Agenda item - BH2018/00469, Hove Central Library, 182-186 Church Road, Hove - Listed Building Consent

skip navigation and tools

Agenda item

BH2018/00469, Hove Central Library, 182-186 Church Road, Hove - Listed Building Consent

Internal alterations to lower ground floor & external alterations to rear ground floor including construction of new wall with balustrade, landscaping & associated works to facilitate the conversion to children's day nursery (D1).

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Ward Affected: Central Hove

Minutes:

              Internal alterations to lower ground floor and external alterations to rear ground floor including construction of new wall with balustrade, landscaping and associated works to facilitate the conversion to children’s day nursery.

 

              Officer Presentation

 

(1)          It was noted that this application had been the subject of a site visit prior to the meeting.

 

(2)          The Principal Planning Officer, Stewart Glasser, introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to site plans, elevational drawings, photographs and floor plans. It was explained that the main considerations in determining this application related to whether the proposed alterations would have a detrimental impact on the character, architectural setting and significance of the grade II listed building. The proposal would involve external alterations to create an outdoor play area including the erection of a new wall at the edge of the footpath with a metal balustrade which would form a decked play area at the upper level. The existing metal fire escape would be screened with a 1.5m timber fence/gate, the installation of a bike rack and buggy store was also proposed. The proposed surfacing and other materials were considered acceptable and there was therefore no objection to the proposals for the rear outside space. It was noted that both the Listed Building and Planning Applications would be considered together but that they would be voted on separately.

 

(3)          It was noted that internally the proposed partitioning followed the existing conventions, retaining the cell arrangement outside and that the only intrusion to the central space would be the proposed steps and handrail which were required for building regulation purposes to provide appropriate access to the toilets. The necessary works to the screen to the WCs would retain the existing framework and only sought to add reversible cladding on the WC side, which was considered acceptable. The only new floor coverings identified would be the replacement of the lino in the new WC facilities which was also considered acceptable. The Heritage Team had requested additional information regarding details and reversibility of the new internal stairs, proposed drainage and ventilation of the new facilities and details of the existing landscaping and materials. This information had been provided by the applicant subsequently and was also considered acceptable. Overall therefore, it was considered that the proposed works would not harm the historic character or appearance of the grade II listed building or wider conservation area and approval was recommended subject to the Conditions and Informatives set out in the report.

 

              Public Speakers

 

(4)          Ms V Paynter spoke on behalf of local residents setting out their concerns and objections in relation to the proposed scheme. Ms Paynter stated that noise had been considered when applications in the vicinity had been considered for refusal, yet the significant noise issues which could arise from this application did not, contrary to normal practice appear to have been considered and no noise mitigation measures or sound readings had been taken in respect of this application. No information had been given regarding potential numbers of children expected to use the basement or yard. Both applications referred to use of this area as play space notwithstanding that the applicant’s had stated at the meeting the previous week that this area would not be used as play space. This required clarification. It had been stated at the same meeting that 38 could be accommodated in the basement area and that it was planned to have 16-32 children and to encourage parents and grandparents to attend which could result in use by far in excess of that number. It appeared clear that in addition to use of the basement and yard that in practice, the applicants intended to use the building at will. It was considered that these factors should have been assessed before recommending approval of this application. The application also gave rise to safety implications as there were concerns regarding who would be liable if an emergency occurred and nursery children were elsewhere in the Library rather than in the garden or basement.

 

(5)          The Library was in regular use by those studying for exams, or to use its quiet facilities to research when they did not have quiet space or were unable to afford wifi at home and relied on use of the computer room and downstairs bank of machines. It was considered that Hove Library was being unfairly disadvantaged as the PFI project under which the Central Jubilee Library had been built in Brighton was taking 2.5m of the overall budget and the conversion of the library to a mainly commercial site in order to reduce the overall financial burden was unfair to Hove Library users. There were a number of cafes and nursery schools in the immediate area, there were a number of application deficiencies and objectors considered that in the absence of scrutiny by Policy Resources & Growth Committee of the business plan that the application should be refused or deferred.

 

(6)          Neither the Listed Building nor planning applications gave information regarding the number of children expected to use the basement or yard. Both applications referred to use of this area as play space notwithstanding that the applicant had stated at the meeting the previous week that this area would not be used as play space, this required clarification. It had been stated at the same meeting that 38 could be accommodated in the basement area and that it was planned to have 16-32 children there at any given time who would also have access to the entire building which accompanying adults, the noise and disturbance would be detrimental to other users who wished to use the library as a quiet study space.

 

(7)          In answer to questions regarding conditions which could be attached to any permission in respect of hours of operation etc., the Legal Adviser to the Committee, Hilary Woodward, confirmed that this would not be possible as planning permission was not required for change of the use as this fell within the same use class as the current use, as such additional conditions could not be applied. Consideration needed to be given to the works applied for but not to the use itself.

 

              Questions for Officers

 

(8)          Councillor C Theobald sought clarification regarding access arrangements to the building and it was confirmed that there would be separate access arrangements to the side of the building and from the basement area into the garden area. Arrangements for use of the lift within the building itself would need to be agreed with the library. In response to further questions it was confirmed that soundproofing measures could not be considered as part of this application.

 

(9)          Councillor Miller whilst understanding that noise control measures fell outside this application he was of the view that indications regarding the controls to be put into place would have been useful as would more precise details regarding the number of children to be accommodated. It was explained that permission was required only in respect of the physical alterations to the building, not in relation to the proposed use. Councillor Gilbey also sought confirmation in respect of this matter.

 

(10)       Councillor Mac Cafferty stated that he had attended the recent public consultation meeting and had asked questions which in his view had not been satisfactorily answered regarding the disproportionate funding  arrangements between Brighton Central Library and Hove. He was also of the view that policies HE1, and HE3, the latter of which related to the need to respect the setting of a Listed Building were pertinent and needed to be considered. In his view it was clear that the policy related to physical alterations and or changes of use to the fabric of a Listed Building. The Head of Planning Liz Hobden, stated that the Heritage had researched this matter thoroughly and had advised this was not relevant in relation to consideration of this application.

 

(11)       Councillor Littman asked whether conditions could be attached in respect of use of the external staircase, but the Legal Adviser to the Committee, Hilary Woodward advised that this would not be appropriate as it could not be considered reasonable.

 

(12)       Councillor Morris referred to works required to the pipework seeking confirmation as to whether conditions could be added relating to drainage/ventilation and it was confirmed that they could not and that details had been provided by the applicant and that it was considered that appropriate arrangements were in place.

 

(13)       Councillor C Theobald enquired whether a proportion of the income arising from the nursery use could be used towards costs of running the library. It was confirmed that was not germane to consideration of either of the applications before Committee.

 

              Debate and Decision Making Process

 

(14)       Councillor Mac Cafferty stated that he did not consider that sufficient account had been taken of the heritage assessments which needed to be made and considered, or where/how income generated would be spent. Proper consideration needed to be given to how the library could be conserved appropriately which included consideration of the radial shelving. He did not consider that had been done and did not therefore support the proposals.

 

(15)       Councillor Littman concurred in that view, he also had concerns in respect of potential noise nuisance which could occur and for that reason agreed that he was unable to support either application.

 

(16)       Councillors C Theobald and Hyde considered it regrettable that the fabric of the library was very dilapidated in some areas, on balance however, they supported the officer recommendation as did Councillor Miller who considered that Ofsted requirements would regulate the nursery use and that control use of the use of the library by young children and those supporting them should be encouraged.

 

(17)       Councillor O’Quinn expressed her support for the proposal as did Councillor Gilbey, who did not consider that the proposed use would generate unacceptable noise levels, or noise which would extend beyond very early evening. As use of the outside garden area would also controlled (only a specified number of children using it at any one time), she did not consider that would result in potential noise nuisance either.

 

(18)       Councillor Morgan supported the application and was of the view that it was positive to encourage children to use the library from a very young age, this use could help to encourage that. Councillor Morris also supported the application which in his view complimented the community uses favoured by Carnegie himself.

 

(19)       A vote was taken and the 10 Members who were present at the meeting voted on a vote of 8 to 2 that Listed Building Consent be granted.

 

6.4         RESOLVED - That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report and resolves to GRANT Listed Building Consent subject to the Conditions and Informatives also set out in the report.

Supporting documents:

 


Brighton & Hove City Council | Hove Town Hall | Hove | BN3 3BQ | Tel: (01273) 290000 | Mail: info@brighton-hove.gov.uk | how to find us | comments & complaints