Agenda item

Refused planning permission on the grounds of the unacceptable loss of publically accessible community floor space.

PROPOSAL:

Change of use of parts of the Barham Park complex of buildings from Use Class D1 (library) and Sui Generis (parks office) to Artists Studios (Use Class B1) and the change of use from Sui Generis (parks office with some community use) to Use Class D1 (Community).

RECOMMENDATION:  Grant planning permission subject to conditions.

With reference to the tabled supplementary information, Neil McClellan, Area Planning Manager responded to queries raised by members at the site visit.  He informed the Committee that the Council’s Property Service had confirmed that there was a desire to let the ‘card room’ as a community café which would comprise a café with some scope for community access. However, this would require an application for a change of use and works would be required to bring it up to a usable standard. Given the size, this may involve splitting the room into two smaller spaces, thus allowing separate hireage. 

The Lounge would be retained by the Trust, managed by the Council’s Sports and Parks Service and let at typical local authority rates, thus generating income for the Trust.  He confirmed that the Use Class D1 floorspace that was to remain within the Barham Park Complex would be under the control of the Council and Barham Park Trust.

The Planning Manager added that the draft lease to ACAVA set out that the facility must be open to the general public at least two open days per year, although  the actual amount of engagement may be greater.  He clarified that although the matter of Titus Barham bequest could not be considered within a planning application, the Council Property and Legal Services had not expressed any concerns that the lease to ACAVA would constitute a breach of the terms of the bequest.  

In responding to residents’ comments for flexible community access similar to that provided by the former library and the query about the validity of the review of the community space he submitted the following: the merits of Brent’s Library Transformation Project was not being reconsidered as part of this application; details of the Barham Park Lounge and Vale Farm rooms were available on the Council’s web site; the Community Facilities Assessment for the application was considered to be reasonably robust. Members heard that the Council’s Property Service had submitted further information regarding additional Council owned facilities that they were looking to bring into community use including 280 square metres of new community floorspace through the renovation and change of use of existing buildings for general purpose community access.

Mr Phil Grant in objecting to the application stated that it failed to comply with planning policy CP23 of the LDF Core Strategy which presumed against the loss of community floor space for which there was an identified need, unless suitable mitigation could be provided.  He added that consistency was required in applying policy CP23 as was the case in the Committee’s consideration of the application for Kensal Rise and Cricklewood Libraries.  Mr Grant continued that the Community Facilities Assessment for the application did not cover the needs and demands of Sudbury residents including the proposal for volunteer managed library services.   

Mr Alton Bell, director of a local youth charity SWAY (Sudbury, Wembley and Alperton Youth) project and the founder of a community organisation, Pivot Point addressed the Committee. Mr Bell stated that his organisation in conjunction with five other local organisations made a bid to use the premises to offer services to young people such as counselling, mentoring and other person centred services to minimise crime and reduce the incidences of young people gravitating to gangs.  In outlining the differences between his bid and that submitted by ACAVA, Mr Bell stated that his bid of £52,000 including maintenance costs was in excess of ACAVA’s bid of £43,000.  Furthermore, SWAY would work with local community groups in the building whereas ACAVA would instead rent out spaces. 

In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Daly, ward member stated that she had not been approached in connection with the application. Councillor Daly speaking in support of the application stated that the building needed to be maintained and that the application would ensure its preservation. The proposal would also encourage and create a sense of activity in the area and that the arts use would have local relevance. 

In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Lorber, ward member stated that he had been approached by local residents in connection with the application.  Councillor Lorber alleged that there had been no public engagement and that having 29 artist studios would squeeze out and deny the rest of the community organisations, access to the building.  He referred to Titus Barham’s bequest that the building was to be used for the recreation of the public. He emphasised the need for local organisations to use the building as their base and the responsibility on the Council to offer protection under planning policy CP23.  Councillor Lorber referred to drawings he had circulated at the meeting which showed various uses and spaces taken by ACAVA, leaving only a scant space available to the public.  He clarified that only unit 2 of 178sq m. would be available for ad hoc letting to community groups whereas unit 7 would have no more than 6 months ad hoc letting.

In response to members’ questions, Councillor Lorber explained that the following areas of the building should be excluded from the calculation of D1 use for the following reasons; the children’s centre as it operated behind closed doors; the Vets as it was being used as a private members’ club and was closed to the public; the Card Room as it had been closed for for over six months.  Having clarified the basis of his calculations, Councillor Lorber continued that the Community Facilities  Assessment for the building did not cover the interests of all groups and that the application would constitute a substantial loss of community asset without affording protection under policy CP23, one of the chief reasons for officers’ recommendation for refusal for the Kensal Rise Library application. 

Richard Barrett, Operational Director and Property Adviser to Barham Park Trust Board stated that the application was for a change of a building which had been held on trust by the Council but had remained empty and neglected for considerable number of years.  He added that ACAVA, selected by the Trust as a lessee, would ensure that the building was open to general public at least 2 days per year.  Members heard that the lease agreement which had been constructed in accordance with the Landlord and Tenancy Act would protect a wide range of uses for the building.  Members heard that the lease agreement prevented any assignment or sub-letting and was contracted outside the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.  It would protect a wide range of uses for the building. 

Discussions then turned on the status of the Barham Park Trust Board.  The legal representative cautioned members against discussions about the terms of the lease to ACAVA, the terms and objects of the Barham Park Trust and the composition of the Trustees.  These were not considerations that were material to the planning application and discussions should be limited to the use and development of the land.

Neil McClellan in responding to members’ queries stated that the total area was 890 sqm and after the application had been approved would be reduced to 595 sq m. He clarified various uses as follows; Children’s Centre -105 sqm; Veterans Club – 196 sqm; Card Room – 116 sqm.  This would then leave a 178 sqm refurbished and available to let to the public.  In comparison with Kensal Rise and Cricklewood Libraries, he stated that those applications were not supported by a robust Community Facilities Assessment that examined local demand for community facilities. Those library applications also did not provide spaces that could be flexibly used with two sizes of rooms that could be used independently (with separate independent access) or with a clear delivery mechanism. As such, he considered that the Barham Park proposals accorded with the LDF Core Strategy, the London Plan 2011 and the National Planning Policy Framework while those applications did not.

During member discussion, the general feeling was that the proposal would not allow sufficient general public accessible space for short term users to the building based on various uses and spaces as explained by officers.  With that in view, most members were minded to refuse the application contrary to officers’ recommendation for approval for the following stated reason: unacceptable loss of publically accessible community floor space within the building.

Prior to voting on the application, Stephen Weeks, Head of Area Planning reminded members that much of the building had been confirmed not to be D1 use via the Certificate of Lawfulness decision, that the space currently let to longer term occupiers was validly included in the overall amount of D1 floorspace and, while a local library facility was clearly acceptable in planning terms, there was no planning policy imperative to require one.

Voting on the recommendation for approval was recorded as follows;

FOR:                           Councillor Sheth                                                                 (1)

AGAINST                   Councillors Baker, Brown, Cummins, Hashmi,

                                    Kataria and Singh                                                               (6)

ABSTENTION:          Councillors Ogunro, Aden and Kabir                              (3)

DECISION: Refused planning permission on the grounds of the unacceptable loss of publically accessible community floor space.

 Note: Councillor Powney was not present during consideration of the            application and therefore could not take part in the voting.