News from Crystal Palace - News & stories from the fresh air suburb - Crystal Palace, London SE19 » Kingsway International Christian Centre http://www.newsfromcrystalpalace.co.uk Fri, 10 Apr 2015 17:44:57 +0000 en-US hourly 1 NEW BID TO USE FORMER CINEMA FOR CHURCH SERVICES ‘Dual purpose’ application expected http://www.newsfromcrystalpalace.co.uk/new-bid-use-former-cinema-church-services-dual-purpose-application-expected/ http://www.newsfromcrystalpalace.co.uk/new-bid-use-former-cinema-church-services-dual-purpose-application-expected/#comments Fri, 21 Mar 2014 20:28:55 +0000 http://www.newsfromcrystalpalace.co.uk/?p=1083 PLANS TO use the former cinema at 25 Church Road for religious services on a ‘dual purpose’ basis are set to be submitted to Bromley council. The move by the Pentecostal church KICC (Kingsway International Christian Centre) comes more than four years after a Bromley council plans sub-committee turned down an application for change of use of 25 Church Road for religious services. The application by KICC, made after they bought the building in a secret deal from Gala bingo in 2009, caused uproar locally with 1,000 people packing a protest meeting organised by the Picture Palace Campaign – formed to fight the plans – in the huge downstairs ballroom of the Queens hotel which is also in Church Road. A Bromley council spokeswoman told News From Crystal Palace: “A meeting took place last week with the council and representatives from the church and we anticipate receiving a planning application shortly. “If or when a planning application is received the council would seek consultation with the local community as part of this.” The meeting between the council and KICC representatives came after a Bromley plans siub-committee early last month where Crystal Palace ward councillor Tom Papworth (Lib Dem) said KICC “seemed to be having their cake and eating it.” His protest led committee chairman Cllr Alexa Michael (Con Bromley Common and Keston) to put forward a surprise motion giving KICC 30 days to submit a new planning application or face enforcement action after complaints that KICC were using 25 Church Road for religious events. CHURCH TOLD TO SUBMIT FRESH APPLICATION FOR CINEMA BUILDING – OR FACE ENFORCEMENT ACTION At its meeting on Thursday February 6th members of Bromley council’s plans sub committee number one amended officers’ suggested recommendations about the former cinema at 25 Church Road. The recommendation – the third of three – was amended so that enforcement action would be held in abeyance for 30 days and the owners (KICC) urged to submit an application within that time – otherwise enforcement action would be taken. The move came in a surprise amendment from the chair by Cllr Alexa Michael and followed an impassioned plea by Crystal Palace ward Cllr Tom Papworth who said KICC “seem to be able to have their cake and eat it.” His comments followed a report to the sub committee in the wake of a ‘Watchnight’ service held at 25 Church Road on December 31st last year. THE REPORT TO COMMITTEE The report said that when details of the “Watchnight” event emerged, KICC claimed  it fell within the lawful Class D2 use.  “But there were local concerns that the proposed event would take the form of a religious service which would fall within Class D1 and outside the lawful Class D2 use. “In view of the number of local complaints and the lack of information about the format and content of the event a notice was issued under S330 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. “This required further information to be provided before the event took place to enable an informed decision to be made as to whether the use was within Class D2. “A response to the S330 notice was received on  December 28th 2013 in which KICC described the event as a New Year celebration including music, dance and drama as well as the countdown to the New Year. “They stated that no alcohol would be on sale but snacks and soft drinks would be provided.  “KICC also confirmed that there would be no preaching at the event and stated that the event would not take the form of a religious service. “Planning officers met with the council’s solicitors and licensing officers before the event to discuss the response to the S330 notice and the most appropriate course of action but it was considered the response to the S330 notice did not provide any additional evidence there had been a material change of use. “Three officers from planning and licensing attended the event on December 31st in order to witness the proceedings at first hand… the event took the form of a New Year celebration involving song and dance featuring amplified music and a gospel choir, and included praise and worship.  “A short drama performance was presented by the children’s church.” The report stated the head of licensing was able to confirm that in view of the religious content this was NOT a licensable event under the Licensing Act. “Regulated entertainment, which includes music,singing dance, is a licensable activity but the act makes a specific exemption for entertainment provided as part of, or incidental to a religious meeting or service (Para. 9a Schedule 1 Part 2 (Exemptions) Licensing Act 2003). “Based on the nature of the words, music and performance observed the licensing officers were satisfied the Watchnight event was a form of worship and therefore came within the exemption as being a religious meeting or service.” BUT the building does not have planning permission for religious use – a decision taken by a Bromley council planning committee dating back to December 2009 and following a huge wave of public protest which included an amazing public meeting in the Queens hotel attended by around 1,000 people. The report also revealed that KICC have “stated their intention to submit a planning application for a mixed D2/D1 use but no further details are known at this stage.” The officers’ report added that “under national guidance and practice, the council needs to consider the expediency of taking planning enforcement action. “The site appears to have been used as a place of religious worship on two occasions in 2013. “Whether there is a material change of use is a question of fact and degree.” The report then, somewhat bizarrely, adds: ” In this instance the land still retains its general characteristics in appearance.” The report continues: “The extent of the usage is limited, to two days in a year. “There is little evidence of harmful noise or disturbance to local residents. “Overall there is […]

The post NEW BID TO USE FORMER CINEMA FOR CHURCH SERVICES ‘Dual purpose’ application expected appeared first on News from Crystal Palace - News & stories from the fresh air suburb - Crystal Palace, London SE19.

]]>

PLANS TO use the former cinema at 25 Church Road for religious services on a ‘dual purpose’ basis are set to be submitted to Bromley council.

The move by the Pentecostal church KICC (Kingsway International Christian Centre) comes more than four years after a Bromley council plans sub-committee turned down an application for change of use of 25 Church Road for religious services.

The application by KICC, made after they bought the building in a secret deal from Gala bingo in 2009, caused uproar locally with 1,000 people packing a protest meeting organised by the Picture Palace Campaign – formed to fight the plans – in the huge downstairs ballroom of the Queens hotel which is also in Church Road.

A Bromley council spokeswoman told News From Crystal Palace: “A meeting took place last week with the council and representatives from the church and we anticipate receiving a planning application shortly.

“If or when a planning application is received the council would seek consultation with the local community as part of this.”

The meeting between the council and KICC representatives came after a Bromley plans siub-committee early last month where Crystal Palace ward councillor Tom Papworth (Lib Dem) said KICC “seemed to be having their cake and eating it.”

His protest led committee chairman Cllr Alexa Michael (Con Bromley Common and Keston) to put forward a surprise motion giving KICC 30 days to submit a new planning application or face enforcement action after complaints that KICC were using 25 Church Road for religious events.

CHURCH TOLD TO SUBMIT FRESH APPLICATION FOR CINEMA BUILDING – OR FACE ENFORCEMENT ACTION

At its meeting on Thursday February 6th members of Bromley council’s plans sub committee number one amended officers’ suggested recommendations about the former cinema at 25 Church Road.

The recommendation – the third of three – was amended so that enforcement action would be held in abeyance for 30 days and the owners (KICC) urged to submit an application within that time – otherwise enforcement action would be taken.

The move came in a surprise amendment from the chair by Cllr Alexa Michael and followed an impassioned plea by Crystal Palace ward Cllr Tom Papworth who said KICC “seem to be able to have their cake and eat it.”

His comments followed a report to the sub committee in the wake of a ‘Watchnight’ service held at 25 Church Road on December 31st last year.

THE REPORT TO COMMITTEE

The report said that when details of the “Watchnight” event emerged, KICC claimed  it fell within the lawful Class D2 use.  “But there were local concerns that the proposed event would take the form of a religious service which would fall within Class D1 and outside the lawful Class D2 use.

“In view of the number of local complaints and the lack of information about the format and content of the event a notice was issued under S330 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

“This required further information to be provided before the event took place to enable an informed decision to be made as to whether the use was within Class D2.

“A response to the S330 notice was received on  December 28th 2013 in which KICC described the event as a New Year celebration including music, dance and drama as well as the countdown to the New Year.

“They stated that no alcohol would be on sale but snacks and soft drinks would be provided.  “KICC also confirmed that there would be no preaching at the event and stated that the event would not take the form of a religious service.

“Planning officers met with the council’s solicitors and licensing officers before the event to discuss the response to the S330 notice and the most appropriate course of action but it was considered the response to the S330 notice did not provide any additional evidence there had been a material change of use.

“Three officers from planning and licensing attended the event on December 31st in order to witness the proceedings at first hand… the event took the form of a New Year celebration involving song and dance featuring amplified music and a gospel choir, and included praise and worship.  “A short drama performance was presented by the children’s church.”

The report stated the head of licensing was able to confirm that in view of the religious content this was NOT a licensable event under the Licensing Act.

“Regulated entertainment, which includes music,singing dance, is a licensable activity but the act makes a specific exemption for entertainment provided as part of, or incidental to a religious meeting or service (Para. 9a Schedule 1 Part 2 (Exemptions) Licensing Act 2003).

“Based on the nature of the words, music and performance observed the licensing officers were satisfied the Watchnight event was a form of worship and therefore came within the exemption as being a religious meeting or service.”

BUT the building does not have planning permission for religious use – a decision taken by a Bromley council planning committee dating back to December 2009 and following a huge wave of public protest which included an amazing public meeting in the Queens hotel attended by around 1,000 people.

The report also revealed that KICC have “stated their intention to submit a planning application for a mixed D2/D1 use but no further details are known at this stage.”

The officers’ report added that “under national guidance and practice, the council needs to consider the expediency of taking planning enforcement action.

“The site appears to have been used as a place of religious worship on two occasions in 2013. “Whether there is a material change of use is a question of fact and degree.”

The report then, somewhat bizarrely, adds: ” In this instance the land still retains its general characteristics in appearance.”

The report continues: “The extent of the usage is limited, to two days in a year. “There is little evidence of harmful noise or disturbance to local residents.

“Overall there is insufficient evidence of a material change of use that causes harm and it does not appear expedient to take action at this stage.

“A legal view has been sought on this matter. “It is suggested that the owners submit a planning application to deal with on-going issues between themselves and local residents.”

CLLR TOM PAPWORTH

KICC “seem to be able to have their cake and eat it” he declared.

Cllr Papworth recalled that on a previous occasion another Bromley plans sub-committee had rejected a motion of his calling for enforcement action and decided that the use of the building should be closely monitored.

“We have the farcical situation where the licensing department said it WAS a religious event and not licensable and the planning department said it did not breach planning conditions.

“The left hand in Bromley clearly did not know what the right hand was doing.”

Referring to section 3.12 of the report to the sub-committee Cllr Papworth said one got the impression the planning department thought the problem was noise.

“Noise and disturbance are environmental health matters. “If KICC were in silent worship they would still be in breach of planning law and it’s planning law they should be upholding.

“We must demonstrate to owners we will enforce planning law if they choose to breach it. “We should reject these recommendations and take enforcement action.”

The suggestion KICC should submit a planning application “seems to be a case of Bromley throwing in the towel – ‘if you breach planning law often enough you submit a planning application.

“We need to demonstrate that Bromley council is strong and firm in cases of breach of planning law.”

CLLR ALEXA MICHAEL

told members: “It’s not as if this was an isolated incident. “It’s happened on more than one occasion. “KICC have had the opportunity to put in a planning application to try to regularise the situation. “They have not.

“If 70 residents complain I’m inclined to agree with the ward member – we should take enforcement action to cease this use in the future.”

At this point an officer intervened to draw members attention to the legal view and said they had to look at whether something was a material change of use.

He said that while officers had been at KICC’s Watchnight service he had been at Gary Barlow’s concert at Methodist central hall .

“It was obviously a non-secular concert but if it had been called ‘Cliff Richard singing a Millennium Prayer’ I don’t think we could say it was a material change of use.

“The concern is that, given the limited number of events, there’s not a material change of use.”

There followed a debate in which Cllr Peter Fookes (Lab, Penge and Cator ward), agreeing with Cllr Papworth said: “We have allowed the situation to carry on  for far too long”

He suggested inviting KICC to submit an application within one month and then, if no application had been received, taking enforcement action.

Cllr John Canvin (Lib Dem Crystal Palace) said he had never had so many complaints and objections to anything which had come up on planning “as I’ve had on this one.”

Cllr Samaris Huntington-Thresher (Con Chelsfield and Pratts Bottom) said: “70 complaints is a huge number. I’m a bit concerned about where this is going.

“This isn’t going to go away” she added.

The officers recommendation to the sub-committee sub-committee was lost by three votes to five

Cllr Michael’s motion was then put to sub-committee and agreed by five votes to three.

FOR A – VERY – POTTED HISTORY OF THE PLANS TO RETURN A CINEMA TO CRYSTAL PALACE AND SOME OF THE BACKGROUND ISSUES PLEASE SEE SEPARATE STORY HEADED “BACKGROUND TO THE NEWS”. THOSE AMONG YOU WHO ATTENDED THE QUEENS HOTEL MEETING MAY FEEL A CERTAIN SENSE OF NOSTALGIA………..

The post NEW BID TO USE FORMER CINEMA FOR CHURCH SERVICES ‘Dual purpose’ application expected appeared first on News from Crystal Palace - News & stories from the fresh air suburb - Crystal Palace, London SE19.

]]> http://www.newsfromcrystalpalace.co.uk/new-bid-use-former-cinema-church-services-dual-purpose-application-expected/feed/ 0 CHURCH PLANS ‘WATCHNIGHT SERVICE’ IN CINEMA BUILDING – CAMPAIGNERS AND COUNCILLOR DEMAND ACTION “KICC cannot have it both ways” – Cllr Tom Papworth http://www.newsfromcrystalpalace.co.uk/church-plans-watchnight-service-cinema-building-campaigners-councillor-demand-action-kicc-ways-cllr-tom-papworth/ http://www.newsfromcrystalpalace.co.uk/church-plans-watchnight-service-cinema-building-campaigners-councillor-demand-action-kicc-ways-cllr-tom-papworth/#comments Wed, 25 Dec 2013 12:56:08 +0000 http://www.newsfromcrystalpalace.co.uk/?p=951 A BROMLEY councillor is calling for action over a planned Watchnight service being staged by a Pentecostal church on New Year’s Eve in the former cinema building at 25 Church Road.   In strongly-worded emails to senior Bromley council officers Cllr Tom Papworth says there is a “massive inconsistency” between what Bromley council’s planning enforcement officers term the event and what Bromley council’s licensing officers term the event.    Cllr Papworth’s move comes after being contacted by “scores of people” about the Watchnight service – advertised as a religious service when performed at Croydon’s Fairfield halls in the past.   His comments follow requests by cinema campaigners asking people in the area to send Bromley council a Christmas message – voicing their concerns over the proposed KICC (Kingway International Christian Centre) event.   In his emails to development control manager Tim Bloomfield and head of food safety, occupational safety and licensing Paul Lehane Cllr Papworth (Lib Dem, Crystal Palace ward) says: “Further to my email on Friday, I have heard reports that Paul has already responded to residents to say that ‘It may be that the service is televised and will be watched by people attending the Church Road site, however from a licensing perspective we have taken the view following previous complaints and investigations that these are acts of worship / religious services within the definition of the licensing act  and therefore fall outside any control’.   “I do not intend to point the finger – I don’t really care whether Paul is right or wrong in this respect. “I am extremely concerned that there seems to be a massive inconsistency between what planning enforcement term the event and what licensing term the event.   “Let us be entirely clear on this: KICC cannot have it both ways. “Either this is an entertainment event, in which case they require a licence, and if they do not get one by December 31st and proceed with the event they are liable to prosecution; or this is a religious event, in which case they are in breach of their D2 usage and if they proceed with the event they are liable to prosecution.   “If my assessment is correct, then this event can only be legal (and they can only avoid prosecution) if Bromley council agrees that this is a music-entertainment event and grants a licence by December 31st. “Can you please: 1. Confirm whether this is correct? 2.Confirm what action will be taken if no such licence is granted (or if LBB agrees that this is a religious event) and KICC proceed regardless? “This is obviously an urgent matter as the clock is ticking. “I look forward to your response as soon as possible.”   In a second email to Tim Bloomfield Cllr Papworth says: “I trust that this event will be thoroughly investigated. “I would be grateful if planning enforcement officers would attend the event to gauge whether it is a religious service. “When this last came to Bromley council’s development control committee members did not support my motion that enforcement action should be taken, in part because of a lack of evidence that sufficient breaches had taken place. “This seems like a perfect opportunity to resolve that evidenciary gap!.”   In a post yesterday (Christmas Eve) on Virtual Norwood, a local ‘blog’ site, Cllr Papworth, thanking the “scores of people” who have written to him about the Watchnight event, adds: “It may not be possible to prevent the event happening – it may require a court order and it may be impossible to get one at short notice. “A prosecution after the fact may be the only recourse.”I would therefore remind you that if there is any disturbance due to noise you can contact the council’s 24 hour noise team on 0300 303 8671. “In addition, if there are any other disturbances (e.g. if unauthorised persons start trying to direct or control traffic, or if passers by are obstructed from going about their business) you should call the police. “I hope that there will be some better news soon. “In the meantime, I hope you all have a merry Christmas.” CLLR PAPWORTH’S comments come after the Picture Palace Campaign – set up in the wake of KICC buying the building from Gala Bingo in a secret deal in 2009 – asked  people to spend five or 10 minutes emailing or contacting Bromley council “notifying them of the latest event and expressing your concerns please – it would be really appreciated.”   The Campaign says that if the Watchnight service is considered to be a religious service or meeting then it falls outside the lawful planning use. “If it is considered to be an entertainment concert then it falls within the licensing regime and in our view is not exempt” said a Campaign spokesperson. “The two key issues are: Why are Bromley council letting KICC hold another religious service at 25 Church Road when they do not have planning permission to do so? or Why are Bromley council letting KICC hold another entertainment concert at 25 Church Road which involves live amplified music without having a premises licence? “If Bromley council does not agree that it is a religious service then isn’t it an Act of Public Entertainment which is regulated and requires a premises licence under the Licensing Act 2003? “Exemptions from the requirements of the Act are only given under certain circumstances. “If people do not register their concerns now I am sure we will start to see religious services start on Sundays at some point next year.” Campaigners are also highlighting a note on the leaflet advertising the event which states:”A return service will operate after the service to the mentioned pick-up points.”  QUOTES FROM VIRTUAL NORWOOD ‘News and Local Issues’ 25 Church Road (former Rialto cinema) thread pages nine and 10.   “I have highlighted these concerns with the appropriate officers” – Bromley Cllr John Getgood (Lab, Penge and Cator)    “We have planning laws, planning use classes, and if they […]

The post CHURCH PLANS ‘WATCHNIGHT SERVICE’ IN CINEMA BUILDING – CAMPAIGNERS AND COUNCILLOR DEMAND ACTION “KICC cannot have it both ways” – Cllr Tom Papworth appeared first on News from Crystal Palace - News & stories from the fresh air suburb - Crystal Palace, London SE19.

]]>
A BROMLEY councillor is calling for action over a planned Watchnight service being staged by a Pentecostal church on New Year’s Eve in the former cinema building at 25 Church Road.
 
In strongly-worded emails to senior Bromley council officers Cllr Tom Papworth says there is a “massive inconsistency” between what Bromley council’s planning enforcement officers term the event and what Bromley council’s licensing officers term the event. 
 
Cllr Papworth’s move comes after being contacted by “scores of people” about the Watchnight service – advertised as a religious service when performed at Croydon’s Fairfield halls in the past.
 
His comments follow requests by cinema campaigners asking people in the area to send Bromley council a Christmas message – voicing their concerns over the proposed KICC (Kingway International Christian Centre) event.
 
In his emails to development control manager Tim Bloomfield and head of food safety, occupational safety and licensing Paul Lehane Cllr Papworth (Lib Dem, Crystal Palace ward) says: “Further to my email on Friday, I have heard reports that Paul has already responded to residents to say that ‘It may be that the service is televised and will be watched by people attending the Church Road site, however from a licensing perspective we have taken the view following previous complaints and investigations that these are acts of worship / religious services within the definition of the licensing act  and therefore fall outside any control’.
 
“I do not intend to point the finger – I don’t really care whether Paul is right or wrong in this respect. “I am extremely concerned that there seems to be a massive inconsistency between what planning enforcement term the event and what licensing term the event.
 
“Let us be entirely clear on this: KICC cannot have it both ways. “Either this is an entertainment event, in which case they require a licence, and if they do not get one by December 31st and proceed with the event they are liable to prosecution; or this is a religious event, in which case they are in breach of their D2 usage and if they proceed with the event they are liable to prosecution.
 
“If my assessment is correct, then this event can only be legal (and they can only avoid prosecution) if Bromley council agrees that this is a music-entertainment event and grants a licence by December 31st.
“Can you please: 1. Confirm whether this is correct? 2.Confirm what action will be taken if no such licence is granted (or if LBB agrees that this is a religious event) and KICC proceed regardless? “This is obviously an urgent matter as the clock is ticking. “I look forward to your response as soon as possible.”
 
In a second email to Tim Bloomfield Cllr Papworth says: “I trust that this event will be thoroughly investigated. “I would be grateful if planning enforcement officers would attend the event to gauge whether it is a religious service.
“When this last came to Bromley council’s development control committee members did not support my motion that enforcement action should be taken, in part because of a lack of evidence that sufficient breaches had taken place. “This seems like a perfect opportunity to resolve that evidenciary gap!.”
 
In a post yesterday (Christmas Eve) on Virtual Norwood, a local ‘blog’ site, Cllr Papworth, thanking the “scores of people” who have written to him about the Watchnight event, adds: “It may not be possible to prevent the event happening – it may require a court order and it may be impossible to get one at short notice. “A prosecution after the fact may be the only recourse.”I would therefore remind you that if there is any disturbance due to noise you can contact the council’s 24 hour noise team on 0300 303 8671.

“In addition, if there are any other disturbances (e.g. if unauthorised persons start trying to direct or control traffic, or if passers by are obstructed from going about their business) you should call the police.

“I hope that there will be some better news soon. “In the meantime, I hope you all have a merry Christmas.”

CLLR PAPWORTH’S comments come after the Picture Palace Campaign – set up in the wake of KICC buying the building from Gala Bingo in a secret deal in 2009 – asked  people to spend five or 10 minutes emailing or contacting Bromley council “notifying them of the latest event and expressing your concerns please – it would be really appreciated.”
 
The Campaign says that if the Watchnight service is considered to be a religious service or meeting then it falls outside the lawful planning use.

“If it is considered to be an entertainment concert then it falls within the licensing regime and in our view is not exempt” said a Campaign spokesperson.

“The two key issues are:

Why are Bromley council letting KICC hold another religious service at 25 Church Road when they do not have planning permission to do so?
or Why are Bromley council letting KICC hold another entertainment concert at 25 Church Road which involves live amplified music without having a premises licence?

“If Bromley council does not agree that it is a religious service then isn’t it an Act of Public Entertainment which is regulated and requires a premises licence under the Licensing Act 2003?

“Exemptions from the requirements of the Act are only given under certain circumstances.

“If people do not register their concerns now I am sure we will start to see religious services start on Sundays at some point next year.”

Campaigners are also highlighting a note on the leaflet advertising the event which states:”A return service will operate after the service to the mentioned pick-up points.”

 QUOTES FROM VIRTUAL NORWOOD ‘News and Local Issues’ 25 Church Road (former Rialto cinema) thread pages nine and 10.

 
“I have highlighted these concerns with the appropriate officers” – Bromley Cllr John Getgood (Lab, Penge and Cator) 
 
“We have planning laws, planning use classes, and if they are not enforced what purpose are they there for?” – Charlie
 
“Surely it is about time they did something about the situation? The building makes me sad and angry every time I walk past it. “Such a waste.” – Darcey
 
“So the right hand is saying it’s a religious service while the left hand is saying it’s not. “With this level of joined up thinking no wonder the KICC feel they can ignore them.” – Fang
 
“The whole thing is farcical” – James L

“Now I know why I saw a guy vacuuming the carpet in the entrance lobby the other day!” – Magnolia

NEWS FROM CRYSTAL PALACE WISHES ALL OF YOU A VERY MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!

 

The post CHURCH PLANS ‘WATCHNIGHT SERVICE’ IN CINEMA BUILDING – CAMPAIGNERS AND COUNCILLOR DEMAND ACTION “KICC cannot have it both ways” – Cllr Tom Papworth appeared first on News from Crystal Palace - News & stories from the fresh air suburb - Crystal Palace, London SE19.

]]> http://www.newsfromcrystalpalace.co.uk/church-plans-watchnight-service-cinema-building-campaigners-councillor-demand-action-kicc-ways-cllr-tom-papworth/feed/ 0 KICC WIN APPEAL AGAINST ENFORCEMENT NOTICE – BUT THERE’S A ‘CATCH 22′ http://www.newsfromcrystalpalace.co.uk/kicc-win-appeal-against-enforcement-notice-but-theres-a-catch-22/ http://www.newsfromcrystalpalace.co.uk/kicc-win-appeal-against-enforcement-notice-but-theres-a-catch-22/#comments Fri, 19 Oct 2012 12:59:47 +0000 http://newsfromcrystalpalace.co.uk/?p=88 THE PENTECOSTAL church which acquired the former cinema at 25 Church Road, Crystal Palace have successfully appealed against an enforcement notice issued by Bromley council over four illuminated poster holders on the building’s front wall.   THE HEARING   The informal hearing at Bromley civic centre had something of a ‘Punch and Judy’ show about it with Bromley council insisting the church –  Kingsway International Christian Centre – had moved the poster holders (“Oh yes you did!!!”) and KICC insisting that the poster holders were still in the same positions they had been when they acquired the building (“Oh no we didn’t!!!.”)   Mr Simon Hand, the inspector chairing the hearing, said there was quite a bit in the file about a 48 sheet poster hoarding on the flank wall of the cinema. “That’s not before me. “I’m only looking at these poster holders.”   Mr Edward Oteng, on behalf of KICC, agreed it was – but then referred to a decision relating to large billboards which used to stand to the right of the main building. Mr Andrew Lambert, planning officer for Bromley council, said these hoardings had been given permission for two years on appeal.   Mr Oteng: “Then can I say respectfully we’ve been misled. “You don’t talk about the hoardings which my clients are making an application to retain. “To now say they are about poster boards adjacent to the building leaves me somewhat confused.”   Mr Hand said this had left him somewhat confused as well. Mr Lambert explained this was part of the site’s history.   Mr Oteng responded: “Planning permission runs with the land and not with the application – any trainee would know the difference between a poster hoarding and an advertisement.” This was incurring expense and time, he declared.   “We’ve tried to be co-operative and ask ‘what is the issue?’,” Mr Oteng added.. “There was insistence from council officers that it was an operational development and we can’t understand that.”   Mr Hand said that was what they were there to determine. Debate centred upon what class use the poster holders would come under. Illuminated poster holders are not allowed in conservation areas unless they were for veterinary surgeons or doctors, said Mr Hand.   Mr Oteng said that when the building was a bingo hall there would be no need for illuminated posters about what events were taking place on a particular night. Mr Hand said the posters were illuminated. Mr Oteng said that had to do with the use of the building when it was a cinema. Responding to a further comment from Mr Hand, Mr Oteng then said they had no objection to “having these illuminations removed.”   Mr Lambert, referring to photos taken about a week before Tuesday’s hearing, said the poster holders seemed to be in a slightly different position than to where they were in photos taken three years ago.   Mr Oteng: “All I would say and I give you this assurance: we haven’t tampered with these boards since inheriting the building. “We haven’t sought to shift them an inch either way. “It was bought at risk if I can put it that way.. “We’ve got evidence to show they were in the same position. “All we’ve done is paint the facade.   “We’ve taken a building that was in dereliction and an awful state of decline and spent a great deal of bringing it back into muse. – several million pounds” he added.   Mr Hand said the four poster holders did look to be the same hoardings that were there now – in which case they would get deemed rights. Mr Lambert said they had changed their position – and that was the fundamental point.   Mr Oteng: “We have not made any alterations to the external fabric of the building. “It would be ludicrous for my clients to go and shift something.”   Mr Hand said the appellant’s argument was that there was no harm caused to the conservation area in which the building stands and asked Mr Lambert why Bromley said there was. Mr Lambert said the holders were detrimental to the amenities of the conservation area – and the separate conservation area on the opposite side of Church Road (Croydon borough).   The fallback position did not really exist as there were no advertisements being displayed in the holders.”If it’s not an advert it’s just a holder so it’s a material change to the building” declared Mr Lambert Mr Oteng responded that this was like saying someone’s skeletal structure did not form part of their body.   Mr Hand asked Mr Lambert if Bromley were arguing that posters which were not illuminated were harmful to the conservation area. Mr Lambert said they were slightly different to each other. “It’s almost a two-stage process. The first bit we’re looking at is whether it’s deemed consent or not.   “In that particular case the council concluded it wasn’t. “Then there’s the physical structure. “Our argument is there’s a physical structure on the building, it’s a material alteration and therefore requires planning permission. “That’s why we’ve gone down the route of the enforcement notice rather than advertisement proceedings.”   Mr Oteng: “Let’s be clear about this. “Let’s not beat about the bush. “These poster holders are clearly identified in the council notice as being poster holders. “Nowhere do they talk about them being structural  “Either their notice is defective or you’re trying to backpedal.”   Mr Oteng said there had been posters in the holders when KICC held an event there on August 24th this year. “It wasn’t illuminated” he added.   Mr Hand said it was very subjective and they needed to look at them during the site visit which would follow the hearing. Mr Lambert said that part of the council#’s notice was for both the illuminations and the panels to be removed.   Mr Hand said that if he upheld the notice KICC the appellants would have to […]

The post KICC WIN APPEAL AGAINST ENFORCEMENT NOTICE – BUT THERE’S A ‘CATCH 22′ appeared first on News from Crystal Palace - News & stories from the fresh air suburb - Crystal Palace, London SE19.

]]>
THE PENTECOSTAL church which acquired the former cinema at 25 Church Road, Crystal Palace have successfully appealed against an enforcement notice issued by Bromley council over four illuminated poster holders on the building’s front wall.
 
THE HEARING
 
The informal hearing at Bromley civic centre had something of a ‘Punch and Judy’ show about it with Bromley council insisting the church –  Kingsway International Christian Centre – had moved the poster holders (“Oh yes you did!!!”) and KICC insisting that the poster holders were still in the same positions they had been when they acquired the building (“Oh no we didn’t!!!.”)
 
Mr Simon Hand, the inspector chairing the hearing, said there was quite a bit in the file about a 48 sheet poster hoarding on the flank wall of the cinema. “That’s not before me. “I’m only looking at these poster holders.”
 
Mr Edward Oteng, on behalf of KICC, agreed it was – but then referred to a decision relating to large billboards which used to stand to the right of the main building. Mr Andrew Lambert, planning officer for Bromley council, said these hoardings had been given permission for two years on appeal.
 
Mr Oteng: “Then can I say respectfully we’ve been misled. “You don’t talk about the hoardings which my clients are making an application to retain. “To now say they are about poster boards adjacent to the building leaves me somewhat confused.”
 
Mr Hand said this had left him somewhat confused as well. Mr Lambert explained this was part of the site’s history.
 
Mr Oteng responded: “Planning permission runs with the land and not with the application – any trainee would know the difference between a poster hoarding and an advertisement.” This was incurring expense and time, he declared.
 
“We’ve tried to be co-operative and ask ‘what is the issue?’,” Mr Oteng added.. “There was insistence from council officers that it was an operational development and we can’t understand that.”
 
Mr Hand said that was what they were there to determine. Debate centred upon what class use the poster holders would come under.
Illuminated poster holders are not allowed in conservation areas unless they were for veterinary surgeons or doctors, said Mr Hand.
 
Mr Oteng said that when the building was a bingo hall there would be no need for illuminated posters about what events were taking place on a particular night. Mr Hand said the posters were illuminated. Mr Oteng said that had to do with the use of the building when it was a cinema. Responding to a further comment from Mr Hand, Mr Oteng then said they had no objection to “having these illuminations removed.”
 
Mr Lambert, referring to photos taken about a week before Tuesday’s hearing, said the poster holders seemed to be in a slightly different position than to where they were in photos taken three years ago.
 
Mr Oteng: “All I would say and I give you this assurance: we haven’t tampered with these boards since inheriting the building. “We haven’t sought to shift them an inch either way. “It was bought at risk if I can put it that way.. “We’ve got evidence to show they were in the same position. “All we’ve done is paint the facade.
 
“We’ve taken a building that was in dereliction and an awful state of decline and spent a great deal of bringing it back into muse. – several million pounds” he added.
 
Mr Hand said the four poster holders did look to be the same hoardings that were there now – in which case they would get deemed rights. Mr Lambert said they had changed their position – and that was the fundamental point.
 
Mr Oteng: “We have not made any alterations to the external fabric of the building. “It would be ludicrous for my clients to go and shift something.”
 
Mr Hand said the appellant’s argument was that there was no harm caused to the conservation area in which the building stands and asked Mr Lambert why Bromley said there was. Mr Lambert said the holders were detrimental to the amenities of the conservation area – and the separate conservation area on the opposite side of Church Road (Croydon borough).
 
The fallback position did not really exist as there were no advertisements being displayed in the holders.”If it’s not an advert it’s just a holder so it’s a material change to the building” declared Mr Lambert Mr Oteng responded that this was like saying someone’s skeletal structure did not form part of their body.
 
Mr Hand asked Mr Lambert if Bromley were arguing that posters which were not illuminated were harmful to the conservation area. Mr Lambert said they were slightly different to each other. “It’s almost a two-stage process. The first bit we’re looking at is whether it’s deemed consent or not.
 
“In that particular case the council concluded it wasn’t. “Then there’s the physical structure. “Our argument is there’s a physical structure on the building, it’s a material alteration and therefore requires planning permission. “That’s why we’ve gone down the route of the enforcement notice rather than advertisement proceedings.”
 
Mr Oteng: “Let’s be clear about this. “Let’s not beat about the bush. “These poster holders are clearly identified in the council notice as being poster holders. “Nowhere do they talk about them being structural  “Either their notice is defective or you’re trying to backpedal.”
 
Mr Oteng said there had been posters in the holders when KICC held an event there on August 24th this year. “It wasn’t illuminated” he added.
 
Mr Hand said it was very subjective and they needed to look at them during the site visit which would follow the hearing. Mr Lambert said that part of the council#’s notice was for both the illuminations and the panels to be removed.
 
Mr Hand said that if he upheld the notice KICC the appellants would have to remove the structures and the lighting but would still have deemed consent.
(A note passed round at the start of the hearing stated: “If the notice is quashed and planning permission granted, there is still no consent for advertisements, only planning permission to retain the poster frames. A separate advertisement consent would be required to enable any advertisements to be lawfully displayed in the frames”)
The hearing then adjourned for the site visit.
  
NOTE: BEFORE I get a flood of emails from angry cinema campaigners, allow me to emphasise that if I cover matters such as public inquiries, court cases, council meetings I have to be seen to be impartial.
The world and his dog knows the building was not in a state of dereliction when KICC took it over. The building was open and being operated by Gala Bingo who sold the building in a secret deal – and gave staff one week’s notice that they had no jobs.
It was the Picture Palace Campaign who in November 2010, 18 months after KICC’s purchase of 25, Church Road, stated that: “The building still remains empty, its external appearance continues to deteriorate and the KICC continues to fail to engage or even to communicate with the local community other than via a single press release.”
KICC, announcing the open day,  turned criticism of them round in a poster for the event by saying: “The venue makes a positive contribution to the life of the local community and arrests the continued dereliction of a valued local heritage asset” 
 
THE INSPECTOR’S DECISION – APPEAL ALLOWED – BUT THERE’S A ‘CATCH 22′
 
THE POSTER HOLDERS outside 25 Church Road had been moved – lowered by about 25 centimetres, said the inspector.,
 
Allowing the appeal the inspector granted planning permission for the four internally illuminated poster frames.
 
But he emphasised: “This does not grant advertisement consent for any advertisements. “The site has deemed consent rights under class five for non-illuminated advertisements to be displayed in the poster frames but not for illuminated advertisements. “These would need a separate advertisement consent” he added.
 
The inspector agreed with Bromley that it is possible for a structure that was once intended for the display of advertisements to fall out of use so that it can no longer be considered to be part and parcel of an advertisement, but reverts to being simply a structure.
 
But if in the past the advertisement and its associated structure, benefited from an express or deemed consent then the structure would, by virtue of S222 of the 1990 Planning Act have been granted planning permission. That planning permission would be independent of the advertisement consent and would still exist today unless it had been revoked or abandoned.
 
Mr Hand, in his decision, said: “On the site visit it was clear the poster frames have been lowered by some 25cm, but have not been moved horizontally and appear to be the same size. “In my view they are still the same structures and the 25cm change in position is not readily apparent.
“This change is not therefore material and the poster frames are for the purposes of the regulations the same. “The main question is therefore whether the poster frames have ever received express or deemed consent.
 
“There is no evidence an express consent was ever granted, but various classes of schedule three of the advertisement regulations grant deemed consent to certain types of advertisements.
“The poster frames are illuminated and so cannot be considered under class five as suggested by the appellants as this only allows illuminated advertisements essentially for doctors and vets.
“The fact that the appellants are prepared to remove the illumination is irrelevant for considering what class they may currently be under. “Similarly class ‘four b’ is excluded as this does not include advertisements within a conservation area.
 
“Class 13 grants deemed consent for an “advertisement displayed on a site that has been used continually for the preceding 10 years for the display of advertisements without express consent. “Here the history of the site is instructive. “At the hearing the council provided photographic evidence of the history of the building.
“While it was a cinema various advertisements were placed on the front wall, but none similar to the poster frames the subject of the notice. “But a photograph dated from “sometime in the 80s”, showed four poster frames in very much the same position as the current ones with advertisements in place.
“The Google streetview map, dated June 2008, shows the same frames with advertisements in place. “A later picture, dated 27 June 2009 showed four similar poster frames, now empty of advertisements, as the bingo use had recently ceased.
“There can be no doubt in my mind that the posters frames were erected at least by the 1980s, if not before, and there can be little doubt they were used continually up to the demise of the bingo hall in mid 2009.
 
“But class 13 is only for advertisements displayed on a site “used continually for the preceding 10 years”. “I take this to mean the 10 years immediately prior to the question being asked, that is by the issue of a discontinuance notice or, as in this case, an enforcement notice.
“This includes the gap between the end of the bingo use in June 2009 and the issue of the notice in April 2012. “The courts have held that ‘continual use’ can include gaps when no advertisements were displayed as long as the use is regular [Westminster City Council v Moran (1999)].
“It is ultimately a matter of fact and degree. “From the evidence it would appear that advertisements were displayed regularly up to mid 2009, but not thereafter until the use began again in August 2012, so there were no advertisements displayed for the last 34 months of the relevant 10 year period.
“During that period the bingo hall was undergoing renovation and refurbishment while a suitable new use could be found for it. “There was undoubtedly an intention on the part of the appellants to continue using the poster frames for advertisement purposes as the frames were refurbished, and possibly moved downwards by 25cm to their current position.
“Had they been able to bring the use back into operation earlier then no doubt the gap would have been shorter. “But they did not do so and the gap of 34 months is significant. “Although the reasons for that gap are understandable, it is too long to be able to say the use has been continual for the 10 year period, so the poster frames do not benefit from deemed consent granted by class 13.
 
“In conclusion, the poster frames and their associated advertisements have never received an express consent and do not benefit from a deemed consent. “Consequently, the poster frames do not have planning permission and the appeal on ground (c) fails.”
 
Of the Appeal on ground (a) Mr Hand says the main issue is whether the four poster frames preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Crystal Palace conservation area.
“Church Road runs from the south-western corner of Crystal Palace park towards Thornton Heath. “The stretch from the junction with the park which includes the appeal site is rather scruffy and busy with traffic. It is predominantly made up of ground floor shops and other commercial uses with flats above and some full size commercial buildings, such as the appeal site.
“Most of the ground floor uses have signage of varying quality, some of it illuminated, both externally and internally. “These include illuminated projecting signs and fascia. “The site is not readily visible from the park end of the road, but is seen wholly within the context of its immediate neighbours.
“The four appeal signs are grouped into pairs, separated by the large entrance doors to the foyer. “They are below fascia height and beneath the foyer canopy. “The panels are each relatively small, and even taken together, they do not stand out amongst the other signage and general street clutter of this busy urban area.
 
“Technically speaking as this is a ground (a) appeal it is solely for the poster frames and not for any advertisements that may be displayed within them. “But in reaching my conclusion above I have assumed the frames contain illuminated advertisements.
“I am further reinforced in my view that the advertisements and their poster frames will cause no harm by two facts.
 
“Firstly the art deco building has now been restored to something approaching its former glory and the appellants have clearly taken a great deal of care over the work. “The building has always been associated with signage and advertisements and the four poster frames fit neatly onto the facade and are wholly consonant with the building and its new use.
“Secondly, under class five the site has deemed consent rights to display the four signs without illumination and this can happen regardless of the outcome of this appeal.
“Consequently I consider the character and appearance of the conservation area will be preserved and as the poster frames do not harm the visual amenities of the area are in accord with policy BE21 of the unitary development plan.”
 
Allowing the appeal on ground (a) and granting planning permission for the four internally illuminated poster frames as described in the allegation, Mr Hand emphasises: “This does not grant advertisement consent for any advertisements. “The site has deemed consent rights under class five for non-illuminated advertisements to be displayed in the poster frames but not for illuminated advertisements. “These would need a separate advertisement consent.”  

The post KICC WIN APPEAL AGAINST ENFORCEMENT NOTICE – BUT THERE’S A ‘CATCH 22′ appeared first on News from Crystal Palace - News & stories from the fresh air suburb - Crystal Palace, London SE19.

]]> http://www.newsfromcrystalpalace.co.uk/kicc-win-appeal-against-enforcement-notice-but-theres-a-catch-22/feed/ 0