Registered Plan No.: 13/00111/FULL
Proposal:- Demolition of the existing 1960’s extension to the building and the erection of a replacement three storey building for use as a cancer care facility (Class D1) with ancillary roof terrace and external landscaping.
The City Planning Officer informed Members that some additional letters of both objection and support had been received and had been tabled for Members consideration.
The City Planning Officer detailed site and related information to Members.
Marcus Setchell, Peter Schmitt, Professor Gerald Libby and Wendy Mead spoke against the application and Peter Morris and Laura Lee were heard in reply.
During the discussion, reference was made to the following –
· the modern visual appearance of the proposed development against the existing architecture. Some Members considered there should have been other options to consider;
· the historical significance of the site;
· the impact the proposed development would have on the North Wing;
· land ownership and confirmation that adequate notice of the planning application had been served, to which Members were informed it had;
· provision of conveniences including DDA compliant facilities;
· fire escape regulations;
· landscaping, which Members noted would form part of a separate scheme and would be brought to the Committee for consideration, subject to this application being approved; and
· the future use of the Great Hall, which Members were informed was not a matter for consideration as part of this application.
To summarise the debate, some Members supported the scheme and its principle, however, other Members considered there were still unresolved issues particularly in regard to the conservation and visual appearance of the proposal.
The Town Clerk reminded the Committee of the guidelines contained in the Planning Protocol around determinations contrary to recommendations of the City Planning Officer. He advised that if the Committee were minded to refuse planning permission, then the original report of the City Planning Officer would be re-submitted to the subsequent meeting, accompanied by a further report setting out reasons for refusal which reflected the views of the Committee.
Upon being put to a vote planning permission was refused –
8 – for approval
11 – for refusal
2 – abstentions
RESOLVED – That planning permission be refused and the original report of the City Planning Officer be re-submitted to the subsequent meeting, accompanied by a further report setting out reasons for refusal which reflected the views of the Committee.