considered an application for the demolition of a side extension,
erection of 2 semi-detached dwellings together with parking and
landscaping at Lindisfarne House, 4 Barbourne Terrace.
Reason Why Being Considered by Planning Committee
The application had
been referred to Committee at the request of Councillor Lewing.
The report set out the
background to the proposal, the site and surrounding area, the
proposal itself, relevant policies, planning history and
representation and consultations where applicable.
There were no late
The information was
presented as set out by the Corporate Director – Planning and
Governance, in conjunction with a powerpoint presentation for the
The following people
had registered to speak on the application:
John Stagg (Objector)
and Graham Coyle and Nick Carroll (Applicant/Agent)
Key Points of Debate
The objector, in addressing the Committee, stated that he objected
in principle to the development of 2 new dwellings. He provided the Committee with a background to the
significance of the house and its history. The proposal he stated would cause significant
harm to the listed building. The
objector responded to questions from Committee Members
The Chair acknowledged the interesting information provided by the
objector in his address to Committee, but reminded Members that the
application before us is for 2 houses to the side of Lindisfarne
House, the listed building, and not whether Lindisfarne House can
be turned back into a house.
The applicant and agent in addressing the Committee stated that the
heritage of the past at Lindisfarne House could not be
restored. City Church who currently
occupied the side extension had now outgrown the site and as a
charity needed to maximise the assets of the trust. The applicant/agent responded to questions from
The Chair stated that a number of questions raised by Members are
covered in the conditions in length,
such as the bat survey and boxes, which is covered by
conditions 8 and 9.
The County Council Highways representative confirmed that parking
requirements for the proposal conformed to the design guide.
Some Members felt that the design for the new homes was ugly and
felt that it could be better and that more needed to be done to
protect the city’s historical assets. Other Members felt that it was too late to be
commenting about preserving the city’s heritage and did
not consider the proposals to be ugly
It was noted that there were no comments from residents in
Barbourne Terrace, although they were consulted and no comments
from Historic England.
Reference was made to the comments of Conservation Advisory Panel
who were very positive about the proposals which would bring about
considerable improvements to the original building and grounds.
Some Members felt that this was a good solution for the site with
decent sized gardens
A proposal to approve the application had
been made and this was seconded. There
being no further points made the Chair requested the voting of each
Member of the ...
view the full minutes text for item 38.