Agenda and minutes

S. Bird (DAC), M. Davies (RICS), M. Taylor (IHBC), D. Martin (LRGT), K. Agyei (Student).

None.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 10^th June 2026 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.   Application for development at the site of 2-4 Belgrave Gate

Planning application 20260949

The panel commented that the design and access statement was thin, and that although the application documents referred to respecting the heights of buildings in the street, the images provided did not reflect that.  Of particular note was the inaccurate representation of the adjacent building in the line drawings. The panel felt the massing and the height of the street façade were inappropriate. Members considered the top floor extension to be too bulky and insufficiently recessed.  As the site is located opposite the Haymarket Shopping Centre and theatre, the development will be a building upon which people will look out directly to the upper floors. The panel felt that the red brick façade was too high and the glass balustrade and fenestration on the upper floors to be overly domestic in an urban setting. 

The panel were disappointed with the quality of the design, and it was felt that the ground floor appeared alien to the building itself and needs to treat the retail level of the building with the same care as the main residential frontage. The massing, height of the street façade, over dominance of the extension and use of the glass balustrade were out of keeping with the townscape and consequently the panel objected to the scheme.

Objection

B.   Application for development at 280 East Park Road, Spinney Hill Apartments

Planning applications 20260938

The panel noted that the proposed development was pastiche and appeared to adopt the proportions and aesthetic of the right-hand neighbour whilst being attached to left hand neighbour, which did disrupt the street scene.  Ideally the panel would have liked to see a stand alone building of a more contemporary design; however, it was felt that the proposal did still preserve the character of the Conservation Area.

The panel was pleased to see that changes had been made to the materials previously listed in the 2021 proposal for the site.  Members were particularly pleased with the applicant’s commitment to a wooden front door and windows on the front elevation.

No objections

C) Application for development at 40 Almond Road, The Counting House

Planning application 20260945 and Listed Building Consent application 20260944

Panel members were disappointed with the supporting documentation for this application and felt it could have been more expansive in scope. The panel felt the proposed development had modest architectural design input and that it lacked respect for the host building.  It was not felt to be a coherent or cogent design.  The panel felt it covered too much of the listed building and would cause it harm to how it was experienced.  They considered the previous extension to have a more considered form and were concerned about the cumulative impact of multiple phases of extensions on a relatively small original group of buildings. Panel members felt that pastiche should be avoided and the northern elevation should be treated as a primary elevation not just a rear elevation.  The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 336.