09
The Committee received and considered the agenda report and addendum report.
The Planning Officer reported that the site consists of the former “Norfolk Nelson Museum” located on South Quay. The building forms a three-storey building with an access from South Quay and pedestrian access to the south east from Row 111 adjacent Sackville Close. The existing car park to the south east between Row 111 and Row 112 falls within the ownership of the property.
The Planning Officer reported that the application proposes to retain a gallery at ground floor, with a proposed café use, and build a proposed single-storey extension to the northeast to include 2no. artist studios. The existing external courtyard would be associated with the studios and café space. The existing gallery and office uses at first and second floors are proposed to change use to a single residential dwelling. The applicant wishes to occupy the dwelling, whilst running the gallery and studios at ground floor.
The Planning Officer reported that the site falls within the development limits where development is generally supported by policy GSP1, subject to compliance with other relevant policies in the development plan. Core Strategy (2015) Policy CS1(e) seeks to ensure that development is located in safe, accessible places that promote healthy lifestyles and provide easy access for everyone to jobs, shops and community facilities by walking, cycling and public transport. Core Strategy Policy CS2 builds upon this by ensuring that new residential development is distributed according to the policy’s settlement hierarchy which seeks to balance the delivery of homes with creating resilient, self-contained communities and reducing the need to travel. The site benefits from good access to services and facilities, including a primary school, a public house, local shopping, employment facilities, community facility and a GP surgery are all located within 800m of the site, wholly along paved footpaths. The conversion of the building for residential uses would therefore be in general accordance with Core Strategy Policy CS2 and Local Plan Part 2 Policy GSP1 in this regard.
The Planning Officer reported that Policy CS8 encourages the safeguarding of cultural attractions and facilities. The proposal would result in the loss of gallery space on the upper floors, equating to approximately 155sqm. This type of use is considered to constitute a “community facility” under the Local Plan policy C1. Core Strategy Policy CS15 seeks to resist the loss of community facilities unless appropriate provision of equivalent better-quality facilities is made in a location accessible to current and potential uses, or a detailed assessment clearly demonstrates that there is no longer a need for the provision of the facility in the area.
The Planning Officer reported that Policy C1 provides additional detail to the requirements of CS15, stating that:-
Development leading to the loss of an existing community facility will only be permitted where it is demonstrated that either:-
a) it is to be replaced by a facility of equal or greater quality in a suitable location to meet the day-to-day needs of existing users; or
b) the area currently served by it would remain suitably provided following the loss; or
c) it is no longer viable or feasible to retain the premises in a community facility use as demonstrated by marketing evidence which covers at least a 12-month period of marketing.
The Planning Officer reported that in regard to criterion (a), the proposal includes the erection of a single storey extension to provide 2no. new studios and a coffee shop. This adds an additional 36sqm of floorspace, and purpose-built space for artists which is well related to the retained ground floor gallery. However, whilst the floorspace lost is partially replaced, this cannot be considered of equal quality of that lost.
The Planning Officer reported that in regard to (b), there are 3no. galleries within a 500m radius, as well as a number of visitor attractions in the form of museums such as the Toll House and Elizabethan House. Whilst some of the gallery space would be lost, a public gallery would be retained. Limited marketing evidence has been submitted in the form of an email from the applicant to confirm that there were 5 other viewing within the marketing period. However, this does not provide sufficient evidence of a 12-month period as required by criterion (c).
The Planning Officer reported that notwithstanding the limited marketing information available, policy C1 requires either criteria (a), (b) or (c) to be satisfied. In view of the above, the proposal is considered to accord with (a) and (b) of the policy, through the additional provision of a coffee shop and artist studios which would support the continued use of the gallery, in a location where there is not an under provision of this type of community use. The principle of development is therefore considered acceptable.
The Planning Officer reported that the proposal does need to be assessed in terms of whether there are any conflicts between the proposed uses. As discussed previously, whilst self-contained, the dwelling would share an access and external private amenity space with the gallery use proposed on the ground floor. Whilst this would not be suitable for an independent dwelling, it is considered that as the future occupants are also intending to operate the gallery, café and other facilities on ground floor, and the dwelling is therefore beneficial to the viability of the building as a community asset, that a condition is recommended to tie the occupation of the unit to the gallery use. As the gallery and studios are to be managed by the applicant and intended occupant of the dwelling, the conflict in uses would be minimised in that the residents can ensure private use of the courtyard when the studios are not being used, or establish a form of shared use arrangement, or simply be prepared to accept that their domestic arrangements could be compromised by the operation of their own commercial activities, where separate occupancy would not be acceptable.
The Planning Officer reported that the proposal consists of a change of use, with the external alterations including the addition of a ground floor double door in the rear elevation, replacement of existing window to a door to serve the proposed coffee shop at ground floor and the erection of a single storey extension to the rear to form the proposed artist studios. The proposed rear extension is a flat roof single storey form and would match the height and form of the existing brick wall forming the southeast boundary. The external walls would match the brick of the existing building as closely as possible, with a ECPM or single-ply flat roof. There would be 2no. three-casement glass paned doors proposed to access the studios from the external yard. The proposed extension is of an appropriate scale and would not exceed the height of the adjacent boundary wall. Overall, the design of the extension is considered acceptable.
The Planning Officer reported that the new rear doors proposed on ground floor on the existing building would match the appearance of the existing fenestration. Whilst the doors and joining windows proposed for the extension are of a more contemporary design, they are timber and would provide a complementary contrast to the main building. Overall, the design and materials are considered appropriate.
The Planning Officer reported that in regard to the suitability of the change of use to accommodate a residential dwelling, considerations under policy A2 include parking, enclosures, external amenity area, landscaping, utilities and energy efficiency.
The Planning Officer reported that the proposal would result in a large and spacious dwelling over 2 floors, with 4no. bedrooms indicated on the plans. All rooms would be served by a window to provide natural ventilation and light, with the main living areas being served by large windows looking onto South Quay. The internal living accommodation and layout is considered to be functional and retains the internal character of the building through minor interior alterations.
The Planning Officer reported that in terms of the parking, the car park to the southeast falls within the ownership of the building. 4no parking spaces have been indicated as being set apart to serve the proposed residential dwelling.
The Planning Officer reported that the existing site includes an attractive tall brick wall to enclose the existing courtyard area. This is proposed to be retained and no other boundary treatments are included within the proposal. In terms of landscaping, the external rear yard is currently overgrown with poor quality hardstanding. The applicant has expressed that the intention is to clear this and provide an attractive area for outside seating for the gallery and studios, as well as for the residential use. Whilst this external area can provide positive landscaping for the public, given that the application is predominantly a change of use of an existing gallery, it would not be considered reasonable to require specific landscaping details.
The Planning Officer reported that the proposal would use spaces within the wider car park and would share access and external amenity space with the proposed gallery use at ground floor. The policies and Design Guide encourage providing a sense of separate enclosure of public and private spaces, as well as requiring private outdoor amenity space. However, the merits of this application include the fact that the applicant intends to live closely to the gallery and studios that the family would run themselves, as well as providing workshops for the public. Ordinarily it would not be viewed favourably if there were no private defensible amenity space for the new dwelling, especially a 4-bedroom family home, but although this set up would not usually be considered acceptable for a residential dwelling, a condition can be applied to ensure that the use of the dwelling units and the operation of the gallery are tied together and that the dwelling is occupied by the applicant’s family only, because there is no differentiation available between the use of the external space for both types of user.
The Planning Officer reported that Policy A2 and the Design Code require convenient and discreet bin storage, which should be enclosed, secure and visually attractive. Whilst bin storage has not been included within the plans, it is considered that this could be adequately secured within the curtilage and a condition is proposed to secure the precise details for this.
The Planning Officer reported that having considered the details provided, subject to the recommended conditions, the proposal is considered acceptable and, subject to receipt of suitable means to secure financial contributions for mitigation, will comply with policies CS1, CS2, CS8, CS9, CS10, CS13, CS15, CS16, GSP5, GSP8, A1, A2, E1, H4, C1 and I1. The principle of development is considered acceptable, and the design and amenity impacts will be appropriate provided a condition is applied to ensure that the gallery and residential unit are occupied by the applicant and thereafter remain in linked ownership.
The Planning Officer reported that the Conservation Officer had no objection, but recommended a number of pre-commencement conditions to agree further details of windows, materials, staircase and fire surround details. However, the majority of these, except those relating to external works, will be agreed under the listed building consent application rather than the change of use.
The Planning Officer reported that there was a typo in the wording of condition 5 which would be corrected by officers.
The Planning Officer reported that it is recommended that application 06/24/0449/F should be resolved to be approved under delegated authority to officers subject to securing payment of the GIRAMS and Open Space Contribution prior to permission being granted, or prior completion of a suitable legal agreement to ensure payments are made prior to occupation, and subject to the proposed conditions listed in the agenda report (to be amended or modified as necessary).
Councillor Martin asked for clarification in regard to the fire safety aspect of the application and why the Council did not follow up and confirm that the relevant fire safety work had been completed to standard. The Planning Officer explained that the planning application could not be held back due to fire risk and safety issues which would still need to be resolved through the Building Regulations and other processes but any comments from the committee would be passed on to the applicant's agent.
The Development Manager reported that, in some cases, a concession might be available for listed buildings, and in respect of fire safety, for example, fire retardant paint can sometimes be used in place of the installation of a fire door in a Listed Building and that this would be looked at separately to the planning application which, would ideally not be delayed whilst these issues were investigated, but there would be an opportunity to consider those aspects if changes to the designs were required for building regulations when the time comes for those to be addressed.
Councillor Martin reported that she would feel much better if the applicant was required to submit photographic evidence of the fire safety works carried out to the building or tht an officer had been out to inspect them. The Planning Officer reported that this would fall under the remit of a Building Control Officer. The Development Manage reminded the committee that this did not have to be a Council employed building inspector.
Councillor Capewell suggested that high risk catering equipment such as a commercial deep fat fryer should not be installed in the coffee shop on the ground floor as this would lower the risk of a fire breaking out in this area.
The Development Manager reported that it would be unreasonable to condition that the coffee shop could not sell chips and there were alternative ways of achieving the same fire safety goals.
Mr Higgins, the applicant, addressed the committee and reported the salient areas of his application. Mr Higgins and his wife Moira, had a long association with artists in the Great Yarmouth area and they had the vision to turn the building into a similar enterprise as similar ones at Kettles Yard, Cambridge and the Sainsbury's Centre, Norwich. They had talked to English Heritage and asked for their advice and planned to host two main exhibitions a year to showcase home grown talent. The Coffee Shop was not a major part of the project it was an add-on for customers to enjoy refreshments after visiting the gallery or taking part in the workshops.
Councillor Boyd reported that he welcomed the application which would give an uplift to the South Quay area following the closure of the Nelson Museum and he proposed that the application be approved.
Councillor Annison reported that he thought that this was a fantastic opportunity for the borough to showcase the talents of its local artists and that he fully supported the application and seconded the motion for approval.
Councillor Martin welcomed the positive project which was inclusive of the local schools and would showcase the creative talent of our town.
The Chair, who was a ward councillor for the Nelson Ward, reported that he fully supported the application to improve the cultural offering at South Quay and he commended the applicants for investing in our borough. He hoped that the gallery and workshops would become a hive of activity and bring visitors into the borough and benefit the cultural learning of local residents and schoolchildren.
Following an unanimous vote, it was RESOLVED:-
That in regard to application number 06/24/0449/F, that the Committee delegate authority to Officers to approve the application and grant full planning permission subject to:-
(i) Prior receipt of the appropriate Public Open Space payment, or completion of a suitable Section 106 Agreement or unilateral undertaking to secure the planning obligations prior to first occupation of the dwelling; and,
(ii) Appropriate Conditions, including those listed in the Committee Report (to be modified as necessary – including at Condition 5); and,
(iii) An Informative being added to acknowledge the payment of GIRAMS and POS contributions, and/or use of any section 106 agreement.