Agenda item
Club Row Building, (Rochelle Centre) Rochelle School, Arnold Circus, London, E2 7ES (PA/12/02317 & PA/12/02318)
- Meeting of Development Committee, Wednesday, 13th February, 2013 7.00 p.m. (Item 7.1)
- View the background to item 7.1
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 necessary to repair the roof to bring the centre back to full use and generate the income needed for the restoration.
Kevin Watson (Applicant’s agent) spoke in support. The plans would prevent the buildings on-going deterioration and provide a host of benefits. This included the repair of the centre, new jobs, business units for the local economy, a good design and improved energy efficiency. Only a small part of the centre would be used for retail use. There was nothing of serious harm. The building was Grade II group listed, being the lowest value listing. So the repair works to save it, in this context, were acceptable.
Elaine Bailey (Planning Officer) presented the detailed report and the update. The site was within the Boundary Estate Conservation area and the CAZ area. Therefore, in terms of land use, the proposal was acceptable. She described the change in use including the A1 retail use. She explained the key alterations. It was confirmed that the roof would be raised by between 900cm- 1 metre in height, but was also set back.
Ms Bailey explained the outcome of the consultation including representations for and against. The scheme had been amended to address the objections with the preservation of internal partitions, reduction of the mezzanine and restrictions on retail use.
Officers did not consider that the plans would harm the value of the building. The scheme would restore the building and ensure its survival. Overall, given the benefits, the scheme should be granted.
In response, Members asked questions/made comments on the following issues:
· The loss of the roof and the former play space. It was questioned whether Officers were now satisfied with this given the concerns in the report.
· The loss of historic features and the policy support for this. It was questioned whether the benefits of the scheme outweighed this.
· The design and colour in relation to the surrounding area.
· The alternative options explored.
· The roof materials and waste storage plans.
In response, Officers addressed the points.
Officers had fully assessed the impact on the building. The plans were necessary to ensure the building’s longevity. The applicant had submitted an economic assessment showing that the scheme was viable. It would be funded by the increased income from the new building. It was intended that the centre would primarily be used for the arts and culture with complementary uses.
English Heritage had not made any objections. The Council’s specialists were satisfied with the scheme. The concerns in the report had generally been addressed and were pre application comments.
The Council’s Conservation Officer, Andrew Hargreaves, was present to support the findings. He reported on the many other options looked at but none had proven viable or practical. The roof would be made of zinc, a more modern version of the present material and would be in keeping with the area.
The refuse and waste arrangements would remain separate from St Hilda’s as stated in the update. The details would be secured by condition.
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)
Supporting documents: