended refusal of outline planning permission and approval of listed building consent.

 

B) OLD GRAMMAR SCHOOL, HIGHCROSS STREET

Planning Application 20081876

Internal alterations

 

The Director said that the application was for the conversion of the building to a restaurant involving internal alterations. It was noted that the Panel had made observations on the refurbishment of the building in 2005.

 

The Panel were also consulted at pre-application stage for a proposed flue for the new kitchens. They thought that running the flue internally above the exposed roof trusses was unacceptable. They suggested moving the kitchen to the other end of the building or perhaps venting through the front elevation of the roof instead.

 

The Panel recommended approval of the current application however agreed further information was needed on the pre application enquiry.

 

C) YMCA, EAST STREET

Listed Building Consent 20081759

Internal alterations

 

The Director said that the application was for internal alterations to the theatre.

 

The Panel made no objections to the internal alterations. They also supported the pre-application enquiry for the reinstatement of traditional shopfronts.

 

The Panel recommended approval on this application.

 

D) 4 BELVOIR STREET

Listed Building Consent 20081904

Alterations to shopfront

 

The Director said that the application was for alterations to the shopfront.

 

The Panel had no objection to the new roller shutters but stated that they would like to keep the terrazzo entrance, which would be leveled as part of the scheme.

 

The Panel recommended seeking amendments to the entrance.

 

E) NEWARKE BRIDGE

Listed Building Consent 20081885

Traffic signs

 

The Director said that the application was for new traffic signs affixed to the bridge.

 

The Panel was concerned that this would set a precedent for further signage on the bridge, but had no formal objection to the current proposed signage.

 

The Panel recommended approval on this application.

 

F) WESTCOTES HOUSE

Planning Application 20081794

Retention of temporary building

 

The Director said that the application was for the retention of the temporary building on the site. It was noted that the Panel made observations on a temporary two storey building in January 2005 (2004 2235) for the purpose of providing health care facilities whilst the old health centre was demolished and rebuilt.

 

The Panel asked for justification for retention of the temporary building and also how long will it need to be used for.  They noted that if this had originally been submitted as a permanent structure it would not have been recommended for approval, as it was so close to the listed building. 

 

The Panel recommended refusal on this application unless there was justification for further limited period consent.

 

G) LOUGHBOROUGH ROAD / WINDSOR AVENUE

Pre-application enquiry

Redevelopment of site

 

The Director said that a proposed design for a new building has been received and the comments of the Panel were sought.It was noted that this is a former petrol filling station site, which has been vacant for some years. The adjacent nursing home has purchased the site and wished to extend their existing facilities.

 

The Panel noted that this was a prominent corner site forming a 'gateway' to the northern end of the conservation area.  They commented that any new build would have to address three frontages and be of exceptional quality if it is to be allowed to come forward of the established building line along Loughborough Road. They thought that the proposed scale was too big for the site and that the build should be no larger than the existing canopy of the garage. They commented that the windows were too small and it didn’t have the sense of verticality that the other building had. The Panel stated that if the site was to be linked to the main building it should have a larger glazed linking element that allowed the building to read as a stand alone building. The Panel commented that the architecture on the road needed to be looked at. They suggested that the agent look further down Loughborough Road where there was a well designed nursing home. They thought that the new development should incorporate a nice garden for residents to sit in.  The Panel commented that a little row of cottages on two sides with a garden in between might be nice or a loggia.

 

H) 1 – 5 HIGH STREET

Planning Application 20081578

Alterations to shop front

 

The Director said that the application was for alterations to the shopfront.

 

The Panel could not see the need for the works and thought the existing tiles should be retained and cleaned.

 

The Panel recommended refusal on this application.

 

I)  9 – 15 PRINCESS ROAD WEST

Planning Application 20081847

Alterations to entrance

 

The Director said that the application was for alterations to the front canopy.

 

The Panel lamented the loss of what was a very striking entrance to the building. They accepted the need to upgrade the entrances but stated that they would like the tiles in the recess to be retained.

 

The Panel recommended seeking amendments to this application.

 

J)  6 ST JOHNS ROAD

Planning Application 20081313

Replacement fencing & gates

 

The Director said that application was for replacement of the existing boundary treatment with a new 1.8 metre fencing and gates.

The Panel had a few concerns with this application. They thought the new site would look odd and that with a solid wooden fence you would lose views of the adjacent house. They commented that a reduction in height or a wire mesh fence would be less obtrusive. 

 

The Panel recommended to seek amendments to this application.

 

K)  11 MILL HILL LANE

Planning Application 20081731

Replacement windows

 

The Director said that the application was for reinstatement of timber windows, which were replaced with PVC without consent in July.

 

The Panel supported the reinstatement of the timber windows.

 

The Panel recommended approval on this application.

 

L)  43 PARK VALE ROAD

Planning Application 20081323

Replacement windows

 

The Director said that the application was for the replacement of the existing timber top hung windows with new timber sliding sashes.

 

The Panel welcomed the reintroduction of sliding sashes but were cautions regarding the potential increase in the thickness of the frames.

 

The Panel recommended conditional approval on this application.

 

M) 2 CANK STREET

Planning Application 20081942

 

The Director said that the application was for a roller shutter.

 

The panel questioned the justification for the shutters but agreed that concertina shutters were acceptable

 

The Panel recommended approval if there was justification given for the shutter.

 

N) 2 CARTS LANE

Planning Application 20081922

 

The Director said that the application was for shopfront alterations and a new gate.

 

The Panel thought it would be a great shame to lose the entire shop front, with its fine terrazzo entrance floor. They questioned why a wider door was needed and queried whether Disability Discrimination Act compliance be achieved by just shifting one side of the recessed frame.

 

The Panel recommended seeking amendments to this application.

 

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

 

O)  31 DANESHILL ROAD

Planning Application 20081788

Replacement windows to rear