Plant, ducting and staircases at King George's Hall Northgate, Blackburn

What was proposed

The application sought permission and listed building consent for plant, ducting, a flue, external staircases and boarding over third-floor windows.

“Proposed Development: Full Planning Permission and Listed Building Consent: Installation of plant and associated gantry, installation of ducting to conceal new services, installation of flue, installation of metal external staircases and boarding over of 3rd floor windows to east and west elevations…”

Officer report

The site

The site is a Grade II listed building in Blackburn town centre and the Northgate Conservation Area, surrounded by commercial and civic uses.

“The application site is a Grade II listed building, which is located within Blackburn Town Centre and the Northgate Conservation Area. It comprises of a large ornate building with an enclosed yard area. A concert/civic hall is…”

“The building is located at the junction of Northgate with its front elevation onto Blakey Moor. The yard area is positioned to the rear, and it is used for servicing and car parking. Commercial/civic land uses surround to all 4 sides.”

Officer report

Earlier works

Earlier approvals covered refurbishment, roof works, windows and doors, stonework, a construction compound, and internal improvements including external air extraction.

“10/25/1270 and 10/25/1274 – Siting of 3No. internal digital advertisement boards along the East elevation and 4No. external digital advertising boards along the South elevation – Application presented to Planning and Highways Committee – Recommendation: Approve, with conditions.”

“10/24/0341 and 10/24/0343 – Works on King Georges Hall, consisting of repair and replacement of slanted and flat roof, rooflights, roof access system, and rainwater goods – Approved, with conditions (committee decision) – May 2024.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the proposals were acceptable on technical, design and heritage grounds, with conditions controlling materials and finishes.

“The proposed development is recommended to be granted both Full Planning Permission (10/25/1356) and Listed Building Consent (10/25/1357), subject to the conditions detailed in Section 5.”

“On balance, the proposals would be satisfactory from a technical point of view, with all issues having been addressed through the application process, or capable of being controlled or mitigated through appropriately worded planning conditions.”

Officer report

Heritage and appearance

The works would add visual clutter and cause low-level heritage harm, but public benefits included efficient operation, lower running costs and safer roof access.

“Due to those outcomes, the proposals would result in some erosion of visual clarity and the architectural value of the listed building, thereby resulting in some harm to its significance on the low end of less than substantial. Similarly, the proposals would result in slight/low level of less than substantial harm to the character and appearance of the Northgate Conservation Area, through an increase in visual clutter on secondary elevations.”

“In this situation, Policy DM26 further advises that less than substantial harm to designated heritage assets will only be permitted where there is a clear justification and this is outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal. The proposed works would enable the building to be operated efficiently and sustainably, as detailed above. They would also reduce running costs and enable the building’s roof to be safely accessed for maintenance purposes.”

Officer report

What consultees said

The Heritage Advisor identified slight or low-level less-than-substantial harm, while Public Protection raised no objection and no public responses were received.

“CONSULTATIONS 7.1 BwD Heritage Advisor – As I am required to do so, I have given the duties imposed by s.16(2) s.66(1) s.72(1) of the P(LBCA) Act 1990 considerable weight in my comments. For the reasons identified above, the proposal, currently outlined in the submission documents, represents slight / low level of less than substantial harm to the heritage assets.”

“P.213 of the NPPF requires clear and convincing justification to be given for any harm. P.215 of the NPPF allows LPAs to consider the less than substantial harm against the public benefits generated by a proposal, including where appropriate securing an optimum viable use. If the LPA consider an appropriate balance can be achieved, then the proposal would meet the requirements of Chapter 16 of the NPPF.”

Officer report

Who spoke

There was no registered speaker.

The committee vote

Councillor Quesir Mahmood proposed the officer recommendation, Councillor Zamir Khan seconded it, and the committee resolved to grant permission.

“The officer’s recommendations were proposed by Councillor Quesir Mahmood and seconded by Councillor Zamir Khan and subsequently;”

“That the planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in Section 5 of the report.”

Minutes