Issue - meetings
Rochelle School
Meeting: 13/03/2013 - Development Committee (Item 6)
Additional documents:
- PA_2317 12_2318 Rochelle Centre (with site plan), 13/02/2013 Development Committee, item 6 PDF 463 KB
- Update Rochelle Centre, item 6 PDF 129 KB
Decision:
Councillor Craig Aston proposed that the following be added to the suggested reason for refusal ‘and the objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework and the principles of Planning Policy Statement 5 practice Guide’ .
This was seconded by Councillor Kosru Uddin and agreed by the Committee on a vote.
On a vote of 3 in favour and 0 against, the Committee RESOLVED:
That listed building consent and planning permission (PA/12/02317 & PA/12/02318) at Club Row Building, (Rochelle Centre) Rochelle School, Arnold Circus, London, E2 7ES be REFUSED for change of use from D1 (Non-residential institution) to mixed A1 (Shop), B1 (Business) and D1 (Non-residential institution) with the construction of an extension to rear, internal alterations (including installation of mezzanine floor space and new staircases), external alterations (including new doorways & windows & roof parapet raising & roof replacement) and alterations to Club Row boundary wall for the following reason:
The proposal, by reason of the loss of the original roof and other alterations resulting in loss of historic fabric, would detract from the unique historical importance of the building. The proposed roof and other alterations do not relate sufficiently well to the host building and fail to pay special regard to the desirability of preserving the building, its setting and features of special architectural or historic interest. On balance, the benefits of renovating parts of the building are not sufficient to outweigh the harm caused by the proposal.
The proposal is therefore contrary to saved policy DEV37 of the Unitary Development Plan (1998), adopted policy SP10 of the Core Strategy (2010) and policies DM24 and DM27 of the Development Management DPD (Submission Version 2012 with post EiP Modifications) AND the objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework and the principles of Planning Policy Statement 5 Practice Guide.
Minutes:
Jerry Bell (Applications Team Leader Development and Renewal) introduced the report regarding Club Row Building, (Rochelle Centre) Rochelle School, Arnold Circus, London, E2 7ES (PA/12/02317 & PA/12/02318)
Elaine Bailey (Planning Officer, Development and Renewal) presented the report. At the last meeting of the committee in February, the Committee were minded to refuse the application for two reasons. These were: loss of heritage value in respect of the roof and former roof top play space and overall impact on the uniqueness of the building. Officers considered that the two areas of concern were closely intertwined and they were best expressed in a single reason as set out in paragraph 4.1 of the report. Officers considered that the suggested reason could be defended at appeal as the original recommendation was finely balanced. Officers also highlighted the options open to the applicant in terms of this decision.
Councillor Craig Aston proposed an amendment to the reasons for refusal. He stated that he had received correspondence that the application could cause significant harm to the building. Accordingly, he proposed that the following be added to the suggested reason for refusal ‘and the objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework and the principles of Planning Policy Statement 5 Practice Guide’.
This was seconded by Councillor Kosru Uddin and agreed by the Committee on a vote.
On a vote of 3 in favour and 0 against, the Committee RESOLVED:
That listed building consent and planning permission (PA/12/02317 & PA/12/02318) at Club Row Building, (Rochelle Centre) Rochelle School, Arnold Circus, London, E2 7ES be REFUSED for change of use from D1 (Non-residential institution) to mixed A1 (Shop), B1 (Business) and D1 (Non-residential institution) with the construction of an extension to rear, internal alterations (including installation of mezzanine floor space and new staircases), external alterations (including new doorways & windows & roof parapet raising & roof replacement) and alterations to Club Row boundary wall for the following reason:
The proposal, by reason of the loss of the original roof and other alterations resulting in loss of historic fabric, would detract from the unique historical importance of the building. The proposed roof and other alterations do not relate sufficiently well to the host building and fail to pay special regard to the desirability of preserving the building, its setting and features of special architectural or historic interest. On balance, the benefits of renovating parts of the building are not sufficient to outweigh the harm caused by the proposal.
The proposal is therefore contrary to saved policy DEV37 of the Unitary Development Plan (1998), adopted policy SP10 of the Core Strategy (2010) and policies DM24 and DM27 of the Development Management DPD (Submission Version 2012 with post EiP Modifications) AND the objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework and the principles of Planning Policy Statement 5 Practice Guide.
Meeting: 13/02/2013 - Development Committee (Item 7)
Decision:
Update Report Tabled.
Councillor Anwar Khan did not vote on this item as he had arrived after the start of the item.
On a vote of 3 in favour, 0 against and 1 abstention, the Committee RESOLVED:
That the Officers recommendation to grant Listed Building Consent and planning permission (PA/12/02317 & PA/12/02318) at Club Row Building, (Rochelle Centre) Rochelle School, Arnold Circus, London, E2 7ES NOT BE ACCEPTED for change of use from D1 (Non-residential institution) to mixed A1 (Shop), B1 (Business) and D1 (Non-residential institution) with the construction of an extension to rear, internal alterations (including installation of mezzanine floor space and new staircases), external alterations (including new doorways & windows & roof parapet raising & roof replacement) and alterations to Club Row boundary wall.
Members were minded not to accept the application due to concerns over:
· Loss of heritage value in respect of the roof and former roof top play space.
· Overall impact on the uniqueness of the building.
In accordance with Development Procedural Rules, the application was DEFERRED to enable Officers to prepare a supplementary report to a future meeting of the Committee setting out proposed detailed reasons for refusal and the implications of the decision.
(The Members that voted on this item were Councillors Helal Abbas, Shiria Khatun, Craig Aston and Kosru Uddin)
Minutes:
Update report tabled.
Jerry Bell (Applications Team Leader) introduced the report regarding Club Row Building, (Rochelle Centre) Rochelle School, Arnold Circus, London, E2 7ES (PA/12/02317 & PA/12/02318)
The Chair invited the registered speakers to address the meeting.
Aulad Miah spoke in objection. He stated that he lived in the ward and was an employee of the adjacent service. The site was located in the Conservation Area, was mainly residential and outside the Central Activities Zone (CAZ). Therefore, it was unsuitable for retail use. There would also be a loss of arts. The plans, including the roof extension, would spoil the character of the area. The roof would be very visible from the street. It should follow the current design. The plans conflicted with policy that sought to protect heritage assets.
In reply to Members, he considered that the applicant carried out very little consultation. The initial feedback was negative and following this, there were few meetings with restricted access. The proposal would attract anti social behaviour (asb) by making the building more prominent. The change of use to retail and loss of education uses would also increase asb. The Police reports indicated that there were significant issues with asb in the area.
Jason Caffrey spoke in objection. He stressed the importance of the centre in terms of historic value. The proposals would cause irreversible harm to the key features that made it so unique. For example, it would spoil the roof which covered the former play space, remove the classrooms, the original windows and doors. He drew attention to the concerns of the Greater London Archaeology Society. He disputed the accuracy of the report in terms of the building’s history and the heritage assessment. Furthermore, English Heritage were in the process of reviewing the building’s listed status. The Committee should defer its decision until the outcome of this review was known.
Hatty Buchanan spoke in support of the application. She was an employee of the centre. She referred to the works to a similar building to upgrade it. It was planned to use the same successful methods here. It was proposed to host a range of services should the centre be restored. This included education lessons for children and community projects. The building was in a poor state now with an uncertain income base. It urgently needed the repair work. The income generated by the new building would cover the costs. If left, the building could be placed on the List of Buildings at Risk Register.
In reply to Members, she explained the consultation process. There had been extensive pre-application discussions over 18 months with many meetings and initiatives with residents. The plans had been amended in light of the concerns with the retention of the original boundary wall. The roof was badly in need of repair. The leaking was harming the structure. As a result, the upper floor could not fully be used. (Officers showed photograph’s of the roof in their presentation). It was ... view the full minutes text for item 7