Agenda item

Penman Spicer Community Hall, Park Lane, Melton Mowbray

Application:	21/00056/FUL
Location:	Penman Spicer Community Hall, Park Lane, Melton Mowbray, LE13 0PT
Proposal:	Conversion of existing Penman Spicer Community Hall to provide x5 studio 1 bed and 2 bedroom apartments and associated alterations and extensions

 

The Senior Planning Officer (RR) addressed the Committee and provided a summary of the application and that there had been further discussions between the Case Officer and the agent regarding the location of the wheelie bins storage which the conditions would cover. There was also reference to the scooter charging and cycle storage.

 

It was also noted from dialogue with the agent that there had been a decline in community use at the site and the investment, repair and upgrade needed to make it fit for purpose was not viable hence this application for redevelopment.

 

The Senior Planning Officer reported that a letter of objection had been received which disputed the lack of use of the community facility and considered that the decline had been due to a lack of maintenance and promotion of the site which had made potential users look elsewhere.

 

With regard to the proposed flats meeting the decent homes standard, this was covered by condition 6 and there would need to be assurances signed off by Environmental Health and any breaches could be subject to enforcement action.

 

The Senior Planning Officer did not know who owned the brick wall at the rear of the property.

 

It was raised that with regard to paragraph 4.11 of the report which referred to alternative community facilities being Springfield Street and The Cove, these were currently not available for community use and their future was unknown. Clarification was provided that the statement had come from the agent that these other community sites were available for use.

 

Members were concerned that such a statement was published in a report that was untrue and had not been checked or validated. Clarification was provided that this part of the report conveyed the applicant’s justification as submitted.

 

There was also concern that the development would impact upon a sense of place, heritage, use of the town, importance to visitors, economy and crime.

 

Due to the above concerns, there was a suggestion as to deferring the application however it was noted that the speakers needed to address the Committee before a proposal could be put.

 

Pursuant to Chapter 2, Part 9, Paragraphs 2.8-2.28 of the Council’s Constitution in relation to  public speaking at Planning Committee, the Chair allowed the following to give a 3 minute presentation:

 

·         Laura McMullen of Hayward McMullen, Agent

Ms McMullen responded to a Member query that it had been the Planning Officer who had added the specific alternative community facilities into the report and not the agent as suggested.

She advised that the wall at the rear of the property would be landscaped as part of the scheme and the target audience was the smaller, starter homes’ market.

 

·         Councillor Chris Fisher, Ward Councillor

 

During discussion the following points were noted:

 

·           Clarification was provided to demonstrate that the references to alternative community facilities were drawn directly from the applicant’s Design and Access Statement submitted in January 2021 by means of reading its content.

·           There was a view that the Council should be looking to improve community centres and assets and provide more space for leisure and activities for young people and young families.

·           It was felt that covid had increased people’s desire to spend more time with those in their communities and this proposal would create a significant loss when the Council should be cultivating community cohesion.

·           The proposal was for squashed housing and was to the detriment of enhancing and promoting well-located community space.

·           There was concern at the health and safety as well as fire risk in housing the wheelie bins in porches.

·           It was noted that older people also could make use of this type of community space should it be retained.

·           There was concern at the current dilapidated condition of the facility and whether it was viable to refurbish and be maintained in the future.

·           It was felt that 5 units was too many in such a space and there were inconsistencies in that there was only cycle access for 2 of the units.

·           Members considered that they needed to raise standards and although smaller housing was needed, this proposal was not fit for purpose and was poorly designed.

·           It was felt that more time and thought was needed to design something that fitted with the heritage of the building and took into account better and safer storage arrangements for bins and cycles etc.

 

Councillor Browne proposed that the application be refused due to being in conflict with Local Plan Policies D1 and EN13. Councillor Pritchett seconded the motion.

 

RESOLVED

 

That the application be REFUSED, contrary to the Officer recommendation, due to being in conflict with Local Plan Policies D1 and EN13. The proposal represents overdevelopment resulting in inadequate provision of facilities for residents such as storage for bins and cycles and would be contrary to Policy D1 of the Adopted Melton Local Plan.

 

The development would fail to make a positive contribution to the

character and distinctiveness of the Conservation Area with which it is located and  is not a sue which would contribute to the conservation of the special character of the Conservation Area. It would therefore be contrary to Policy EN13 of the Adopted Melton Local Plan.

 

(Unanimous)