Agenda and minutes

R. Lawrence (Vice Chair)

None.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 17^th February are attached and the Panel is asked to confirm them as a correct record.

The Panel agreed the notes.

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

A) 21 Elms Road

Planning Application 20202482

Installation of 2.1m high railings and gate at front; Construction of first floor extension at side; single storey extension at side and rear; alterations to house (Class C3)

The discussion initially focused on the installation of the front gates. The members highlighted the rather busy detailing and substantial height of the proposed gates, considering them to be incongruous with the setting. However, the local precedence of comparable boundary treatments was also noted. It was agreed that whilst regrettable, the installation of the gate will not notably harm the special significance of the Conservation Area.

The incorrect annotation of the elevation drawings, and inaccuracies between the existing elevations and the submitted drawings were recognised (such as the gable to the rear). The lack of clarity on materials – particularly the distribution of render and brickwork across the extensions, was also criticised.

Whist the members did not object to the principle of the upward side extension to the garage, they criticised the design of the front gable, particularly the excessively wide gap between windows; they recommended that a single three of four light unit is pursued instead, to match existing units to front and rear elevations. The massing and design of the single storey extensions were also criticised. The members recommended that these are reduced (in mass and footprint) and rationalised, with improvements to the overly simplified glazing.

The two-storey extension to the central rear gable was critiqued as unbalanced and incongruous with the existing building. It was recommended that the width and integral features of the gable are replicated to match, to sustain the proportions and interest of this element. The members highlighted the lack of clarity on design and finish of the proposed alterations.

The Panel concluded that insufficient and inaccurate information has been submitted, requesting that these matters be addressed as part of the application. The members also noted that the scheme is excessive and fails to read as subsidiary and complimentary to the existing building and the Conservation Area. They requested that the design is substantially improved, with the footprint and scale of the side and rear extensions reduced.

SEEK AMENDEMENTS

B) 33 Lancaster Place

Planning Application 20210469

Internal & external alterations to grade II listed building.

The members noted the incoherence of the proposed rear extension. They commented on the incompatibility of its integral elements, in particular the relocated timber window (which in its own right was commended) in contrast with the full height aluminium glazing, and the discordant tapered shape as compared to the existing rear elevation. It was concluded that such a prominent and peculiar extension would undermine the architectural interest of the existing Grade II Listed building, diluting its significance as a heritage asset, and harm the group design coherence with the other listed buildings.

The Panel considered the internal removal of the existing chimneybreasts to be unjustified. The structural integrity and visual interest were noted. It was concluded that both the external and internal alterations are not  ...  view the full minutes text for item 160.