Agenda item
Raine House, 16 Raine Street, London, E1W 3RL, (PA/18/02994 and PA/18/02995)
Minutes:
The Development Manager introduced the report which concerned an application for planning permission and listed building consent for a number of exterior works at Raine House, London E1W. He advised Members that, under the Council's Constitution, consent for works to listed buildings was a matter reserved to Committee. The Committee then received a presentation from the Planning Case Officer. He set out the relevant issues concerning the application which were around, design, heritage and consultation.
The following additional information was then provided by the Planning case Officer in response to Members’ questions:
- A previous application for external and interior works to the premises had been refused by the Committee in September 2018.
- The application now before Members was for exterior works only; these were considered necessary to ensure the longevity of the premises. The permission sought was for the same exterior works for which permission had been sought at the meeting on 27 September 2018 and included works to provide wheelchair access to the external courtyard area of the premises.
- Any interior works would require a further report to Members since the Council’s Constitution prescribed that consent for works on listed buildings that are Council owned is a matter reserved to Committee.
- Consultation had been undertaken anew. One response had been received which requested clarification of the nature of the works to be undertaken.
The Committee then heard from two objectors who raised the following concerns:
- Consultation had been poor. Many objectors felt they had not been properly notified and therefore had been unable to respond during the consultation period. In this context, objectors requested that the consultation be undertaken afresh and thereby give residents and interested parties opportunity to respond.
- There was concern amongst users of the premises that, while acknowledging that that works were necessary, their scope, time taken to complete them and the necessity to relocate community organisations during the refurbishment could potentially result in the loss of jobs and services. Delivery of services would be affected by decant of the building.
- The objectors acknowledged that revised works proposals were more sensitive to the style and historicity of the building.
- The application for refurbishment was incomplete because it did not include refurbishment of the basement. Objectors argued that this could be done for £500,000 and, based on an occupancy rate of 50%, the reinstatement of the basement would substantially contribute to the costs of running the building.
Having heard objectors’ submissions a Member of the Committee observed that many of the issues which had been raised were not material planning considerations and therefore the Committee’s scope. The matters raised relating to the use of the building and the scope of the proposed development were not planning matters. The Committee however noted concerns around the materials chosen to resurface the courtyard area; the health and safety issues this would create and that the choice of cobbles would not complement the activities that were delivered at the premises.
The Committee, being satisfied that there were no further questions or matters that needed to be clarified with the objectors, then heard from the applicant.
She informed Members that the purpose of the application was to undertake necessary external works to ensure the continued use of the premises.
Community concerns around the provision of alternative premises for projects presently accommodated at Raine House had been addressed and alternative accommodation had been secured from January 2019. The works were expected to take 8 to 9 months to complete.
Responding to Members’ questions the applicant provided the following additional information:
- In regard to concerns around safety relating to the use of cobbles in the courtyard and the potential effects on accessibility, the Committee was informed that the materials chosen were not cobblestones but designed to replicate their appearance.
- In regard to how the Council had addressed concerns expressed by objectors around lack of engagement with the community, the Committee was informed that there had been three consultation events between February and June 2018. Additionally there had been frequent discussions with the existing users of the premises namely Pollyanna Theatre and Wapping Social Club. These had given feedback which had been taken into account in the design of the scheme. Also there were ongoing discussions concerning proposals for the interior. In addition agreement had been reached on the relocation of these projects. Councillor Wood noted the information provided and observed that some matters around the relocation of user groups remained unclear.
- Concerning the type of engagement undertaken, the Committee was informed that the Capital Delivery Team had not been involved in consultation with the community; however statutory planning consultation had been carried out by the Council's planning officers.
- Concerning details of the arrangements around the interior works following the completion of the exterior works, the Committee was informed that discussions were being initiated and proposals would be formulated in the New Year.
The Committee then received a representation from the Principal of Pollyanna Theatre who spoke in support of the application. She informed Members that the window frames at the first floor of the premises were in poor repair and dangerous and that the roof leaked. Pollyanna Theatre had engaged with the Council from the outset and a short-term relocation to premises at Chandler Street had been agreed pending completion of the works. Community activities would be delivered from this temporary location but there were some concerns that projects already occupying these premises would be displaced.
Responding to Members questions the following information was provided:
- Concerning the possible impacts for users should the application not be approved, the Committee was informed that groups based at Raine House had known of the relocation for some time and all service providers were prepared to adapt in the short term.
- In regard to concerns around excessive disruption to services arising from the works which had been raised at the time of the previous application and the nature of any current concerns in this regard, the Supporter acknowledged that disruption would be experienced by groups based at Raine House at the anticipated benefits were such that they would adapt. She noted that the present facilities were not ideal and therefore it was felt that the anticipated improvements would render the inconvenience worthwhile.
- Concerning whether the Supporter had viewed plans for the integration of existing and relocated users at Chandler Street, the Supporter informed the Committee that she had not yet seen the plan but had had discussions with some of the organisations presently at Chandler Street and felt that any organisation which was a necessary part of the community will find a way to work co-operatively.
- Concerning whether Officers had provided a plan for the relocation of the organisations at Raine Street in the context of the 20 organisations currently delivering projects from the premises at Chandler Street and how the relocation would be implemented by the January deadline, the Supporter advised the Committee that she had been informed that Pollyanna Theatre would relocate between 6th and 8th January 2019 and that all relocated organisations would be accommodated at the premises. Some organisations that used Chandler Street and which were free enterprises would be able to move to other spaces but it was the intention that accommodation would continue wherever possible. A Committee Member observed that the timescales between a grant of permission and relocation were short and the applicant informed Members that that the Council’s Facilities Officers had direct contact with users at Chandler Street. Additionally the facilities would primarily be managed by the Council.
The Development Manager:
· Clarified that consultation by the Council as the Planning Authority had been undertaken in line with the published Statement of Community Involvement.
· Informed the Committee that the recommendation at Para. 3 of the report was to separately grant planning permission and listed building consent subject to conditions. Since planning permission could not be implemented without listed building consent he recommended that the Committee take a combined vote for the recommendation to grant planning permission and listed building consent subject to conditions as set out in the report.
Being satisfied that all relevant matters had been clarified, the Committee indicated that it wished to move to vote on the application.
The Chair proposed that Members vote on the officer recommendation to approve the applications and on a vote of 6 in favour and 1 abstention, the Committee
RESOLVED
That the applications planning permission and listed building consent for:
1. Removal of x3 windows and replacement with x3 doors. Erection of new roof-level plant equipment with associated enclosure. Insertion of access hatch. Insertion of roof-level ventilation extracts. Removal of garden fence. Non-original hard surfacing within courtyard removed and replaced. Damaged plant/boiler extracts removed and made good.
2. External repair and restoration works inclusive of all windows and cills where necessary including removal of non-original plastic window panes. Structural and aesthetic restorative works to building fabric and masonry with re-pointing of lime mortar and repairs to flank walls. Like-for-like replacement of all rainwater goods (cast iron) and roof tiles in east wing (slate). Signage and non-original façade items removed and façade made good. Where necessary, repairing and repainting of plinth. Repairing of existing door and removal of metal kick plate. Removal and replacement of non-original door. RWP’s and associated hoppers to be replaced with appropriate (cast iron) goods. Removal of non-original lamp from original fanlight location.
Be GRANTED subject to the obligations and conditions set out in the report.
Supporting documents: