Agenda and minutes

Mike Queally and Nils Feldmann.

None.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 27^th April 2016 are attached and the Panel is asked to confirm them as a correct record.

The Panel agreed the notes.

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

A) 24 RUTLAND STREET, ASSURANCE HOUSE

Planning Application 20161032

The panel were generally supportive of the proposal and did not object to the demolition of the existing building or the scale of the new build. As the building wraps around a corner with buildings fronting two streets, there was some concern raised regarding the makeup of ground floor uses. Fears were raised that the single storey metal façade could become graffiti target and it was suggested that a different approach to that small element would be appropriate (they said a glazed shopfront in line with the others on Yeoman Street). Panel were content with the general materials and fenestration, particularly praising the green roof, but favoured a more traditional design for the new oriel window on the side elevation.

No objections.

B) 1 CONDUIT STREET

Planning application 20161019

The panel supported the principle of creating a stronger building frontage on the corner site and liked the architectural style/materials. However, they considered it was at least one storey too tall. They thought it would impact on the setting of the Grade II Listed Station building, particularly views from the western side of London Road, and the conservation area. In particular they raised attention to the narrow street pattern off London Road and the impact of a building of this scale on the character of Glebe Street. With the proposed building height, the panel objected to the scheme.

Objection

C) 9-13 THE NEWARKE, NEWARKE HOUSES MUSEUM

Planning Application 20161208

There was some support from members of the panel for the idea of a mural celebrating the sporting achievements of the football club, but the panel considered the location to be inappropriate. Although some panel members considered a temporary time limit was sufficient to ameliorate their concerns, the majority of members considered the mural could set a harmful precedent and lacked relevance to the context.  Some concerns were expressed regarding the impact of paint on building fabric, but fundamental objection was to the impact on the setting of the listed building and conservation area. Suggestion of either using different location and/or putting the mural on freestanding timber boards.  

Objection

D) 8 HIGHWOOD DRIVE

Planning Application 20161063, Listed Building Consent 20161064

The panel were supportive of the proposed new use for the empty listed building and were comfortable with the principle of some extensions. However, they were concerned that the detailing, particularly the junction of roof extension to existing roof and details of façade materials, were inappropriate. Suggested planning officers seek design amendments.

Seek amendments

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

E) 2 ST MARTINS

Listed Building Consent 20161141, Planning Application 20161140

Feature lighting

F) 162-166 NEW WALK

Planning Application 20161195

Change of use, external alterations

G) 21 ST MARTINS

Listed Building Consent 20160727

Internal and external alterations

______________________________________________________________

H) 81 STRETTON  ROAD

Planning Application 20160492

Change of use, external alterations

______________________________________________________________

I) ST PETERS ROAD, MELBOURNE HALL EVANGELICAL FREE CHURCH

Listed Building Consent 20161264 Advertisement Consent 20161090

Replacement signage  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.