Agenda item

Report of the Chief Planning Officer and Development Director

The Committee considered a report of the Chief Planning Officer and Development Director seeking planning permission for the change of use of part ground floor from community centre (class D1) to a mix of community centre and estate office use (sui generis). No physical alterations were proposed as part of the application.

The Chief Planning Officer and Development Director introduced the application to Members and presented the officer’s report, informing the Committee about the details of the scheme and its wider implications. The application was recommended for approval, in accordance with the details set out in the schedule attached to the report.

Tim Godsmark, on behalf of the Golden Lane Residents Association, addressed the Committee in objection to the application. The residents did not feel that the estate office should be moved, and only 22% supported the move. The move would take away community centre and community-use office space. The application would contravene Policy DM22.1 as there was no proposal in the application to replace the communal and recreational space lost. The application also did not evidence a lack of need or an options appraisal, and underuse of the facilities had not been demonstrated.

The space was too small for the intended use in the application, and could not fit all the parties proposed to use it. The hotdesking system suggested would result in extra staff hanging around the estate and there would be a reduction in access to the space for residents. Other feasible areas in the estate had not been considered for the move, and there had been a lack of trust in the process so far. Residents were concerned that this move would be the thin end of a wedge. The Committee was urged to refuse the application, on the basis that evidence that alternatives had been considered had not been demonstrated, and the application contravened policy.

Jacqueline Swanson also addressed the Committee in objection to the application. The refurbishment of the community centre had been anticipated by residents and many wanted to be a part of it, but there were a lot of concerns over the application. The needs of the estate office should be contained, and it was felt there would not be space to meet the needs of three offices. Any overspill would make it difficult to ensure data protection, and the lack of private space to deal with vulnerable or angry residents discreetly.

Residents were concerned about office staff, particularly the receptionist, as there would be too much traffic and footfall through the building. There was an eager team of resident volunteers ready to help, who would need access to the office. There would not be enough space, and the proposal was not fit for purpose, with a disregard for privacy and the planning process. The shared office space would be intimidating for more vulnerable residents and would create undue stress on staff.

Andrew Carter and Jacquie Campbell addressed the Committee in support of the application. The aim of the scheme was to develop a vibrant and thriving community centre that was a local hub for residents, and had key staff on site and available to them. The proposed model had proved effective in other boroughs such as Islington and Hackney. The proposal would make the community centre more welcoming, more relevant and more accessible. Estate staff were part of the estate and were familiar faces that the most frequent users of the office trusted. The additional income that was part of the proposal was vital to sustaining the community centre, otherwise it would not be viable in the short to medium term.

Between three and five members of staff were proposed to be on site, and health and safety officers had adjudged the space to be big enough for five or six members of staff, plus storage space. The space proposed for the estate office had not previously been community space and was designated as storage and office space. The new centre would retain the interview room, and officers undertook home visits to support residents with mobility or mental health issues. Currently, visits by residents to the office were mostly routine rather than about sensitive issues or emergencies, and the current estate office did not have a confidential room.

The cost savings as a result of the move would mean that subsidies from Housing Revenue Account would no longer be required. Officers had walked around the space with residents and felt there was a more than adequate amount of room, which was backed up by health and safety inspections. It was not certain whether the building would be subject to business rates. The interview room was not large enough to be accessible for wheelchair users, and therefore home visits would need to be undertaken. Other options for the estate office had been considered but were not viable, with issues like lack of daylight, and did not have the same hub feeling as the community centre. A disability impact assessment had not been undertaken.

With regards to planning policy, there was no loss of communal or recreational space, and it was felt the proposal would enhance community space rather than take it away. The space was previously unused office space and had not been part of the hall or the classroom. Prior to refurbishment, the centre had been run by a resident-led committee and had not been financially viable.

The Comptroller & City Solicitor clarified the relevant planning issues for the Committee. As there was no reduction in facility, the consideration of alternative spaces was not relevant as there was no policy non-compliance. The scheme was considered to be acceptable in planning terms. The details and configuration of operational arrangements were considered housing management matters rather than planning matters.

Members of the Committee then debated the application. A Member said that the application was forgetting of the use of volunteers at the centre, and that they did not think evidence of underuse had been demonstrated. The space was for the community and an alternative space for volunteer groups had not been offered.

A Member drew the Committee’s attention to a point raised by an objector, that the refurbishment of the community centre had been granted with guarantee that there were no plans to move the estate office there, and that residents ultimately lost a consultation opportunity as a result. Furthermore, there was a misleading point repeated several times in the report, as while most residents favoured no change, it was emphasised that 84% of residents preferred the estate office to be moved to the community centre over the Barbican Estate office, which was not relevant to the application. The proposal was clearly not supported by residents, and as their objections had not been addressed, Members should vote against the application.

A Member stated that they objected on practical grounds, as if the centre would not have enough space for wheelchair users it was not going to work. Officers were asked if they had looked at the disability issue, as proper facilities had to be ensured. A Member added that access was a planning matter and the Committee needed specific reassurances on this.

A Member said that they could not see any strong reason to object on planning grounds but recognised the challenges that the Department of Community and Children’s Services would have in managing the centre.

In response to Members’ queries officers suggested that if the recommendation was agreed, to add a condition in relation to the provision of the meeting room and inclusive design, to comply with Policy DM10.8.

Arising from the discussion, the application was then put to the vote amongst eligible Committee Members, with 13 voting for and 10 voting against the application, with no abstentions.

RESOLVED – That planning permission be granted for the above proposal in accordance with the details set out in the attached schedule, subject to an additional condition to address accessibility of the interview room, the wording of the condition to be delegated to the Chief Planning Officer in consultation with the Chairman and Deputy Chairman.