Representation to Lancaster City Council Planning Committee by
Lancaster Civic Society
Application Nos. 10/00138/CU
CHANGE OF USE OF PROPERTY CONTAINING ONE SHOP TO 2 SHOPS, 7 FLATS and 3 MAISONETTES
98 ST LEONARDGATE, LANCASTER
Update – see also representation on earlier application (below)
The Civic Society welcomes the revisions that have been made to the proposed redevelopment scheme particularly the reduction in roof pitch, the use of traditional timber sash windows and the now cohesive shopfront on St Leonardgate.
However, the second floor of the building would have a ceiling height of no more than 2.2 metres and a significant part of the attic floor would have limited headroom (it is doubtful that some bedrooms would have acceptable usable space).
The Civic Society questions whether this building can sustain accommodation at attic floor level. If this were to be omitted ceiling height at second floor level could be raised.
Application Nos. 09/00565/CU
CHANGE OF USE OF PROPERTY CONTAINING ONE SHOP TO 2 SHOPS AND 11 FLATS
The Civic Society has no objections to the principle of the proposed change of use but has serious concerns about the proposed alterations to the building and to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area within which it is located.
- The reinstatement of a slate roof is positive and the slightly steeper pitch of the roof would not be harmful. However, the addition of many dormers, particularly the four proposed for the street elevation, would add clutter to the roof. The addition of raised parapets, and apex stone finials at gable ends, would also detract from the appearance of the building which has a simple utilitarian appearance.
- The proposed alterations to the fenestration of the frontage at upper floor levels would introduce symmetry to the frontage where none currently exists. The building, as previously stated, has a utilitarian appearance and does not have the ‘grand’ character of the Georgian terrace nearby to the west. This appearance should be maintained and the changes to fenestration at upper floor levels should be resisted. Furthermore, infilling current windows and cutting out for new windows would irrevocably harm the coursed stonework of the frontage and the appearance of the building.
- The proposed use of uPVC windows for the flats is acceptable but the style and method of opening should be carefully controlled. Windows should be sliding sash in form to replicate the form of traditional windows in the area and should not have outward opening sashes. These matters could be covered by imposition of conditions or by submission of revised details prior to determination of the application.
- The most important part of the front elevation of the building is the ground floor shop frontage. It is this part of the building which is most visible to pedestrians and other road users. The proposed alterations at ground floor level are wholly unacceptable. The introduction of two, wide, plate glass, uPVC framed shop windows and a plain entrance door to the flats would be seriously harmful. There is a lack of detail for these elements of the proposed development that are too important to the scheme to be covered by conditions. The shop fronts and the entrance to the flats, including signage, must be sensitively designed and detailed for the proposed scheme to be successful. Furthermore, details should be provided of any alterations to the coursed stonework at ground floor level and any infilling of existing openings.
- The west elevation of the building is prominent in views east along St Leonards Gate. Juliet balconies feature on other buildings close to Lancaster city centre but they are not appropriate for a prominent elevation in a Conservation Area. In this location they would be incongruous and would be unnecessary for the rear elevation of the building, particularly in such a large number.
- Though not a matter that affects the appearance of the building it is noted that some of the flats would have substandard accommodation in terms of bedroom and living space and natural daylighting. Also, the provision of 14 car parking spaces would encourage car ownership in a sustainable location contrary to national planning policy.
The proposed scheme, in general, lacks detail. On the evidence submitted with the application the redevelopment scheme would have a serious adverse effect on the character and appearance of the building and the Conservation Area.
All the time I’ve been in Lancaster I’ve thought that this street was called St Leonard Gate – I’ve even corrected, with a condescending air, others who have called it St Leonard’s Gate!
Now at the Bulk Road end I notice for the first time a sign naming it as St Leonard’s Gate – transforming an adjective into a person who can claim ownership over the thoroughfare.
Did the 20th Century Street sign-writer make a mistake? Or is it a 21st Century error?
The Post Office hardly helps because it designates the street as St Leonards Gate (without the apostrophe) – although the postcode finder recognises the other options.
Does it matter? Perhaps not – but it would be sensible to be consistent.