Development Control Committee
17 December 2004
Reference:
2004/2431/01/GRA, 2004/2199/01/CAC and 2004/2198/01/LBC
Proposal:
2004/2431/01/GRA - City Council Development: Change of
use from snooker hall, storage and retail premises to bar at
basement and ground floor (live music at basement);
offices, storage and studios at ground floor; offices (Class
B1) at first floor; artists studios at second and third floors
and exhibition area at fourth floor; alterations to roof and
elevations; provision of central courtyard and erection of
single storey lobby and corridor across rear courtyard as
amended by plans received 30 November 2004
2004/2199/01/CAC - Conservation Area Consent:
Demolition of unlisted single storey building at western end
of inner courtyard and unlisted single storey
garage/workshop to north east end of rear courtyard and
external rear courtyard walls as amended by plans received
30 November 2004
2004/2198/01/LBC - Listed Building Application: Installation
of replacement shopfront, frontages and entrance doors,
demolition of internal walls, partitions and staircase and
installation of replacement walls and fire escape doors,
formation of a new main stair and lift from ground floor to
basement levels only, and erection of a single storey lobby
and corridor across High Bridge rear courtyard to Wards
Warehouse as amended by plans received 30 November
2004
Location:
Waygood Gallery, 31-39 High Bridge, Newcastle upon Tyne
Applicant:
Newcastle City Council – Head of Arts and Culture
Report by:
Acting Head of Planning & Transportation
Ward Implications:
Westgate
Planning Control Area 1
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1.
These three applications form part of a wider scheme to see the substantial
redevelopment and expansion of the Waygood Gallery on High Bridge. The
applications propose to bring a large amount of currently unused space back into
economic and cultural use by providing a significant amount of new commercial office
space, a new café/bar with live music venue and new artist facilities and associated
gallery space.
2.
Planning permission was granted in July 2002 under reference 2002/1497/01/GRA for
the change of use from snooker hall, storage and retail premises to café/bar with live
music (basement), art gallery with café/bar (ground floor), offices and education centre
(first floor), artists studios and workspaces (third floor) and offices/conference facilities
and artists flats (fourth floor). The applications currently under consideration build
upon this base. Amended plans were received from the applicant’s agent on 30/11/04
which aim to address a number of comments made by consultees and officer
comments.
3.
The applications cover a number of buildings including the Grade II Listed Wards
office building (ground floor and basement) immediately fronting High Bridge, some
low quality infill buildings in a courtyard immediately behind the offices and the Wards
former printworks located yet further behind in the form of a u-shaped building range
with courtyard and small garage at its centre.
4.
Currently the buildings have numerous occupiers and users comprising Crown
Hairdressing, Aitkens Electronics and Maverick Clothing (to the ground floor front of
the office building and fronting High Bridge), Riley Snooker Club (ground and first floor
of printworks to the rear) Waygood Gallery (2nd floor and above of printworks).
Aitkens Electronics would remain resident in their current premises, whilst the
remaining occupiers would vacate their units (aside from Waygood). The upper floors
of the office building are used by various commercial and professional companies but
no works to these areas are proposed. The potential impact of the works on this area
is however an important consideration.
5.
The applications cover a variety of works involving the Wards office building fronting
High Bridge, an inner courtyard, and the former Wards printworks building towards the
rear of the site, a u-shaped range of buildings with another courtyard at its centre. A
summary of the works (starting from the front of the site and working back for clarity)
is included below.
SCHEDULE OF WORKS
6.
The planning application proposes the change of use of Maverick Clothing (A1) to a
café/bar (A3) at ground floor with live music at basement level. The music venue
would be located in the basement of the former printworks and accessed via the
current basement of Mavericks, which would also contain new toilet facilities, new
disabled lift shaft and staircase. The performance area itself would be located
towards the rear of the site. The front entrance door to the café/bar would be replaced
to open out to comply with fire/health and safety regulations, ramped to comply with
DDA standards and is proposed to be a replica of the style of the existing shopfronts.
The rear wall of this unit would be removed to be replaced with a full height and
contemporary glazed wall with new double doors leading out to a small terrace
stepped down to the courtyard with three steps. There would also be a ramped
approach (on the western site boundary) leading to the rear of the proposed café/bar
through a new wide doorway and giving easy access to the proposed disabled lift
facility. Separating these two elements would be a new stairway leading to the
basement, accessed internally. No details of bar fit out have been supplied at this
stage. At basement level, accessed either via the new lift or staircase, new toilet
facilities would be provided toward the lower front of the site with little disruption to the
existing built fabric. New double doors would break through the rear basement wall
into the live music venue beneath the first courtyard area, which can be crossed to
access the base of the new circulation tower in the 2nd courtyard providing an
alternative fire escape route to the rear of the site.
7.
The principal entrance to the office building currently located between Maverick and
Aitkens would remain essentially untouched. The only works in this area would be the
removal of a double set of internal doors in the approach corridor and a further
rationalising of rear exit doors leading to the courtyard, none of which are of value.
The replacement of the rear exit doors would be done in conjunction with the
demolition of the low value rear buildings to the rear of Maverick (see below for more
detail of these works). The new exit door would break out of the rear of the building in
a position adjacent to the proposed terrace steps leading from the back of the new
café/bar. The primary internal staircase giving access to the commercial uses on the
floors above would remain unaffected.
8.
Aitkens Electronics would remain virtually unaffected except that the present rear
basement storage area would be partially sacrificed to the music venue use, mainly
for plant and mechanical services (to be substituted by extra storage area gained in
the former Crown Hairdressers basement to be provided to Aitkens via a new link
door). The tenant of Aitkens would remain in the property so far as we are aware.
9.
Crown Hairdressing would become the main public entrance to the gallery behind
(currently accessed through the adjacent alleyway). This development would
therefore provide a new public face to the gallery which presently is almost hidden.
The unit would receive a completely new and contemporary shopfront of full length
glazing, giving a lightweight and transparent appearance. New double doors would
allow easy access into the building, followed by a ramped approach into the reception
area which would be split along its full length, with one side raised to provide reception
and ancillary retail facilities associated with the gallery. This raised ‘platform’ would
be accessible by new steps towards the shop front or via the aforementioned ramp
towards the shop rear. All non-load bearing internal walls (all modern partitions)
would be demolished to create an open plan area. Maintaining the lightweight theme,
a new full height glazed wall would be provided to the rear of this space with new
double doors leading out into what is currently the first courtyard area and the
proposed pedestrian tunnel (see below). The basement of Crown Hairdressers would
be sealed off from ground floor access, to be utilised for replacement storage space
for Aitkens next door and mechanical plant and machinery associated with the music
venue further back into the site. Consequently access into this basement area would
be via either Aitkens or the proposed café/bar/music venue.
10.
The first courtyard area would accommodate the following works. The existing low
quality single storey garage/workshop buildings located immediately behind Maverick
and used currently by Maverick for storage and toilet accommodation would be
removed to re-open this first courtyard area. These buildings are later additions to the
principal office building and are considered to be of little or no value. This element of
the project is covered by the Conservation Area Consent application. In their place
would be the two new entrance ways into the rear of the proposed cafe/bar, one via a
ramp and one via three steps leading to a small terrace. Separating the two doors
would be a new brick built housing for the new internal staircase leading to the
basement. This staircase housing would project out into the courtyard by
approximately 4.5 metres and its proposed materials would be conditioned to ensure it
does not detract from the adjacent listed office building. This area would also see the
development of a glazed pedestrian tunnel linking the proposed gallery entrance to
the gallery building itself. This new covered tunnel would link directly from the double
doors at the rear of what is now Crown Hairdressing to, via a glazed landing
courtyard, up a gently sloping route across the courtyard. The glazed link would be of
solid construction to the north eastern elevation (looking out of the site) but would
allow transparency into the courtyard area for visitors using the tunnel. The tunnel
would then link up with the existing tunnel into the 2nd courtyard which would also
incorporate a gentle slope, retaining the exposed white glazed brick of the former
printworks. This part of the scheme has been amended in line with officer comments
to retain the glazed bricks and cast iron ‘glinter’ at the tunnel entrance column. The
courtyard would also see the removal of the stepped entrance and doorway to Riley’s
Snooker Hall on the south elevation of the printworks building with replacement
windows to match, further opening up this space.
11.
The u-shaped range of buildings to the rear of the site, the Wards Warehouse or
former print works, would experience the majority of the conversion works with all the
building proposed to be utilised. Essentially the current exposed courtyard space
would be utilised to provide a new vertical circulation tower with ‘scissor’ staircase and
elevator, a new goods elevator would be provided to the rear of the building, the entire
first floor would be converted into new commercial office space to let, the amount of
studio space would be roughly doubled and the current exhibition space would be
vastly improved through the creation of a dedicated new floor level at roof level
incorporating glazed viewing boxes giving views over the city. A detailed description of
the works is given below.
12.
At basement level the live music venue would be developed in conjunction with the
proposed café/bar. Links would be opened up in order that the proposed toilet
facilities beneath the bar are accessible to the music venue. Towards the rear of the
site, the basement would accommodate a series of storage rooms and boiler/plant
rooms. New stairs and ramps would funnel pedestrians towards the two new
proposed fire escape staircases leading to fire escape doors in the rear elevation,
leading out onto the TJ Hughes yard. Finally a new goods lift, with direct access from
the rear yard, would also be provided at the rearmost corner of the site providing the
single point of access to the floors above from the basement at this point in the
building.
13.
The ground floor would link up more directly with the remainder of the scheme as a
whole primarily via the new glazed pedestrian link and existing glazed brick tunnel.
This walkway would lead into the 2nd courtyard which is currently open save for a
single storey garage/workshop to the north east end of the courtyard. It is proposed
that this building is removed to make way for the new pedestrian lift to all floors above.
The existing courtyard walls would be replaced with a mixture of brickwork and
diffusing glass panels or glass bricks to allow for the creation of the transparent
vertical circulation tower in the courtyard’s centre. This tower would rise the full height
of the building via a scissor staircase giving allowing views into and out of the
staircase. The remaining spaces on the ground floor would be used for meeting
rooms, storage areas, archives, studios, seminar space, kitchens, toilets (repeated on
the 1st to 3rd floors also), and an internal refuse store. A number of windows and
doorways would be created in the rear wall to provide lighting for the new ground floor
studios and access/egress for fire escapes and goods lift as appropriate. In addition
the ground floor would accommodate the principal offices for the gallery.
14.
The first floor would be used principally for office space which is proposed to be let out
on a commercial basis. The same core facilities running up the centre of the building
(toilets, circulation tower, goods lift, pedestrian lift etc.) are also proposed. The offices
are to be developed on an open plan basis at present with the transparent circulation
tower at their centre.
15.
The proposed second and third floor layouts are virtually identical in their use, both
being given over almost exclusively to artist studio space. In all, 32 studios are
proposed (18 on 2nd floor and 14 on 3rd floor) together with 2 project rooms. 4 new
windows are to be provided on the rear wall and 2 on the eastern wall, to be repeated
on both floors. The core circulation facilities and services are to be found on both
floors again.
16.
The fourth floor would see the removal of the existing slated pitched roof to the attic
storey along with the steel arched trusses to the lower wing. This removal would
necessitate the removal of approximately 6 metres of existing walling to the south
elevation to be replaced with the set back aluminium clad fourth floor. Materials would
be conditioned. This storey would be replaced with a new exhibition space set back
from the lower wall line with a new ‘saw tooth’ roof line. This design would allow
substantial light penetration into this space. The central circulation tower would be
maintained to this level with solid walls, presumably to create further wall space for
hanging exhibits. In addition the central tower would extend to cantilever out over the
north east building line to create a viewing platform for visitors looking south east.
This platform would project over the car park of an adjacent landowner and would
require the consent of that landowner in order for the development to be implemented.
At the opposite end of the central tower a further full length viewing area (no
cantilever) would be constructed looking south west over the city. Cloakrooms, toilets
and limited storage would also be provided at this level.
17.
At roof level plant rooms are proposed to be located above the goods lift, fourth floor
toilet area and staircase. Mechanical plant is proposed to be located above the goods
lift and toilet area as these are lower than the surrounding roof and parapet wall to the
west and would be hidden to a large degree. Large rooflights would be provided
either side of the circulation tower to allow light down into the central well, providing
light to all the floors served by the tower.
18.
The western elevation, containing the proposed fire escape doors and new studio
windows, is yet to be finalised in terms of finish and ultimate window location. This is
due to the construction of this elevation and would be determined at construction. It
may be necessary to replace the existing steel cladding with either profiled steel
around new openings or translucent sheeting over the whole façade. Such an
unresolved matter would need to be conditioned.
CONSULTATION AND PUBLICITY
19.
Upon receipt of the applications neighbour consultation was carried out with numerous
properties on High Bridge, Grey Street, Market Street, Bigg Market, Grainger Street,
Old George Yard, Half Moon Yard and Dean Street.
20.
Local Ward members have been consulted. No comments have been received at the
time of writing.
21.
A site notice was displayed on 12 October 2004 expiring 2 November 2004.
22.
A press notice was displayed on 14 October 2004 expiring 4 November 2004.
23.
As a result of this consultation exercise 3 letters have been received (2 being from the
same company – SmithsonClarke) objecting to the proposals on the grounds of:




Loss of snooker facilities
Surplus of existing A3 uses in the area
Lack of soundproofing measures to insulate offices in 31-39 High Bridge
Lack of refuse storage for whole of Wards building.
24.
Recent correspondence with SmithsonClarke indicates that their objections would be
withdrawn if these issues can be resolved. An update on this can be reported to the
Committee.
25.
Public Health and Environmental Protection made the following comments:
Further to your recent memorandum concerning the above, my officers have no
objections to the proposal but would ask for the following conditions to be applied to
any permission granted:
A3 use (ie the bar at basement)
Sound Insulation with Specific Details (Change of Use)
Self Closing Doors
Entrance and Exit Doors
Bottle Storage
Details and capacity of refuse storage
Details of plant and noise generation levels
No openable windows
Amplifiers
Restriction of drinking activities
Details of fume extract facilities with filters
Details of odour control measures
B1 Use
Details and capacity of refuse storage
Details of plant and noise generation levels
Artist studios and exhibition area
Details of plant and noise generation levels
26.
English Heritage responded but had no comment to make.
27.
The Newcastle Conservation Advisory Panel (NCAP) made the following
observations:
The proposals appear to be a confident and innovative approach to the provision of a
modern art gallery in a sensitive city centre location. The scheme appears well
thought through and has started with a sensitive understanding of the buildings’
character, fabric and spaces. The demolition is acceptable. The alterations to the rear
warehouse element are broadly acceptable; the use of a top lit ‘saw tooth’ roof is an
interesting nod to the industrial nature of the building…the panel agreed that the loss
of the altered Crown Hairdressing shopfront is a price worth paying to achieve the
desired scheme. The restoration of the other features of this listed building group
(including the other shop fronts) should be of outstanding conservation-led quality to
counterbalance the loss. The white glazed bricks are an important aspect of the
building’s character and should remain definitive features of the building in the final
scheme.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROVISIONS
28.
Current national Planning Policy Guidance relevant to this case is as follows:




29.
PPG1 – General policies and principles
PPG15 – Planning and the historic environment
PPG16 – Archaeology and planning
PPG24 – Planning and noise
The following Unitary Development Plan policies are relevant to the determination of
this application:
C4.1
THE FOLLOWING SITES AND AREAS OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL INTEREST ARE
IDENTIFIED FOR THE PURPOSES OF POLICY C4:
Other sites and areas of archaeological interest as defined on the Proposals Map
47.
R2
City Centre
THE CORE SHOPPING AREA OF THE CITY CENTRE WILL CONTINUE TO BE
SUPPORTED AND DEVELOPED TO MAINTAIN ITS POSITION AS THE PRINCIPAL
SHOPPING LOCATION IN THE NORTHERN REGION BY:
A.
ENCOURAGING NEW DEVELOPMENT, REDEVELOPMENT AND
REFURBISHMENT WHICH WILL INCREASE THE RANGE AND QUALITY OF
FLOORSPACE;
B.
IMPROVING ACCESSIBILITY FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORT, SERVICE VEHICLES
AND CAR BORNE SHOPPERS;
C.
ENHANCING THE PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT;
D.
ENSURING THE CONTINUITY OF RETAILING WITHIN USE CLASS A1 ALONG
GROUND FLOOR PRIMARY SHOPPING FRONTAGES.
ED2.1 PLANNING PERMISSION WILL BE GRANTED FOR THE REFURBISHMENT OF
UNDERUSED HISTORIC BUILDINGS AND, WHERE APPROPRIATE, FOR A LIMITED
AMOUNT OF REDEVELOPMENT AT THE FOLLOWING LOCATIONS PROVIDED THAT
ANY PROPOSED SCHEME IS APPROPRIATE TO THE PARTICULAR SITE HAVING
REGARD TO THE POLICIES OF THE PLAN, PARTICULARLY CONCERNING LISTED
BUILDINGS AND CONSERVATION AREAS, AND ANY OTHER MATERIAL
CONSIDERATIONS.
1.
Binns Block (Market Street, Grainger Street, Bigg Market, High Bridge)
C3
DEVELOPMENT IN A CONSERVATION AREA WILL BE REQUIRED TO PRESERVE OR
ENHANCE ITS CHARACTER OR APPEARANCE: DEVELOPMENT WHICH WOULD
NEITHER PRESERVE NOR ENHANCE THE CHARACTER OR APPEARANCE OF THE
CONSERVATION AREA WILL NOT BE ALLOWED.
C2
ALTERATION OR EXTENSION OF A LISTED BUILDING OR OTHER DEVELOPMENT
WHICH WOULD HARM ITS ARCHITECTURAL OR HISTORIC INTEREST OR SETTING
WILL NOT BE ALLOWED.
C2.1
IF EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFY DEMOLITION OF THE WHOLE OR
SUBSTANTIAL PARTS OF A LISTED BUILDING, CONSENT WILL BE SUBJECT TO:
C3.1
A.
A REPLACEMENT DEVELOPMENT SCHEME HAVING BEEN GRANTED
PLANNING PERMISSION AND,
B.
THE RELEVANT CONTRACT CONCERNING THE INTENDED DEVELOPMENT
HAVING BEEN COMPLETED, AND
C.
A SCHEME FOR THE RECORDING AND/OR SALVAGE OF THE BUILDING
HAVING BEEN APPROVED AND UNDERTAKEN.
DEMOLITION OF AN UNLISTED BUILDING IN A CONSERVATION AREA WILL ONLY BE
ALLOWED IF:
A.
THE BUILDING IS OF LITTLE MERIT AND MAKES NO SIGNIFICANT
CONTRIBUTION TO THE CHARACTER OF THE CONSERVATION AREA;
B.
THE REPLACEMENT DEVELOPMENT WOULD CONTRIBUTE TO THE
PRESERVATION OR ENHANCEMENT OF THE CHARACTER OF THE
CONSERVATION AREA; AND
C.
A CONTRACT FOR THE APPROVED REPLACEMENT DEVELOPMENT HAS BEEN
LET.
EN1.1 ALL DEVELOPMENT WILL BE REQUIRED TO MEET HIGH STANDARDS OF DESIGN IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING PRINCIPLES:
A.
RETAINING THE BEST BUILDINGS;
B.
TAKING FULL ADVANTAGE OF LANDFORM, LANDSCAPE AND OTHER SITE
FEATURES;
C.
INTEGRATING DEVELOPMENT INTO ITS SETTING WITH REGARD TO THE
SCALE AND PATTERN OF SURROUNDING BUILDINGS AND SPACES, AND
LINKS IN THE PEDESTRIAN ROUTE NETWORK;
D.
RELATING TO THE MATERIALS AND DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS OF
SURROUNDING BUILT DEVELOPMENT;
E.
FACILITATING SAFE PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENT;
H2
F.
DESIGNING FOR EQUAL ACCESSIBILITY FOR ALL USERS REGARDLESS OF
AGE OR DISABILITIES, AND MINIMISING OPPORTUNITIES FOR CRIME;
G.
ENSURING NEW BUILDINGS ARE ADAPTABLE TO USE FOR OTHER
PURPOSES;
H.
A COMPREHENSIVE AND CO-ORDINATED APPROACH TO NEW
DEVELOPMENTS OF MORE THAN ONE BUILDING;
I.
INCORPORATING HARD AND SOFT LANDSCAPING AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF
DESIGN, MAXIMISING TREE PLANTING WHERE APPROPRIATE, AND
PROVIDING FOR ITS LONG TERM MAINTENANCE;
J.
MINIMISING ADVERSE IMPACTS ON NEARBY LAND USES;
K.
MINIMISING IMPACTS ON ACTIVITIES ON NEIGHBOURING OPEN LAND AND
COUNTRYSIDE; AND
L.
MAXIMISING THE USE OF BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES AND LAND FORMS TO
SCREEN NOISE SENSITIVE DEVELOPMENT AND SPACES.
DEVELOPMENT WHICH WOULD HARM THE AMENITY OF ANY DWELLING, OR GROUP
OF DWELLINGS WILL NOT BE ALLOWED. IMPACT ON RESIDENTIAL AMENITY WILL
BE ASSESSED WITH PARTICULAR REGARD TO:
A.
PROTECTING THE CHARACTER OF THE LOCALITY AND OF THE EXISTING
BUILDING IN THE CASE OF ALTERATIONS, EXTENSIONS OR CONVERSIONS;
B.
PROTECTING TREES AND OTHER SOFT LANDSCAPING OF AMENITY VALUE;
C.
ENSURING SATISFACTORY DAYLIGHT, SUNLIGHT, OUTLOOK AND PRIVACY
FOR ALL DWELLINGS, EXISTING AND PROPOSED, PARTICULARLY IN
RELATION TO GOOD EXISTING STANDARDS IN THE LOCALITY;
D.
AVOIDING THE INTRODUCTION OF SUCH ADDITIONAL ACCESSES, TRAFFIC
OR PARKING AS WOULD INCREASE VISUAL INTRUSION, NOISE OR
DISTURBANCE, OR PREJUDICE ROAD SAFETY; AND
E.
ENSURING THAT NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND/OR ASSOCIATED
OPERATIONS WILL NOT HARM RESIDENTIAL AMENITY THROUGH AN
INCREASE IN NOISE, DISTURBANCE, SMELLS, FUMES OR OTHER HARMFUL
EFFECTS.
POL7
DEVELOPMENT WHICH GENERATES NOISE SUFFICIENT SIGNIFICANTLY TO AFFECT
EXISTING AMBIENT SOUND OR VIBRATION LEVELS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS OR
OTHER NOISE SENSITIVE AREAS WILL ONLY BE ALLOWED IF IT COMPLIES WITH THE
ATTENUATION AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL
POLICY STATEMENT 22 - NOISE AND VIBRATION.
T4.5
DEVELOPMENT SHALL PROVIDE PARKING WHICH SATISFIES OPERATIONAL
REQUIREMENTS. PROVISION IN EXCESS OF THIS REQUIREMENT WILL BE
DETERMINED IN RELATION TO THE IMPACT OF DEVELOPMENT ON THE
ENVIRONMENT. PARKING PROVISION WILL BE MET BY:
A.
THE IMPLEMENTATION OF PARKING STANDARDS ON SITE; OR
B.
THE PAYMENT, BY DEVELOPERS TO THE CITY COUNCIL, OF A COMMUTED
SUM SO THAT ALTERNATIVE PROVISION CAN BE MADE ELSEWHERE; OR
C.
THE PROVISION OF CAR PARKING SPACES BY THE DEVELOPER ON AN
ACCEPTABLE SITE ELSEWHERE IN THE LOCALITY.
T7.1
WHERE A PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WOULD GENERATE TRAFFIC CAUSING
DEMONSTRABLE DANGER OR INCONVENIENCE ON THE PUBLIC HIGHWAY, OR
OTHER SERIOUS HARM TO THE LOCAL ENVIRONMENT, AND WHICH COULD NOT BE
SATISFACTORILY MITIGATED BY PLANNING CONDITIONS AND/OR PLANNING
OBLIGATIONS, PERMISSION WILL BE REFUSED.
TL1
THE PROVISION OF NEW CULTURAL, ENTERTAINMENT AND RECREATION FACILITIES
WILL BE ENCOURAGED, PARTICULARLY THOSE WHICH INCREASE THE
ATTRACTIVENESS OF THE CITY CENTRE.
Development Control Policy Statement 10 – Food and Drink Premises
Development Control Policy Statement 12 – Shop Fronts and Related Signage
Development Control Policy Statement 23 – Car Parking Standards
30.
In addition I also consider the Grainger Town Shopfront Design Guide to be of
relevance.
PLANNING ASSESSMENT
31.
Given the existing planning history of the site and extant planning permission I
consider that the main issues to be considered in the assessment of this application
are the impact of the proposals on the listed building, the impact of the proposals on
the character of the conservation area, and the impact of the proposals on the amenity
of the surrounding area. I also consider it is important to consider the likely benefits of
the development in terms of tourism and culture.
Impact on the Listed Building
32.
Section 16 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990
imposes a statutory duty on local planning authorities that, when considering
proposals for works to listed buildings, they must have special regard to the
desirability of preserving the building, its setting, or any of its special features. This
duty is translated via PPG15 into policy C2 of the UDP. Very few of the features of
this building specified in its 1990 list description would be affected. The elements
featured in the listing (and those likely to be affected by the works) are the ground
floor shopfronts, most notably the Crown Hairdressers shopfront. However this
shopfront is only described in the listing as “rendered front with doorway”, which
suggests its historic value is limited, and that it’s current form is a modern
interpretation. The replacement shopfront is unashamedly contemporary but I
consider the design to be sufficiently lightweight and transparent as to be considered
acceptable, and appropriate to its use as the confident public entranceway to a
contemporary art centre. Furthermore the use of seamless glazing has been
accepted elsewhere and on more prestigious listed buildings within the city, and to
good effect, and does little to draw the eye away from the historic character of the
building itself.
33.
The Aitkens shopfront would remain unaffected and the Maverick shopfront, being one
of the few remaining intact shopfronts of merit is being retained virtually unaltered.
Initially it was proposed to replace the Maverick door with a plain glazed door opening
outwards. This was considered unacceptable in the context of the surrounding
original fabric. The agent has amended this element to replace this with a door of
exactly the same design. Large scale details of this element could be conditioned.
The outward opening of the door and the proposed slope is also considered
acceptable and required under DDA legislation.
34.
The rear elevation of the listed building would also be altered, although this elevation
has seen a considerable amount of alteration over time (which has had the effect of
cumulatively eroding its character) and is in fact substantially obscured by the existing
low quality garage/workshops at the rear of Maverick. On balance I consider that the
works to remove these buildings would improve the overall appearance of this back
wall, even considering the impact of the proposed new entranceways on the ground
floor, by removing the most unsightly elements which actively detract from its
appearance.
35.
The glazed pedestrian tunnel, proposed to link the front and rear buildings, would be
of a simple design and materials can be conditioned to ensure that its impact is
complimentary. The amended plans now propose to retain the characteristic glazed
white bricks within the rear tunnel and cast iron glinter which is a positive addition and
reminder of the site’s industrial heritage.
36.
In terms of the internal operations proposed, I consider that the works are broadly
acceptable, subject to the submission of sections and details regarding the proposed
new staircase and lift, to be secured by condition.
37.
Overall I consider the works to be innovative and sufficiently sympathetic to the
existing fabric of the listed building to meet the requirements of Policy C2 of the UDP.
In addition I consider that the limited physical changes proposed to the building would
enhance the current appearance and setting of the building.
Impact on the conservation area
38.
Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 Act
also requires that, when determining proposals within conservation areas, the local
planning authority must pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or
enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area, reflected in Policy
C3 of the UDP. In the context of this application this mainly relates to the impact of
any physical external works or the demolition of the unlisted buildings in the first
courtyard.
39.
The external treatments and the additional building works to the roof of the buildings
to the rear (the former print works) of the site have the potential to impact on the
character and appearance of the conservation area. All materials are subject to
discussion and it is recommended that they are conditioned to require the submission
of samples. I do not consider however there to be a problem in principle in securing
the use of appropriate materials for this area. As a further point I consider it important
to retain as much of the existing built fabric as possible within the constraints of the
necessary works.
40.
The proposed roof works add very little in terms of the overall height of the buildings to
the rear of the site. The proposed saw tooth roof would increase the building height
from approximately 21 metres to 22 metres and I consider that given the site’s back
land location its additional impact is likely to be minimal if at all, especially if control is
retained over use of materials as proposed. Notwithstanding the height and materials
issue, I consider the design is an appropriate response to the site’s industrial past and
one suited to the use as an exhibition space. These building operations would
necessitate the removal of the existing top storey which contains an interesting
selection of braced roof beams. Such features, although not of huge historic
significance, are nevertheless of local importance and I consider a condition requiring
a programme of archaeological recording is undertaken before demolition. The other
principle intervention in this building is the addition of the central glazed circulation
tower. This would be constructed within the space currently used as a courtyard and
would allow for much easier distribution around the building whilst at the same making
an important contribution to the nature and character of the existing building. The
innovative design would allow vertical shafts of light either side of the scissor stairs to
permeate through the rest of the building through the use of glazed elevations and
glass bricks. I consider that this feature makes a positive contribution to the character
of the resulting building and consequently the conservation area. The loss of the
existing internal facing elevations are regrettable, however this is considered
acceptable when balanced against the benefits of the new circulation tower.
41.
The removal of the single storey garages and workshop building in both courtyards is
not considered to be an issue of contention. These buildings make no positive
contribution to either the setting of the listed building or the character and appearance
of the conservation area and their removal is supported.
Impact on the amenity of the area
42.
The development of the Waygood Gallery itself is unlikely to create significant
problems harmful to amenity in principle. Notwithstanding that, the issues of internal
refuse storage and plant noise generation is one which we take seriously and is
applicable to the gallery. However I consider that such matters can be dealt with by
condition.
43.
In terms of the proposed A3 use there is greater scope for comment reflected in the
suggested conditions at the end of this report. The letters of objection from
SmithsonClarke, solicitors who occupy the above floors of the Wards office building,
raised concerns of noise disturbance and adequacy of refuse storage (for all
occupiers of the building). I consider that both are valid points of concern, although it
has been pointed out to SmithsonClarke that the applicant cannot be held responsible
for the provision of refuse storage in excess of the likely requirement for the
development proposed. There is limited residential development in this area but the
impact on commercial activity requires consideration. Noise disturbance has been
raised in correspondence with the applicant’s agent who has agreed to supply details
of noise insulation measures as required under the proposed conditions.
Consequently I consider this issue is resolvable with no adverse impact on
surrounding land users. Similarly appropriate conditions would be imposed to secure
dedicated refuse storage facilities for all elements of the scheme to avoid refuse being
stored on the highway.
44.
In conclusion I consider that the development would not lead to a loss of amenity for
neighbouring properties subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
Benefits to tourism and culture
45.
Promoting the growth of tourism and the development of tourist related developments
is a clear aim of adopted development plan policy. In addition, the lack of exhibition
space is specifically identified in the UDP as a weakness which needs addressing. I
consider that this development addresses both.
46.
Policy TL1 of the UDP states quite clearly that new cultural, entertainment and
recreation facilities would be encouraged and particularly those which increase the
attractiveness of the city centre. Again I consider that the development as proposed
meets those aims completely. I also consider that the development would also
revitalise a currently much underused building and improve the appearance and
setting of a listed building. This is a point which is again directly referenced in the
UDP as a positive factor in helping to revitalise historic yet underused and even run
down areas.
47.
In conclusion I consider that the development would bring significant benefits to
tourism and culture in the city whilst contributing to the long term maintenance of an
underused building.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
48.
In conclusion I consider that, subject to the conditions proposed below, the proposed
development in the form of the three submitted applications is acceptable and in line
with national and local planning policy. The proposals would undoubtedly affect the
appearance and character of both the listed building and the conservation area, but I
consider this impact to be beneficial and in the longer term to lead to a revitalisation of
this particular area of the city centre. I have considered the design of the new
shopfronts and elevational alterations against the Grainger Town Shopfront Design
Guide and consider them to be sufficiently lightweight and respectful to the character
of the built surroundings as to be acceptable. The internal operations are minimal and
I consider them to be acceptable in principle subject to the receipt of additional details,
in particular and with regard to the amenity of surrounding properties, those
concerning noise mitigation and refuse storage. The demolitions as proposed in the
two courtyards would in my opinion improve the appearance and setting of the listed
buildings and character of the conservation area. Finally and subject to the conditions
proposed, the conversion scheme for the former print works is in my opinion an
innovative and confident approach to the brief, appropriate to its proposed use and
respectful of its industrial heritage. Overall I consider the development would bring
significant improvements to the built environment and tourist/cultural facilities within
the city.
49.
In the case of the listed building and conservation area consent submission, as the
council is the applicant, these applications need to be made to the Secretary of State.
50.
In conclusion the committee is recommended to:
1) Grant Planning Permission subject to conditions regarding:
a. Operating hours
b. Hours of delivery
c. Details of Sound insulation.
d. Details of Entrance and exit doors (acoustic lobbies).
e. Details of Bottle storage.
f. Details of Refuse storage and collection method.
g. Details of Plant and noise generation.
h. No openable windows.
i.
Details of Mechanical sound limitation.
j.
Details of fume extraction/filters.
k. Details of odour control.
l.
Large scale sections/detail of new staircase/lift shaft.
m. Sample materials.
n. Window details/layout plan to rear (western) elevation.
o. Programme of archaeological observation/building recording.
2) Resolve to make a Listed Building Application to the Secretary of State with the
following suggested conditions:
a. Large scale sections/details of new shopfronts.
b. Details of replacement shop doors.
c. Large scale details/elevations of rear elevational treatment.
d. Sample materials.
e. Large scale sections/detail of new staircase/lift shaft.
f. Large scale sections/detail of new staircase/lift shaft.
3) Resolve to make a Conservation Area Consent application to the Secretary of
State with the following conditions suggested:
a. Details of contract for redevelopment
b. Programme of archaeological observation.
c. Archaeological watching brief.
BACKGROUND PAPERS
Held by Acting Head of Planning and Transportation on files 2002/1497/01/GRA,
2004/2199/01/CAC and 2004/2198/01/LBC.
Scott Henderson, Planning Officer
Extension: 25631, Direct Line: (0191) 211 5631
E-mail: scott.henderson@newcastle.gov.uk
p617decsh – Waygood Gallery - lw