Agenda and minutes

M. Holland (GG), P. Draper (RICS), P. Ellis (LVS), Cllr Unsworth

None.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 16^th November 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.

Report of the Director of Planning, Transportation and Economic Development

A)   VAUGHAN WAY / HIGHCROSS STREET

Planning Application 20162182

Mixed use development

The panel stated that the massing of the development was better than that previously approved in 2014. The reduced heights to Highcross Street and All Saints Churchyard were welcomed.

There was however concerns over the height of the 11-storey ‘tower block’ element and the 10-storey frontage to Vaughan Way. The panel stated that the ‘tower block’ could be higher, but that the frontage to Vaughan Way needs to be lowered , ideally limited to a maximum of 7-storey (as approved in 2014). It was commented that these two elements needed a greater height difference to work effectively together. Concerns were also raised over the proposed heights to Elbow Lane and the ‘canyon effect’ it would create.

Regarding the proposed design, the panel accepted the design of the ‘tower block’, but felt that all other elevations were dull and lacked the quality necessary for such a prominent site. The Vaughan Way elevation was of particular concern, appearing monotonous. It was also felt that the ground floor amenity space/food store frontage needed a greater floor-to-ceiling height, reflecting that of the ‘tower block’. Overall, the panel felt that the 2014 approved scheme was of a better design, particularly the All Saints Churchyard elevation, and that this detailing should have been replicated.

Concerns do still remain over the impact of the development upon the setting of the grade I listed All Saints Church, but it was appreciated that the size & scale of such a development has been deemed acceptable following the 2014 scheme being granted planning permission. A suggestion to mitigate the impact was to increase the tree coverage on the boundary.

The panel would like to see the Roman Mosaic left in-situ and visible. If this isn’t possible, then another location within the site where it can be viewed by the public would be acceptable.

SEEK AMENDMENTS

______________________________________________________________

Late Item) International Hotel

The principle of the proposal was considered acceptable by the panel. They felt that the slimmer tower was better proportioned and that the juxtaposition between this new development and the existing 19^th century former industrial buildings could work. The proposal for the elevations to Wimbledon Street & Rutland Street to be higher than existing buildings, stepping up, was considered acceptable.

The panel did however caveat that the appropriateness of the scheme is subject to the proposed design. They advised that the proposed tower should have a strong vertical emphasis.

SEEK AMENDMENTS

______________________________________________________________

B) 15/23 HOTEL STREET & 6 MILLSTONE LANE

Planning Application 20162072

The panel raised objections to the 2-storey roof extension, as it has no relationship to the existing buildings and would fail to preserve / enhance the character and appearance of the Market Place conservation area.

The roof extension was considered to be of a poor design, with a horizontal emphasis that doesn’t work. As the extension would sit above two separate buildings, it would have to respect  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.