Agenda item

A) 82-86 RUTLAND STREET

Listed Building Consent 20111231, Planning Application 20111232

Change of use to creative workspaces, extensions & alterations

The building was Grade II listed and within the St Georges Conservation Area. The application was City Council led, and was for the conversion of three separate properties into creative workspaces and offices. The proposal involved a three storey extension and internal and external alterations. The Panel had made observations at the pre-application stage.

The Panel were supportive of the scheme. They asked about heating requirements and the need for secondary glazing. They suspected a possible need for additional insulation. They noted a future need for signage and would only like to see something traditional within existing fascias. They welcomed the retention of the panelled offices and had no concerns on the demolition of the external lean to.

The Panel recommended APPROVAL of the application.

B) SPENCEFIELD LANE, EVINGTON HALL

Listed Building Consent 20111280, Planning Application 20111274

Internal and external alterations.

The building was Grade II listed. The Panel had made observations on the development of the grounds for residential the conversion of the hall to flats on 2008. The application was for alterations to the school including the removal of the flat roof 1960s extensions.

The Panel welcomed the removal of the existing extensions and had no concerns regarding the new build elements, landscaping of the internal changes.

The Panel recommended APPROVAL of the application.

C) GIPSY LANE, TOWERS HOSPITAL LODGE

Listed Building Consent 20110426

Internal and external alterations.

The building was Grade II listed. The Panel had looked at the Towers site on several occasions over the past ten years, including the conversion of the main building to flats and new residential developments within the grounds.

The Panel were happy that the lodge, a building at risk for many years was finally to be renovated. They would prefer to see a greater set back if possible to make the extension more obvious as an addition and to make the main lodge read better. They would like a better gable end detail as well. It was important that materials matched the main lodge and the restoration was carried out to a high standard.

The Panel recommended APPROVAL of the application, but asked that Conservation Officers monitored the development of the site, and also asked that if developers intended to change the chimney pot to provide details.

D) 7 HIGH STREET

Listed Building Consent 20111192

New internal light fittings

The building was Grade II listed and within the High Street Conservation Area. The application was for new light fittings to the front windows to help with the visual identify of the Lloyds Bank.

The Panel were slightly apprehensive as to how the light fittings would look. They were happy to support the judgement of officers following a site meeting to assess the lights in their proposed setting.

The Panel recommended REFUSAL of the application, and asked that Conservation Officers investigate the lighting further.

E) 7 KNIGHTON PARK ROAD

Planning Application 20111232

Extensions to house

The building was within the Stoneygate Conservation Area. The application was for extensions to a house built in the late 1970s which would transform the external appearance.

The Panel noted that the current house was an honest representation of a late 1970s style house and that the proposed extensions would create a dishonest pastiche. They would like a much simpler design or a modern looking building that reflects the 21^st century.

The Panel recommended REFUSAL of the application in its current form, and recommended the architect made amendments to the design.

LATE ITEM) 15 ELMS ROAD

Planning Application 2011

Extensions to Care Home

The Panel were supportive of the scheme. It was noted that there would be an increase in the overlooking of adjacent properties but it was also noted that windows at high levels had always overlooked the adjacent properties. They asked about the external fire escape, would it become redundant? They seemed pleased that the current rear extensions considered detrimental to the character of the building would be replaced with something more sympathetic and the lengths the architect had gone to, to ensure that the extension matched the quality of the main house and that the notable architectural details were retained.

The Panel recommended APPROVAL of the application.

The Panel raised no objections to the following applications:

F) 55A LONDON ROAD

Listed Building Consent 20110278

Change of use, alterations

G) 24 CAREYS CLOSE

Advertisement Consent 20111042

Three externally illuminated signs