Infilled shopping centre atrium at Palm Court Royal Victoria Place, Royal Tunbridge Wells

What officers recommended

Officers recommended granting the certificate because the works were internal, involved no material change of use and did not meet the definition of development.

“This application is seeking a Lawful Development Certificate in respect of the internal works detailed above. The sole matters for consideration are whether planning permission is required to undertake them. NPPF and Local Plan policies are not determinative in these types of case, except where there is guidance specifically relating to the handling of LDC applications.”

“Section 55 of the TCPA sets out the definition of ‘development’ for the purposes of planning legislation as the carrying out of building, engineering, mining, or other operations in, on, over or under land, or the making of any material change in the use of any buildings or other land. ‘Development’ requires planning permission.”

Officer report

The main planning issue

The assessment considered only whether planning permission was required, noting the floor-space increase was below 200 square metres and no existing condition triggered permission.

“Section 44 of the DMPO states that proposals which result in an increase of 200sqm of retail floor space amount to ‘development’. However, in this instance the increase in floor space only amounts to 134sqm, which is significantly below that limit.”

Officer report

Consultation and representations

No comments were received, and statutory publicity was not required for this type of application.

“Not applicable as this is an application for a LDC. No comments received. There is no statutory requirement to display site notices or publish press advertisements for this type of application.”

Officer report

Who spoke

One registered supporter spoke at the meeting, while the Head of Planning Services submitted the report and a senior planning officer presented it.

Members’ questions and debate

Members discussed daylight, structural pillars, building regulations, possible future occupation and the limited scope of the certificate application.

“- The basement level would be an isolated environment and therefore would be no natural daylight other than from the doors facing out to Market Square. - It was anticipated that at least four structural pillars would be included, with additional pillars sitting on the basement level in the same arrangement as existing pillars. - A full assessment would be undertaken of the structure to ensure building regulation standards were met.”

“- No commercial or retail operator had been identified for the space so far. - As the basement level had a separate entrance to the main shopping centre, this could allow for extended opening hours, depending on the requirements of an operator that took on the space. Members were reminded this was not within the scope of the current application and would require further consent for change of use.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

Members unanimously approved the application and resolved to grant the certificate because the works were not development and no planning condition required permission.

“Decision/voting – On the basis that members were satisfied that all relevant planning considerations had been covered within the report, a motion was proposed by Councillor Pound, seconded by Councillor Barrass and a vote was taken to approve the application in line with the officer recommendation.”

“The proposed internal alterations to infill the atrium void at the ground floor level and associated works which would not meet the definition of 'development' as per S55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). There are no planning conditions on any planning permission that trigger a requirement for planning permission for the proposed works.”

Minutes