Decision details

The Committee received an application for a Certificate of Lawfulness under section 192 for the proposed use of the building for general educational use falling within Use Class D1 (Non Residential Institutions) as defined by the Town and County Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended).

 

The Committee received representations in objection to the application from local residents.

 

The representations covered the following issues:

       i.          The application process was long.

     ii.          Took issue with details of evidence submitted regarding current dance school/studio use. Suggested this was not credible.

   iii.          Suggested that the 2014 planning consent as dance school/studio had not been implemented, therefore the 1997 permission was still the extant permission instead.

a.    Expressed concern about the scale of air conditioning equipment on the building.

b.    Noise from the air conditioning equipment was acceptable.

c.    The revised location of the air conditioning plant had been refused planning permission in a Section 73 application that was being appealed.

   iv.          Suggested the current application should be deferred until the Section 73 appeal decision was known.

 

Councillor Robertson (Petersfield Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          The loss of a community dance building to general education use was an important issue.

     ii.          Suggested the 1997 planning permission was still in effect as the 2014 Section 73 application was still being contested.

   iii.          Referred to Queen’s Counsel’s advice on P252 of the Officer’s report.

   iv.          Change of use should not occur until the Section 73 position was clarified.

    v.          A Certificate of Lawfulness could not be issued without precise and unambiguous evidence from the Applicant.

   vi.          The Applicant needed to materially demonstrate that at least 10% of the building was given over to dance school/studio use. 30 – 40% was better. Under 10% was unacceptable. It was unclear if the Applicant met the 10%+ criteria.

 vii.          Took issue with evidence submitted by the Applicant that dance use was continuing at the date of application in July 2017. Suggested this was not credible.

viii.          Suggested the applicant had an unfortunate history for cutting corners on applications.

 

The Chair noted that an error had occurred in the order of speaking as he had allowed the Ward Councillor to speak before the Agent. The Chair invited the Agent to speak then invited the Ward Councillor to speak again if he wished to respond to any of the Agent’s points.

 

Mr Grimbley (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

Councillor Robertson (Petersfield Ward Councillor) made the following points:

       i.          The building was used for activities other than dance before 28 July 2017.

     ii.          Photographs submitted do not show what activities people were doing. Specific evidence of dance use was needed.

   iii.          Re-iterated:

a.    Evidence submitted was ambiguous and needed to be clearer before a Certificate of Lawfulness could be issued.

b.    Concern over loss of a community facility.

 

The Legal Advisor said the enforcement notice served in respect of the alleged breach of condition regarding roof plant location was suspended while it was being appealed therefore Members should not defer the application in front of them to await the appeal outcome. The Committee had to consider the evidence in the report against the criteria of “more likely than not” as opposed to (the higher benchmark) “beyond reasonable doubt”.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 5 votes to 3) to grant the application for a Certificate of Lawfulness in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report.