Agenda item
Raine House, 16 Raine Street, London, E1W 3RL (PA/18/01477 and PA/18/01478)
Minutes:
The Development Manager, Planning Services introduced the report which concerned an application by the Council for the refurbishment and reconfiguration of the existing community facility at Raine House. No change of use was proposed.
An update report was tabled
The Chair then invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Representations against the proposal were made by two members of the public having connections with the premises and the community services provided there. They addressed the Committee presenting the following arguments:
- The proposed development would harm the character of the building; while it was not disputed that the premises needed refurbishment the design proposed was modern and out of keeping with building.
- The proposed relocation of the bar was felt to be unnecessary and poor use of money.
- The proposals did not include plans to refurbish the basement. This was a missed opportunity; since if the basement were to be brought in to use, it would provide facilities to meet the need for community services into the future.
- The application also ignored the potential income that could be generated through the refurbishment of the basement.
- The users of the premises had not been consulted about the refurbishment because the officer involved had been absent due to illness. They reported however, that a community group operating from the first floor of the premises had been offered opportunities to have their requirements fulfilled. Given this situation, the elderly persons social club which utilised the ground floor of the premises felt disadvantaged.
- An objector suggested that members undertake a site visit to appraise themselves of the situation.
- The proposal contravened the direction of Commissioners that the proposal should offer value to the community and value for money.
- The requirement to vacate the building during refurbishment adversely affected the community services that operated from the building.
- Total closure of the facility was not necessary if a phased refurbishment were undertaken.
Objectors responded to Members’ questions providing the following information:
- A number of users of the facilities were unaware that refurbishment was being undertaken. There had been little notice of the proposal as the officer required to post the public notices was absent due to illness.
- There would be an impact on the community in terms of costs and loss of some services which would not survive the relocation and refurbishment period.
- Many services used the building and objectors felt that the approach taken to the development which is based on relocation to other areas was detrimental to the services themselves and the communities they served.
- Failure to bring the basement into use would result in some services being forced out of operation. Additionally the proposed investment did not create substantially more opportunities for community use. However if the basement were incorporated into the refurbishment brief this would mean that more services could be delivered from the premises; hence community organisations felt that inclusion of the basement refurbishment was a necessity.
- There was concern that the community voice over essential matters was not being heard and that therefore the proposal did not serve the needs of the community. An objector requested that a condition be imposed requiring the Council to work with the community.
- The 300th anniversary of the building would occur during the refurbishment; this would prevent its celebration.
- The requirements of users and community or had not been considered in a holistic manner.
- While other groups had been offered alternative accommodation, Wapping Community Centre was required to leave without a site to relocate to, this disadvantaged some of its users who were old and vulnerable. Additionally a number of the relocation sites were already occupied by other community groups.
- The objectors suggested that a phased redevelopment which included refurbishment of the basement would produce a better outcome for all.
The Chair agreed to vary speaking procedure rules to enable a disabled user of the facilities to offer his view. He stated that he did not oppose to the renovation however the method in which it would be undertaken disregarded and harmed the community users of the facilities.
Further to the representations heard the Committee also noted the following matters:
Discussions around a phased build and a form of mitigation for the relocation of the bar were matters that could be discussed with community groups post application.
Noting paragraph 10.2 of the report which outlined that the European Court of Human Rights has recognised that “regard must be had to the fair balance that has to be struck between the competing interests of the individual and the community as a whole.” A Member highlighted that this applied to the competing interests of the Council in refurbishing the premises and the community which used them and therefore it was necessary for the Council to ensure good relations.
The Committee then received a presentation in support of the application from the architect on behalf of the applicant. He informed the Committee:
- That it was intended that all facilities would be re-provided but with increased flexibility.
- While basement refurbishment had been considered at feasibility satage, it was not included in the applicaiton r because the ground floor had previously been lowered, affecting the basement ceiling height.
- Additionally the basement was below the water table hence for reasons of damp and lack of daylight it had not been included in the current plan.
- There had been good dialogue with users around remodelling and use of the ground floor area.
Responding to questions from the Committee the following information was provided:
Concerning engagement around the impacts of organisations being unable to celebrate the 300th anniversary, Members were informed that it was planned to make the building partly available for this event.
Concerning the phased decanting of the building, the Committee was informed that there had been discussions; however because of the size of the premises it was not possible to implement a phased refurbishment.
Concerning the design chosen the Committee were informed that little of the genuinely historic fabric in the building remained and therefore the architects had looked to refresh the building in new fabric. It was noted that the bulk of the historic features remaining were in the exterior fabric of the building.
Concerning how many people had been involved in the community consultation, the Committee was informed that the bar design and functionality had been discussed at a community meeting at which one of the objectors had been present; no concerns around the design of the bar had been voiced at that time. Three attendees had been present at this meeting.
The Planning Case Officer then presented the technical report informing Members of the elements and key features of the application. She summarised the key aspects of the report outlining how the application met national planning policy guidance and guidance from Historic England.
Responding to Members’ questions the following information was provided:
- The proposed bar area formed part of community usage. The building was classified as a D1 usage premises and in this case it was appropriate to have a bar as an ancillary function.
- The operation of the bar was not a planning matter however the Council provided the infrastructure.
- The brief for the refurbishment was narrow; it concerned refurbishment of the building but no change of use. The Council, as landlord, had responsibility to deal with the impacts of refurbishment on usage.
- The building was designated Grade 2* included the building interior.
- Exhibitions relating to the refurbishment were not undertaken this would be a responsibility of the architects ordinarily however in this instance they had not undertaken this role.
Having heard representations from each of the parties, the Vice Chair advised that to better understand the heritage issues and impacts of the proposals, a site visit should be undertaken. Accordingly Councillor Pierce proposed and Councillor Helal Uddin seconded that the application be deferred pending a site visit.
On a unanimous vote in favour of this proposal, it was
RESOLVED
That the application BE DEFERRED pending a site visit.
The Committee were minded to undertake a site visit because of heritage issues raised during the discussion.
Supporting documents: