Agenda item

External alterations including amendment to fenestrations and new plant to facilitate change to a job centre.

The Committee considered a report of the Planning Officer with regards to external alterations including amendment to fenestrations and new plant to facilitate change to a job centre at 8, 9 and 10 Newgate Centre, Bishop Auckland (for copy see file of minutes).

 

The Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation which included site location plans, aerial photographs and photographs of the site.

 

With regards to paragraph 74 of the report the Planning Officer advised that there were 9400 clients per month to the job centre and not 940 as stated in the report.  Since publication of the report an additional 15 letters of objection had been received and a second petition with over 600 signatures, which the Planning Officer read out to Members.  The main objection was to the closure of the access and loss of footfall.

 

Councillor Reed, Local Member, objected to the application on the basis that to close the pedestrian link at the north end leading to Finkle Street would have a detrimental effect on businesses and services within the Newgate Centre and at Fore Bondgate.  The Centre had been built in the 1980’s as a shopping centre with three pedestrian links that could also be used in the event of a fire.  They were used to provide a connection point to and from the bus station, the  shops at Fore Bondgate, car parks which included disabled parking bays, and the town centre shops and market place.

 

The DWP had occupied office space in Vinovium House, the retail unit opposite the Town Hall and a retail unit at the top Newgate Street and now were seeking to move to a shopping centre.  This move would require traders to move out of refurbished retail units for DWP to make alterations to the building and extend the floor space, closing off a vital pedestrian access and link to Fore Bondgate for those with mobility issues who used the disabled parking bays outside of the north entrance.

 

Councillor Reed had safety concerns with regard to the new footpath proposed as it would be across the entrance and exit of a busy multistorey car park and roads from the bus station and Finkle Street.

 

Councillor Reed refers to the positive aspect that had been placed on the increased footfall due to staff and clients at the job centre, and suggested that the 9400 clients per month would equate to 60 clients per hour, whose sole purpose was to discuss employment.  She also referred to a recent report by the BBC which had confirmed that Civil Servants did not want to be forced to return to an office environment, with the Government also looking at guidance for flexible and home working and could result in the predicted footfall being reduced.

 

Councillor Reed questioned the proposal to close an essential, well used pedestrian link that provided direct access to shops and disabled parking bays.  If the DWP were to be situated in the Newgate Centre the public would view the shopping centre as an office environment rather than a retail centre.

 

Councillor Reed withdrew from the meeting.

 

The Chair asked for clarification on whether a right of way had been established through the access and the Planning Officer advised that this was a private building with no right to pass and repass.

 

The Solicitor advised that the adopted highway was up to the door of the northern access and the pedestrian rights were by permission only, with doors being locked every evening and opened again the following day.

 

The Principal DM Engineer confirmed that there was no ability to claim a right of way under Section 31 of the Highways Act.

 

Bishop Auckland Town Councillor L Chappell, advised that on two separate occasions, to coincide with both petitions, she had undertaken a head count of people entering the north entrance.  The first of which was on 22 May 2021, when 294 people used the entrance in one hour, and on 28 May 2021 when 269 used it in one hour. 

 

In closing this well used entrance there was no doubt that it would have an adverse effect on businesses in the shopping centre and Fore Bondgate.  She advised that the closure of the entrance did not support NPPF Part 7, Part 16  and was contrary to the Durham County Plan, Policy 9.

 

Councillor Chappell referred to the comments by Acting Programme Manager for Bishop Auckland Town Centre regeneration in which concerns were raised regarding the closure of the entrance which undermined the Councils proposals established in the masterplan. 

 

She echoed the comments regarding paragraph 37 of the report which stated the closure of the pedestrian link between Fore Bondgate and the Newgate Centre was likely to have a hugely detrimental impact on footfall to the area.

 

Councillor Chappell advised that it was always the intention that retail would be on the ground floor with office space above and if this application was approved there would be more office space than retail.  She referred to the 60 metres detour that shoppers would have to make if the entrance was closed and advised that there were over 10 short stay carparking and 6 disabled parking bays outside this entrance and questioned their use should the access be closed.

 

The entrance had been used by the public for over 30 years without interruption and she queried whether the land could be deemed as a public as a right of way.  There were sufficient policies in her opinion that could overturn the decision and sufficient office space available to avoid removing three retail units and closing an entrance.

 

Finally Councillor Chappell advised that by closing the entrance there would be one less fire escape in the shopping centre and suggested that the Fire Authority should have been consulted on the matter.

 

Ms W Preston spoke on behalf of business’ of Fore Bondgate and in objection to the application on the basis that it would reduce footfall, there had been insufficient consultation with some businesses being missed and the site notice was illegible, conflict with the local masterplan and in her opinion there should have been a site visit.

 

Ms L Knight advised that following her successful mobile business she opened a premises in 2019 in Fore Bondgate, one of the oldest streets in Bishop Auckland.  There were a variety retail spaces offering a variety of services, shoppers could spend all day shopping there.  It had an 80% occupancy rate, compared to 50% in the Newgate Centre and Ms Knight considered that the closure of the entrance from Newgate Centre would have a detrimental effect on the flow of traffic into the street, further isolating business and having a financial impact, at a time when business needed to recover from the impact of COVID-19.

 

With regards to disabled access, she reiterated safety issues with the new footway which was over two lanes and a taxi rank.

 

The future of Bondgate coincided with the masterplan for Bishop Auckland of which everyone was trying to deliver, but businesses may not survive if the proposal was to be accepted.

 

Ms C Pegg addressed the Committee on behalf of the Applicant and advised that the DWP had an urgent need to relocate from Vinovium House as the existing premises were no longer fit-for-purpose with services spread across multiple floors and with poor building condition and significant investment required. DWP leased the building and therefore such a high level of investment would not be a good use of public money.

The COVID-19 pandemic had created a significant increase in demand for DWP services, a site search was undertaken to relocate both the job centre and medical assessment centre.  The site search identified units 8, 9 and 10 as the only suitable site in the town centre. The site met the size requirements, was easily accessible by public transport, and was spread across 2 floors, offering much improved accessibility for disabled staff and clients. The fit-out would provide a modern environment as should be expected for staff and customers.  The two current tenants in Units 8 and 9 would relocate to vacant units elsewhere within the Newgate shopping centre and were supportive of this.

 

With regards to the proposed air conditioning plant, a noise assessment had confirmed that there would be no adverse impact on the nearest residential properties, and DWP agreed to the proposed condition restricting its hours of use to daytime only.  The proposal included a new entrance on the George Street elevation to provide separate access to the medical centre and alterations were required to the Finkle Street elevation to remove the existing shopping centre entrance, provide a new staff entrance to the unit and slightly enlarge the service yard area. A new fire escape will also be created.

 

These works resulted in the removal of public access to the shopping centre from Finkle Street, however the project team had explored alternative ground floor layout options, but it was not possible to retain a public thoroughfare whilst meeting the space requirements. The loss of this link was balanced against and mitigated by a range of factors.

 

With regards to the link to Fore Bondgate, the principal concern raised in relation to the loss of the public entrance was the impact however the

shopping centre manager had confirmed that the predominant flow of pedestrians through the shopping centre was east-west and vice versa, which would be unimpacted by this proposal. The detour route between the Fore Bondgate link and the George Street access to the shopping centre was only 60m, and the landlord had agreed to the proposed planning condition to improve this connection through new dropped crossings and the relocation of a street lamp to ensure disabled access.

 

In discussion with Councillor A Jackson, the landlord had agreed to provide new signage to promote access to and from Fore Bondgate which would be conditioned to any planning consent.

 

The proposed occupation of 3 units by DWP represented a significant financial investment to the landlord and DWP’s occupation and the relocation of the existing tenants meat that the ground floor would be 100% let.  The asset manager of the shopping centre had confirmed that this would allow wider objectives to be realised, including investment in a new cinema and making land available for the relocated bus station.

 

The relocation of the job centre into the heart of Bishop Auckland would be of significant benefit to the town centre, local shops and businesses through the associated footfall generation as approximately 9400 clients visited the job centre every month.

 

The economic benefits would have a significant positive impact on the town centre, assisting towards ensuring Bishop Auckland’s long term vitality and viability in accordance with local planning policies.

 

In summary, the closure of the Finkle Street public access was acceptable when balanced against the continued availability of and upgrades to the alternative route to link to Fore Bondgate. The significant economic benefits of the proposal from the footfall generated by the job centre and the financial investment into the shopping centre by the landlord triggered were also considered to weigh significantly in favour of granting permission.

 

The Planning Officer responded to some of the concerns raised by speakers and advised that the publicity met the minimum required standard, local businesses were informed immediately adjacent to the building and there were site notices on both Finchale Street and George Street.

 

There was a lot of work going on within Bishop Auckland to ensure the masterplan could move forward with its implementation  with regards to the comments on Fore Bondgatebeing one of the oldest streets, this was recognised in the masterplan which was trying to ensure was enhanced and linked into the tourist destination for bishop Auckland.

 

The Chair referred to the walkway that lead to a car parking area

 

Councillor Savory stated that given the high number of objections, Members should support these local businesses following the COVID-19 pandemic.  In her opinion, other premises could be sought by HMRC and this proposal would make it more difficult for shoppers and bus users.

 

Councillor McKeon advised that as a bus user, the network in the north east was not fit for purpose and having visited Fore Bondgate, agreed that the stopping up of the footpath would make access more difficult for consumers and bus users. The application was in her opinion, contrary to the NPPF Sections 1 and 2 as it did not support local businesses.  The access pre-dated the DWP and she believed that the Council should stand up and support pedestrians.

 

Councillor L Brown was disappointed that the Committee were no longer going on site visits as she had recently visited Bishop Auckland to look at the alternative route which she believed would have an unacceptable impact on public safety according to NPPF 9.

 

Councillor Sterling stated that as a business owner she sympathised with those that would be affected on Fore Bondgate as it was already a challenge prior to COVID-19 and was now awful.  She referred to the Planning Officer’s presentation and asked her to confirm the source of the information which had predicted a decrease of 25% in profits for businesses on Fore Bondgate.  In addition she wondered how the entrance could be kept open if the DWP relocated to this premises and finally, she noted that in the absence of a public right of way, what would stop the landlord from closing the door.

 

The Planning Officer advised that the decrease in profits was a statement made in a late representation from objectors.  With regards to the closure of the existing access, she advised that DWP could occupy the space now and use the entrance as a staff entrance – it was not something that the Planning Authority would have control over and she highlighted that it was taped off when she visited the site due to COVID-19. 

 

The Planning Officer highlighted the proposed floor layouts and confirmed that the DWP had been consulted on an alternative layout but they wanted an open office layout and splitting the use would not be fit for purpose.

 

In response to Councillor Sterling’s comments that she was disappointed that an assessment on the impact on local businesses had not been carried out, the Planning Officer advised that the Regeneration Team had been consulted but no response was received.

 

Councillor Quinn confirmed that Bishop Auckland was a neighbouring division and although all high streets were suffering, this was an old school town and the Council should continue to hold on to that.  She advised that due to the strong objections from local people, she wanted to formally object to the proposal as although the works would enhance the building, if the DWP moved out, it would be difficult to find a large enough business to take on such a large floor space.  There were also many other large buildings in Bishop Auckland that were in need of alterations and she suggested that the Applicant should look at alternative premises.

 

Councillor McKeon seconded the proposal to reject the application as looking at the layout again she could see why it was not possible for the access to be shared with customers from the job centre, who could need privacy – although she wondered why the DWP could not create an access and walkway that went along the side of their premises and keep the entrance to the shopping centre.

 

With regards to reasons for refusal, Councillor Quinn confirmed that the main impact concerns was the impact on businesses on Fore Bondgate due to the reduced footfall, however the Solicitor advised that the weight afforded to that particular impact based on the reduced footfall was limited as there was nothing stopping the landlord from closing the access and the Planning Authority did not have any powers to prevent that.

 

Councillor Quinn replied that if the landlord was to close the entrance off, they would see a reduction in footfall.  There had already been a huge impact on the town centre due to the retail park at Tindle Crescent and closing the entrance could lead Bishop Auckland to ruin.

 

In response to further comments from Councillor McKeon on the impact on local businesses due to the closure, the Solicitor advised that the current pattern of closure on an evening could be deviated from by the landlord, or closed permanently and this had an impact on the  weight to be afforded on the existing traders, which was not something that could be controlled though the planning system.

 

Councillor McKeon maintained the objection on the basis of highway safety and loss of trade to local businesses.

 

The Principal DM Engineer advised that the application did not include the closure of the access, although it was incidental to the application. The access could be closed at any time and the applicants could occupy the building without any external changes and close the access with immediate effect.  He advised that this was the fundamental aspect of whether an objection to the application would be successful and he did not believe that the alternative route proposed would be enough to convince a planning inspector that it there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety.

 

Councillor Cairns advised that from experience the Newgate Centre would struggle with their customers and she advised the Agent that there were other options for the relocation of DWP.  Bishop Auckland town centre was important to people and were struggling to understand how their town was going to exist.

 

Responding to the argument that the landlord could close the entrance at any time, Councillor Adam suggested that this would not happen as the owner would probably realise that it would have an impact on businesses.

 

With regards to the retail sector, which the Council was trying to enhance in town centres, Councillor Adam advised that people should be encouraged to visit and closing the pedestrian access would have the opposite effect and push people away.  This would create a real impact on local businesses and the proposed works would impact on people with mobility issues with those parking in disabled bays having to travel and additional 60 metres. In terms of highway safety, the proposed works were making the area more unsafe and they were certainly not enhancing the retail sector which was contrary to both national framework and the CDP. 

 

Overall, Councillor Adam advised that the proposal would reduce footfall and impact businesses in the Newgate Centre and Fore Bondgate, and this led him towards rejection of the application.

 

Councillor Brown referred to the internal consultees and a lot of them were lamenting the access, she was also very disappointed that regeneration had not responded due to the reasons Members were leaning towards rejection.

 

Councillor Atkinson advised that this town centre was crucial to Bishop Auckland and the objections put forward demonstrably outweighed the benefits of this application.

 

In response to Members, the Solicitor summed up the motion for refusal and advised that the application was not for a change of use, Members were advised by the Planning Officer that the DWP could move into the space immediately as there was no change of use required.  The application was therefore limited to external alterations and the installation of new plant, not whether there was an alternative location or a different layout to what was proposed.  The Planning Officer had attempted to relocate the access that people were concerned about losing but the Applicant had advised that they were unable to do so.  There was legally no restriction on the closure of the access, regardless of the likelihood, this was something that could temper the weight afforded to the retail impact identified.

 

With regards to the highway safety concerns, he had serious concerns on the sustainability of the reasons put forward by Councillor Quinn based on the advice given by the Principal DM Engineer and therefore he advised Members that this could open the Council up to costs if the Applicant were to appeal the decision.

 

Councillor Cairns left the meeting.

 

Councillor Adam queried whether antisocial behaviour would be a material planning consideration and the Solicitor advised that crime and disorder or fear of crime and disorder could be a material planning consideration however the Planning Officer added that the Committee were not considering a change of use as that was permitted development.

 

Councillor Quinn advised that she stood by her decision to refuse the application on impact on the vitality of the retail centre and highway safety, seconded by Councillor MKeon.

 

Resolved

 

That the application be REFUSED.

 

Councillor McKeon left the meeting and did not return.

Councillor Cairns returned to the meeting.