Agenda item

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

A)   MOLLY O’GRADY’S PH, HOTEL STREET

Planning Application 20162024 Listed Building Consent 20162025

Internal & external alterations to Listed Building; Change of Use of Public House to mixed use, ground floor restaurant / bar and upper floors hotel

 

The panel supported the proposal, noting that the hotel use was a good re-use of the vacant upper floors.

They accepted the proposal to introduce a new door opening into the blank gable end of the building, accessing the proposed terrace and were satisfied with its design. It was suggested that a similar design should be proposed for the new door openings on the Market Place South elevation, creating the new draft lobby.

 

With regard to the interior works, although the panel appreciated that much of the original historic fabric had already been lost, they were concerned over the visual images provided, and sought a simplified materials palette. It was suggested that the refurbishment should look to reinstate some local distinctiveness. They were however happy to hear that the original parquet flooring is to be retained.

 

NO OBJECTIONS

______________________________________________________________

 

B) HIGHFIELD STREET, SYNAGOGUE

Planning Application 20162096, Listed Building Consent 20162097

Internal and external alterations to Listed Building; construction of a 2-storey glazed entrance link

 

The principle of the proposed works was supported by the panel, as they appreciated the congregation’s desire to remain at the synagogue, but with improved facilities. It was also acknowledged that they are working within very limited space, making the proposal a very difficult task.

 

Although the principle of a 2-storey glazed link between the synagogue and former school room was considered acceptable, concerns were raised over the designs. It was felt that the front building line of the glazed link had an awkward junction with the existing synagogue and it was suggested that the set-back building line may need to be altered in order to create a better relationship between new and old.

 

Concerns were also raised over the design of the new openings to the former school room and the loss of original windows. The panel recommended that the openings are redesigned, being more sympathetic to the existing and that on the ground floor only a single opening is created, retaining one set of the original windows.

 

It was agreed that the general design of the glazed link, with strong vertical members breaking up the glazing could work, subject to high quality materials being proposed.

 

There were no concerns over the reordering of the kitchens, toilets and staircases to the rear of the former school room.

 

SEEK AMENDMENTS

______________________________________________________________

 

C) 364 LONDON ROAD, 12 GLENWOOD CLOSE, LAND ADJACENT

Planning Application 20161361

New dwelling

 

Concerns were raised over the principle of the proposal, as the new dwellinghouse was considered to be overdevelopment of the site. The panel were concerned that the new build would sit forward of the existing building line and that this would require a number of trees, shrubs and a hedging to be removed, harming the landscape character along the northern side of Stoughton Lane; which is considered to positively contribute to the character and appearance of the Stoneygate Conservation Area.

 

Notwithstanding the above, the panel did not have objections to the general design of the house or its compatibility with the appearance of the existing buildings.

 

OBJECTIONS

______________________________________________________________

 

D) 8 RATCLIFFE  ROAD

Planning Application 20161692

Extensions, detached self-contained flat

 

The panel raised objections to the introduction of the porch, as it was of a poor and incongruous design, out-of-keeping with the original building. Concerns were also raised over the loss of the gap between the original building and the adjacent extension/outbuilding, as it fails to preserve the appearance of the building and results in the unnecessary loss of a chimneystack.

 

There was a discussion over the acceptability of the detached self-contained flat within the rear garden, but the panel were split over its acceptability, with some raising concerns over the loss of garden space, whilst others felt that the impact upon the conservation area is negligible.

 

OBJECTIONS

______________________________________________________________

 

E) 2 ST JAMES TERRACE

Planning Application 20161985

Extension to rear

 

There were objections raised by the panel over the proposal, as the extension is of an inappropriate size, scale & design, failing to preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area.

 

It was agreed that the extension was out-of-scale with the original building and of a poor standard of design, unbefitting its location. Concerns were also raised over the screening of the existing external chimneystack on the adjacent building.

 

OBJECTIONS

______________________________________________________________

 

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

 

F) 9 HOLY BONES

Advertisement Consent 20161531

Flag pole and flag

___________________________________________________________________

 

G) 20 HOTEL STREET

Planning Application 20161976

External alterations

______________________________________________________________

 

H) LANCASTER ROAD, UNIVERSITY MEDICAL SCIENCES BUILDING

Planning Application 20161963

Freestanding sculpture

______________________________________________________________

 

I) 73-75 HIGH STREET

Advertisement Consent 20161941

Signs

______________________________________________________________

 

J) 62-68 HIGHCROSS STREET

Advertisement Consent 20161907

Signs

______________________________________________________________

 

K) 263 LONDON ROAD

Planning Application 20161874

Extension to rear

______________________________________________________________

 

L) 5 TOLLER ROAD

Planning Application 20161866

Change of use of garage to living space

______________________________________________________________

 

M) 224 EAST PARK ROAD

Planning Application 20161764

Extension to rear

______________________________________________________________

 

N) 260A ASTILL LODGE ROAD; BEAUMONT LODGE NURSERY

Listed Building Consent 20160218

Internal alterations

______________________________________________________________

 

O) 7-9 POKLINGTONS WALK

Planning Application 20162099

Removal of chimney

______________________________________________________________

 

P) 103-105 PRINCESS ROAD EAST

Planning Application 20162082

Canopy at rear of education building 

______________________________________________________________

 

Q) 81-83 HUMBERSTONE GATE

Advertisement Consent  20162015

Externally illuminated hoarding

______________________________________________________________

 

R) 8 VICARAGE LANE

Planning Application 20162028

Rooflights

______________________________________________________________

 

Next Meeting – Wednesday 14^th December 2016, G.02 Meeting Room 2, City Hall

 

Meeting Ended – 18:45