Agenda item

Health and Social Care Scrutiny Committee (Social Care Stream) – 1 September 2004

Revenue Outturn 2003/04

The following was agreed at the above meeting. The full minute extract and officer response is attached.

RESOLVED:

            That the committee:

(1)               Notes the final outturn for the Social Care and Health Department budget for the 2003/2004 financial year; and

(2)               Congratulates the department on its achievement in ensuring that the budget has been brought in within the cash limit; and

(3)      Asks that its concern that the Councils overall budget for 2003/04 was under spent be bought to the attention of the Cabinet, given the financial pressures on the Social Care and Health Department.

(4)      Asks that the committees concerns over the transport budget are brought to the Cabinets attention, given that the Departments costs are not fully funded

Councillor Gill to respond

Education and Lifelong Learning Scrutiny – 14 September

Lifelong Learning and Community Development Premises Review

Update

The following was agreed at the above meeting. The full minute extract and officer response is attached.

RESOLVED:

1.That the Cabinet be asked to stop the Premises review and divisional organisational review with immediate effect and to reinstate those made redundant;

2.That a report be brought back to the meeting on 7 October outlining the impact of the reviews on staff and service users;

3.That the whole issue of the premises and organisational reviews be considered together.

Councillor Suleman to respond

A) FIRE STATION, LANCASTER ROAD

Planning Application 20081625 & Listed Building Consent 20081623

Internal & external alterations

It was noted that the Panel made observations on alterations to the building in August. The Director said that the application was a revised scheme for the proposed alterations.

The Panel supported the revised canopy and the replacement windows provided that they were exact replicas. 

The Panel recommended conditional approval on this application.

B) 1 WEST WALK

Planning Application 20081471

Extension & new offices

The Director said that the application was for a two storey extension to the rear of the office building and a new three storey office building in the adjacent 'garden' space.

The Panel thought that the new build looked quite interesting and showed some imagination but commented that the first floor balcony looked as though it was in front of the building line. The Panel also thought the building would be a bit overpowering from some angles and would obscure the view down West Walk.  They requested that the building be set back and more glazing added to reduce the bulk. 

The Panel were less keen on the rear extension which they felt should complement the design of the new build better. They were satisfied with the proposed height but commented that the elevation facing Princess Road East needed to be improved. They requested that the extension be altered to form part of the new build in an L shape instead and that the rear elevation of the existing building be restored.

The Panel recommended seeking amendments to this application.

C) 136 WESTCOTES DRIVE

Planning Application 20081464

Change of use to 15 flats

The Director said that the application was for the conversion of the nursing home to 15 self-contained flats. The proposal involved a new extension to the rear replacing the existing flat roof extension and external alterations to the existing 1960s extension.

The Panel thought that this was a particularly attractive site and Westcotes Drive was very distinctive. The Panel opposed the extra extension to the rear and the reworking of the existing extension. They felt that the 1960s part did not detract from the main building but only the windows did. They also stated that the new proposals created an over-intensive development on the site that would not enhance the conservation area. The Panel opposed the loss of the rear garden space for the new extension however they did support the change of use to flats.

The Panel recommended refusal on this application.

D) UNIVERSITY OF LEICESTER

Planning Application 20081427

Extensions to student union

The Director said that the application was for extensions to the Percy Gee Building.

The Panel thought that the new extensions would completely alter the appearance of the building, but agreed that it needed improving. Some members thought the end result would be more interesting than the drawings suggested.

The Panel recommended approval on this application.

E) 20 – 22 GRANBY STREET

Planning Application 20081447, 20081404, 20081642

Signage, new shop front, change of use of ground floor to café and upper floor to flats

The Director said that the application was for the conversion of the ground floor shop to a café, and upper floor to a flat. The proposal involved a new shopfront and signage and a separate entrance door to the upper floors.

The Panel thought that Granby Street needed livening up and that the new signage would be an improvement. They queried whether the new door could be central, but accepted that this would not be possible because of the location of the internal staircase.

The Panel recommended approval on this application.

F) MIRCH MARSALA, 37 – 39 MARKET STREET

Planning Application 20081053

3 Projecting signs

The Director said that the application was for three banner signs to the first floor.

The Panel thought that the proposed banners would destroy the rhythm and integrity of the façade and would set a bad precedent for other shops in Market Street to do the same.

The Panel recommended refusal on this application.

G) 20 MARKET STREET

Planning Application 20081681

New shopfront

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

The Panel queried the providence of the existing pilaster and what was behind the existing fascia. They queried whether the pilaster could be removed to achieve a symmetrical shopfront. They stated that if the pilaster stayed then they would prefer a slightly asymmetrical shop front.  The Panel welcomed the removal of the existing roller shutter.

 </span