Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Issue
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.