Agenda item

Proposed development for the complete renovation and conversion of the existing Grade II listed building, Empire Sports Club into 22no. flats. Demolition of the existing infill lean-to building in the middle of the site, and the modification of gated boundary to the existing building to accommodate new entrances to the proposed housing (Major Application)

The representative of the Service Director – Planning and Development made the following points by way of introduction:-

            1. The building, incorporating the gym, had ceased operation in 2014 and fallen into disrepair. The previous owners were unable to afford repairs and so the building was now quite dilapidated;

            2. The same applicant had successfully gained planning permission for 10 houses on the             adjacent car park site;

3. The application had been submitted in 2015 and had gone through a number of amendments in order to produce the best scheme;

4. The number of units had been revised to 22. There were one, two and three bedroom units. As it was a listed building, conversions were more difficult;

5. There were no external changes other than the inclusion of roof lights and cycle parking/ refuse facilities;

6. The Conservation Team, in response to consultation, concluded that given the number of internal changes the proposal would cause significant harm. English Heritage objected on the same basis, with a direction that the application be referred to the Planning Casework Unit (PCU) should the Local Authority be minded to grant consent for the proposal. Planning Officers accepted these expert views but were required to consider Paragraphs 131 and 133 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) to assess if the public benefits of bringing the site back into use outweighed the significant harm caused to the heritage site and additional criteria set out in Paragraph 133 of the NPPF. The conclusions were as follows:-

Ø  No other proposals had come forward  following marketing and community involvement of the site;

Ø  The heritage site was unsuitable for any other use other than housing;

Ø  The proposal was not viable in isolation but the development in the car park would help to provide the necessary cost subsidy;

Ø  Conservation grant funding had been explored by the applicant who had demonstrated that there was no grant funding or some form of charitable or public ownership available to conserve the heritage asset;

Ø  There were structural and public safety concerns due to the deterioration of the building. Bringing the site back into use would mitigate these concerns;

Ø  That the proposal satisfied all of the relevant criteria in Paragraph 133 of the NPPF following a detailed officer assessment.

Ø  The site triggered the application of Vacant Building Credit and was therefore exempt from an affordable housing requirement.;

7. In summary, considerable weight was given to the significant harm of this proposal but in accordance with the requirements of Paragraph 133 of the NPPF, this harm was outweighed by the importance of bring the site back into use as much needed housing in a sustainable location and Officers therefore recommended approval. This is subject to a referral process to the Planning Casework Unit (PCU) whereby there is a period of 21 days for the PCU to consider whether to call in the application for determination.

            The following points arose from discussion:-

            1. Councillor Dudd asked about parking and expressed concern that the developer was using             two separate applications to avoid affordable housing obligations and was informed that the car park site was under the threshold for small site affordable housing. If the applications had been submitted as one it would still be under the requirements for affordable housing. The            planning officer explained that this had been explored but the adjoining site was below the threshold for Affordable Housing and as the Empire Sports application site has the benefit of Vacant Building Credit (and is therefore exempt from Affordable Housing requirements) there would be no benefit of reviewing the two sites together as opposed to one application with           regard to gaining Affordable Housing on the site. With respect to parking, the applicant had           advised that residents would not be able to apply for a permit, with a standard informative added setting out this process;

            3. The application had been submitted in November 2015 but Historic England had not been informed of the application until April 2017 as this was the point all amendments to the application were completed and the Conservation Team had requested that Historic England be consulted. The Service Manager explained that arrangements for consulting Heritage    England on Grade II listed buildings were currently being reviewed to avoid similar delays in the future.

            4. Councillor Stevens had been informed that advice note 1 regarding resident’s parking was unenforceable. The representative of the Service Director – Planning expressed surprise with this information as the informative was regularly used and currently recommended by Transport Development Management for inclusion. He would investigate this further with Transport colleagues and provide an update to Members;

            5. A 6 month marketing exercise had taken place alongside a community consultation exercise             inviting comments for other uses for the site. Given the costs it was very difficult to bring forward other uses other than residential but the marketing exercise had been out in the public domain for all to comment;

            6. Councillor Sergeant expressed concern about proceeding with a decision until the arrangements regarding parking and enforcement were clear and was informed that if the Committee was minded to support the application the planning permission would not be immediately issued as it would be referred to the Secretary of State for determination and would hence have a delay. The Head of Development Management confirmed that it would     therefore be possible to update Lead members at the next DC A Committee agenda meeting. If this could not be confirmed at that stage the application would come back to Committee;

            7. Councillor Alexander expressed the view that damage would be caused whether the permission was granted or refused. It was important that every effort had been made to access conservation grants and that all appropriate voluntary sectors and charities had been consulted;

            8. Councillor Wright gave weight to Historic England’s response and noted the similarity with the Whiteladies Road Cinema restoration where Historic England had also objected but the objections of residents had been a big factor. He could not see any other use where funds    would be available to restore the site. Its future, if refused, was a derelict site or the Committee could accept that this was the best proposal for the site and saved the fabric of the        building. He would therefore support the application on balance;

            9. Councillor Davies, as ward Councillor, stated that a lot of work had taken place to ensure a sensitive scheme for the site. In the worst case, the building would deteriorate further. He would therefore support the proposal;

            10. The Chair commended the preservation of the building, noting that there were no beneficiaries if the building fell down and would therefore vote for grant of the application;

            11. Councillor Mead supported the application but proposed caution regarding listed buildings in the future. He expressed the view that he would have benefited from a site visit and was minded to abstain;

            12. The Chair summarised that if the Committee was minded to approve it would be subject to restricting future residents’ elibility to the Residents’ Parking Scheme being clarified at the next DC A Committee agenda meeting (and coming back to Committee if required);

            13. Councillor Davies moved the recommendation subject to Residents’ Parking being clarified at the next DC A Committee agenda meeting. This was seconded by Councillor Sergeant.

            On being put to the vote it was :-

            Resolved – (8 for, 3 abstentions) that:-

            1. Planning permission be granted subject to conditions as set out in the report and subject to clarity regarding  future residents’ eligibility to the  Residents’ Parking Scheme being reported back to  the next DC A Committee agenda meeting (and back to a Committee meeting if required);

            2. That the Planning Permission be referred to the Planning Casework Unit (Secretary of State).