Case No 14/04865/FUL (agenda
item five, page 63 of the agenda and page 15 of the published
planning officer gave a presentation which included a summary of
the addendum that had been published on Friday 27 March. The key
issues for consideration included the change of use to a nursery
(Use Class D1) and residential (Use Class C3), the protection of a
Grade II listed building, the construction of a four storey
residential building to the rear, the provision of affordable
housing units as well as further design and travel considerations.
It was noted that whilst most of the external work would involve
renovation of the existing listed building and that English
Heritage had reviewed and supported the proposed development.
Structural and architectural aspects of the proposed buildings were
explained and it was noted that the new building did not provide
any wheelchair adaptable units because the doorways within the
existing listed building were too narrow. They would need to be
widened to accommodate wheelchairs and such modifications would not
be supported by conservation officers. No lift was proposed for the
new building; the provision of a lift was not a Lifetime Homes
requirement. The proposed development would include 30 cycle
parking spaces for residents, eight for the nursery and four for
visitors. There would be no official buggy parking space within the
nursery but storage could be facilitated.
Following the officer’s presentation, the objector raised
the following points:
regard to the change of use of the ground floor of the existing
listed building to Nursery (Class D1 Use), a stronger condition was
required to prevent any other form of D1 use from being operated on
the premises. Condition Three should be amended to state that any
future applications for alternative D1 usage of the premises should
have to be heard by the Committee and should not be determined
under delegated authority.
nursery contained provision for just two WCs and would have no hot
food preparation areas at all.
In response to points
raised by the objector, the applicant informed the Committee that
terms had already been agreed with a prospective operator of the
day-care nursery and that Condition Three already restricted the
use of the unit to nursery usage.
from Members, a representative from BNPP raised the following
points with regards to the viability of the development:
- The affordable
housing provision for the development equated to 10 per cent of the
total dwelling units. BNPP had completed an independent viability
assessment of the application and tested all profit assumptions.
The benchmark land value had been calculated by assessing the use
value for the vacated fire station. As there had been no demand for
a vacant fire station the applicant had submitted an alternative
residential scheme which generated a benchmark against which to
assess the residual land value generated by the proposed scheme
before the committee. The viability assessment had concluded that
there would only be sufficient land value above the benchmark land
value to support two affordable housing units.
- The ground floor of
the existing building had been valued as D1 space as presented in
- The Grade II listed
building was in a poor state of repair and would require a lot of
renovation. This work would carry a significant cost.
- The applicant had
submitted a construction cost plan for the listed building which
had been assessed as reasonable and independently
- The proposed new
building would cross-subsidise the cost of the work on the existing
- High density
buildings, such as the proposed new building at the rear of the
site, were often more expensive to construct.
In response, Members
stated that the low existing use value of the listed building had
allowed the developer to secure a very viable development. They
suggested that the application should have supported more than two
affordable housing units.
Officers then advised
the Committee that higher levels of affordable housing had been
sought however, following on from an independent review by BNPP of
the applicant’s viability assessment, it was accepted that
the scheme could not viably provide more. In arriving at this
position, the Council were guided by Government and GLA guidance
and historical appeals to take account of alternative use value
within the viability assessment. They also noted that English
Heritage did not advise on construction cost and that Council
conservation officers had worked directly with the applicant to
outline the standard of work that would be required on the existing
from Members, the applicant made the following points:
- The operator of the
nursery space had a number of similar operational nurseries
elsewhere and had confirmed that hot food preparation facilities
would not be required.
- It was not clear why
the rent levels detailed in the report now excluded, rather than
included, service charges.
from Members, officers raised the following points:
- Permitted development
rights did not apply in the same way to listed
- If the operators of
the nursery required hot food preparation facilities in the future,
the applicant would need Listed Building
Consent and Planning Permission for any associated extraction
- The Council
Conservation Officer had requested the maintenance of the area of
hardstanding at the front of the
building in order to preserve the uncluttered open space. Elements
of soft landscaping would be secured by condition.
- Condition 18 had been
amended in the addendum to refer to ‘and from within the
proposed building’. This condition was imposed by regulatory
services (noise) to ensure that noise levels generated by residents
above the requirements set out in the condition could be subject to
future enforcement action. Building Regulations sets out the
requirements for soundproofing new buildings. .
- There were no
planning policies which required a set amount of WCs within the
nursery space. The proposed provision was however sufficient for
the number of children permitted to attend the nursery. The
applicants had been encouraged to retain as much of the existing
floor plan as possible; this had restricted the amount of
- The traditional
bi-folding doors at the front of the existing building were
protected by a condition. The original doors had windows built into
them that could be opened to allow improved ventilation in the
- The Committee could
not impose a cap on the number of cars per residential
- One of the proposed
residential units in the existing building had irregularly sized
rooms because the existing floor plan had to be
- The legal adviser set
out for Committee the point that had been made by the objector
about the potential for the premises to be put into a different D1
use. The legal advisor summarised the
limitations in the national Planning Practice Guidance on the use
of conditions restricting the operation of permitted development
rights and future changes of use, and outlined the legal effect of
the proposed condition in this case.
An additional informative was needed to advise the
applicant that if the operator of the nursery space intended to
prepare hot food in the future, there would need to be an
extraction system fitted which would require separate Listed
Building Consent and Planning Permission.
An additional informative was required to state that
the nursery operator should provide a designated buggy parking area
within the nursery area. If any additional works to the floor plan
or fabric of the listed building were required to facilitate the
buggy parking area, the operator should contact the Council's
Conservation team for advice.
- Conditions 10 and 11
were not sufficiently pro-active in their encouragement of
soft-landscaping. An additional informative was necessary to
promote the incorporation of soft landscaping within the front forecourt to soften the street
frontage, deter car parking and provide a screen to refuse and
recycling stores. Soft landscaping should also minimise the
opportunity for flytipping.
- The refuse and
recycling storage facilities should be designed to minimise the
risk of flytipping.
- Any further
requirement for WC provision would be an issue for the nursery
- For future reference,
it would be helpful for the Committee to be further informed about
the ability of the Committee to restrict the amount of cars per
- It was positive to
see the inclusion of three-bed family units with gardens within the
- Condition Three,
which referred to the change of use of the ground floor of the
existing listed building to Nursery (Class D1 Use), was robust and
did not require further amendment. Any future application for
change of use would require Planning Permission and could be called
in to the Committee if desired and justified. It was noted the
nursery would serve an important community function and that
Condition Three therefore carried significant weight in the
- The design of the
replacement doors should allow for ventilation without full opening
of the doors. This should inform the
discharge of the relevant condition (4).
MOVED by Councillor Morris, SECONDED by Councillor Hill
To grant Listed
Building Consent and Planning Permission subject to the completion
of a signed Section 106 Agreement and the conditions as outlined in
the report and published addendum and subject to:
- An additional
informative advising the applicant that if
the nursery operator intended to prepare hot food in the future,
there would need to be an extraction system fitted which would
require separate Listed Building Consent and Planning
- An additional
informative advising the nursery operator to provide a designated buggy parking area within the nursery area.
If any additional works to the floor plan or fabric of the listed
building were required to facilitate the buggy parking area, the
operator should contact the Council's Conservation team for
- An additional
informative linked to Conditions 10 and 11 which promoted the
incorporation of soft landscaping within the front forecourt to
soften the street frontage, deter car parking and provide a screen
to refuse and recycling stores. Soft landscaping would also
minimise the opportunity for flytipping.
- Condition 20 to be
deleted as a duplicate.