Agenda item

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation in support of the application, in accordance with the public participation procedure from Mr Hawes the applicant.

Mr Hawes explained that the two shops at the front are small one-room premises on a narrow one-way street which is usually congested with parked cars and that number 5 last traded as a jewellers and number 6 is let on a 10 year lease to a hairdresser. He expressed the view that Norfolk Street no longer lends itself to retail activities requiring large stock holdings and therefore various storage buildings at the rear of properties have become unused and have deteriorated over time. Mr Hawes advised that pre-application advice was sought with this application using the same drawings as had gained a favourable response during that process and the application provides for a significant upgrade to the amenity space used by the hairdresser. He stated that currently the only access to properties at the rear of 5/6 is through a covered passageway approximately 750mm wide which already provides access to residential units above the shops and that the storage buildings come with a right of access along the same passageway but were they to be brought back into commercial use this could in his view create significant disruption to existing residents, particularly as parking issues would encourage deliveries at anti-social times. Mr Hawes stated that there is a small courtyard/amenity space at the rear of 5 available for the use of all residents but its use is compromised by the poor state of the buildings behind 6 which are insecure and attract vermin, However by converting the buildings behind 6 into one 2 bed unit, reduced from the 2 units agreed in principle during the pre-application process those issues, in his opinion are addressed. Mr Hawes stated that the current national and local policy is that no car parking is required for town centre developments and these units are sized to cater for a demographic unlikely to be car owners. He expressed the view that Wisbech is well served by publictransport and added that by reorienting the barn to allow access from Orange Grove reduces the footfall from Norfolk Street, thus providing an enhanced environment for the remaining residents. Access to the barn will now be either direct from a private car park or via an existing communal staircase at 9 Orange Grove which will mean that the design is able to offer better accommodation than if a stairwell had to be incorporated into the barn. Mr Hawes added that 9 Orange Grove is a recently updated block, which benefits from a communal fire alarm to which the new flats will be linked and refuse provision for these units will be accommodated on the car park, further reducing issues created by properties gaining access from Norfolk Street. He explained that discussions were held before and during the application process with the Conservation Officer for the Council and she has no objections from a heritage viewpoint, with the only comment received during the public consultation phase being from a residential neighbour who is in favour.

Mr Hawes stated that all buildings affected by this application are in the control of the applicant and access from the car park in Orange Grove through the barn provides a one-off opportunity to address the state of the buildings at the rear of 6 Norfolk Street without undue disruption being caused to other residents. He concluded by stating that by allowing this development the following benefits are achieved; repurposing existing buildings justifying their repair, residents of neighbouringproperties are not affected by the possibility of disruption caused by future commercial use, additional accommodation is created, the environment for existing residents of 5/6 Norfolk Street isimproved, the working environment for the existing hairdresser isimproved and the street scene in Orange Grove is enhanced, by a replacement wall in sympatheticbricks.

Members asked officer’s the following questions:

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that the building does look as though it is in need of improvement and asked officers to clarify the situation with regard to the parking provision. David Rowen stated that there are no parking spaces which form part of the proposal and given that the parking area on Orange Grove also services the existing flats, which is also in the applicant’s ownership, there could be the opportunity for a very small element of parking where applicable or appropriate however, it will be below policy compliant level. He added that as the proposal is within the town centre the Local Plan does allow for nil provision. Councillor Mrs French stated that if more developments of flats are approved there will be a problem with regard to lack of parking and in her view parking is an area that needs to be reviewed as part of the new Local Plan.

·         Councillor Skoulding asked for clarification with regard to the wooden door in Norfolk Street and asked whether it will be kept locked or left open in case of an emergency? David Rowen stated that this will be an area the applicant will need to look at, however if it is an aspect that members are particularly concerned about, then it could be an additional condition imposed with any planning permission, for details concerning security to be agreed with officers and implemented thereafter.

·         Councillor Murphy referred to the Governments parking policy and asked whether the policy still exists, that properties do not need the provision of any parking spaces in the town centre? David Rowen stated that the Government policy has various strands with regard to car parking and one of those is that by providing no parking it discourages car use. He added that the general approach, which is consistent with the Local Plan, is that while it is desirable to have parking in residential schemes in town centres where that is not achievable because of its central sustainable location, then nil provision or under provision of parking can be approved.

Members asked questions, made comments and received responses as follows:

·         Councillor Meekins stated that he disagrees with the comments from Wisbech Town Council, who state that this proposal is in their view over development and has a lack of off street car parking. He expressed the opinion that there is ample car parking in the vicinity of the site, including St Peters Car Park which has 700 spaces and a small parking area in West Street. Councillor Meekins expressed the opinion that the type of residents who would live in the proposed development are unlikely to have a car and stated that with regard to over development, the current site is an eye sore and improvements do need to be made and to change it into quality accommodation for single residents is something that he welcomes. He stated that Mr Hawes has confirmed the refuse bin provision is adequate and there is an allocated space for the storage of the refuse bins at the rear of the building. Councillor Meekins expressed the view that whilst he respects the Wisbech Society for all their work, he does not agree with their comments concerning the brickwork being worthy of saving. He agrees with Mr Hawes comment regarding the view from Orange Grove towards the proposed building enhancing the street scene and he will be supporting the officer’s recommendation to approve this application.

·         Councillor Lynn stated that the space to the rear is very small space, but the whole area is in a state of disrepair and needs to be improved. He added that homes are required not just for families but also consideration for housing does need to be given to those people who are living on the streets. Councillor Lynn expressed the view that he does have concerns over fire risk and would like to see the entrance onto Norfolk Street opened up but stated that he will be supporting the officer’s recommendation.

·         Councillor Hay stated that she will also be supporting the officer’s recommendation and added that currently the site is an eyesore and does need to be improved as it is encouraging vermin. She expressed the opinion that the nature of the building that is being proposed would give an indication that the residents may not own a car, so the lack of car parking provision would not cause a problem. Councillor Hay added that she also has concerns over means of escape in the event of a fire and added that she would like a condition added to address that and to include more than one exit route.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that he shares some of the concerns of other members with regard to the lack of parking, however the committee does approve applications without parking. He referred to page 14 of the officer’s report which shows the current footprint and the proposed footprint expressing the view that the built form is not much greater and the buildings are in a poor condition, is an eyesore and he will be supporting the officer’s recommendation.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that members must be very clear in adding any condition if the proposal is approved. David Rowen stated that the condition he alluded to earlier would be with regard to security, including how the door onto Norfolk Street would be managed and possible lighting to be included from a security perspective with fire exits and regulations being something that would be addressed under building regulations.

Proposed by Councillor Meekins, seconded by Councillor Lynn and decided that the application be APPROVED as per the officer’s recommendation.