Agenda item

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

A) Jewry Wall Museum, 150-160 St Nicholas Circle

Planning Application 20161702 Listed Building Consent 20161703

Ramp, lift

 

The panel supported the proposal, as the scheme of works was sympathetic and complimentary to the design of the grade II listed Vaughan College.

 

They discussed how the proposed access ramp was of an appropriate design, complementing the strong right angles of the listed building, whilst the location of the new internal lift and stairwell was the best solution, causing minimal impact to the significance of the listed building.

 

NO OBJECTIONS

______________________________________________________________

 

 

B) 53 New Walk, New Walk Museum

Listed Building Consent 20161734

Internal alterations

 

The introduction of a new feature staircase and lift within the entrance lobby of the museum was supported by the panel, as the works will have minimal impact upon the original fabric of the listed building.

 

The panel welcomed the design of the new staircase, noting that it would restore some grandeur to the museum, following the loss of the original principal staircase in the 1970s.

 

Some concern was raised over the location of the new lift shaft and how it relates to the space, but on balance it was considered to be acceptable.

 

NO OBJECTIONS

______________________________________________________________

 

C) Former International Hotel, 57 Rutland Street

Planning application 20161507

Demolition and redevelopment

 

The panel raised strong concerns to the proposed redevelopment, as it will fail to preserve the character and appearance of the St Georges Conservation Area and fails to preserve the setting of multiple Grade II listed buildings nearby.

 

The panel had no objection in principle to the demolition of the existing tower, but there was a range of views as to whether the side wings were worthy of being retained. However, they considered the proposal in its current form was wholly inappropriate as it is of excessive size and scale.

 

The panel noted that the building was too tall and too bulky, making no reference to its setting. It was out of scale with the streetscene and would have an overbearing impact upon both Rutland Street and Wimbledon Street. It also had no reference to the local context.

 

If a tower is desired by the applicants, it was recommended that it be slim and elegant. They stated that the applicant cannot justify the height of the building on grounds that it would be a landmark building and that the proposal needs to relate better to the streetscape, including the palette of materials.

 

 

D) 46 Humberstone Gate, Clarence House

Planning Application 20161478, Listed Building Consent 20161772, Advertisement Consent 20161479

New single storey building, signs

 

There are concerns over the proposal, as the new single storey building to the front would fail to preserve the setting of the listed building and fails to preserve the character and appearance of the St Georges Conservation Area.

 

Although it was appreciated by the panel that the applicants wish to improve their street presence, this was considered the wrong approach, as the new build sits uncomfortably within the curtilage of the listed building.

 

There were concerns over the contemporary design, as it draws undue attention to the new building and it was felt that this design creates a poor relationship with the host building.

 

The panel suggested that the applicants look into the possibility of utilising the existing gatehouse, as there were reservations over whether the principle of a new build in this location would be acceptable.

 

OBJECTIONS

______________________________________________________________

 

E) 37-43 Rutland Street 

Planning application 20161806, Listed Building Consent 20161807

Conversion of Listed Building to 14 x 2-bed residential units and ground floor retail unit

 

The panel supported the conversion of the listed building to residential with a ground floor retail unit, as it seeks to give the building a new active use, addressing years of neglect.

 

The subdivision of the attic space for residential duplexes was considered acceptable, provided that all new subdivisions are clearly legible as 21^st century additions.

 

The introduction of a number of new window and door openings on the churchyard elevation was also considered acceptable, but the panel did suggest that the design of the fenestrations could be more honest, appearing as 21^st century alterations.

 

It was also commented that a level access from the new door openings on the side elevation into the churchyard would be important.

 

NO OBJECTIONS

______________________________________________________________

 

F) Grosvenor Gate, Former Nurses Home

Planning application 20161629, Listed Building Consent 20161430

Change of use, extension

 

The panel accepted the principle of the conversion, as the proposal is similar to that seen previously.

 

The changes to the proposed size, scale and design of the 3-storey rear extension were considered an improvement to the existing and the idea of an honest extension was considered the correct approach.

 

Concerns were however raised over the clumsy junction between new and old, where the mansard and hipped roofs meet. Concerns were also raised over the central projection of the new extension, as it would give too great a status to the rear elevation. Although the desire for breaking up the elevation was appreciated, it was felt that a change in articulation would be better than the clean break as currently proposed.

 

SEEK AMENDMENTS

______________________________________________________________

 

Late Item) 36 Grange Lane

Planning application 20161609

2-storey extension

 

The panel raised objections to the proposal, as the extension is of poor design, providing no benefit to the character and appearance of the area, harming the setting or nearby heritage assets.

 

The original building is of a poor visual appearance and the proposed extension will only make things worse, due to the poor design and palette of materials.

 

 

 

The panel had no objections/observations on the following applications:

 

G) 22-30 SANDOWN ROAD FLAT 3 SANDOWN COURT

Planning Application 20161642

External alterations

______________________________________________________________

 

H) 3 WELFORD PLACE

Planning Application 20161647

Change of use, external alterations

______________________________________________________________

 

I) 31-33 DOVER STREET, 38-44 YORK STREET

Planning Application 20161604

Eight storey residential building

______________________________________________________________

 

J) 61 GRANBY STREET

Advertisement Consent 20161445

New fascia signs

______________________________________________________________

 

K) 61A GRANBY STREET

Advertisement Consent 20161446

New fascia sign

______________________________________________________________

 

L) 165 GRANBY STREET

Planning Application 20161587

Change of use

______________________________________________________________

 

M) 22 GRANGE LANE 53-55 OXFORD STREET

Advertisement Consent 20161622

Signs

______________________________________________________________

 

N) 3 HORSEFAIR STREET, HORSEFAIR HOUSE

Planning Application 20161612

Change of use

______________________________________________________________

 

Next Meeting – Wednesday 19^th October 2016, G.02 Meeting Room 2, City Hall

 

Apologies in advance from R. Gill & N. Feldmann for the meeting in October.

 

Future meeting dates –

 

Wednesday 19^th October 2016

Wednesday 16^th November 2016

Wednesday 14^th December 2016

Wednesday 18^th January 2017

Wednesday 15^th February 2017

Wednesday 22^nd March 2017

Wednesday 19^th April 2017

 

Meeting Ended – 19:10