Agenda item

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a written representation, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure from Kirsty Fullarton, read out by David Rowen, Development Manager.

“In my opinion, Wisbech's one distinguishing feature is its Georgian architecture. I believe that failure to recognize and respect its architectural heritage by approving these alterations will further chip away at its identity and contribute to its general decline into a soulless town with high levels of social deprivation. The character of Museum Square, which is currently a paved pedestrian area, will be irreparably altered by the inevitable increase in cars parked in the vicinity of the museum. The only people who benefit from HMOs are the absent landlords who own them. For tenants, the conditions are often crowded, and, during the current Covid pandemic, social distancing will be impossible”.

Members received a written representation in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure from William Wagstaff, read out by David Rowen, Development Manager.

“I write to register my concern that the over thirty comments written by residents and societies have not been addressed in the officer’s recommendation to grant this application. Would the officer confirm for example that the issue of local parking has been taken into consideration when making this decision? Also, I am alarmed that the decision for approval appears to have been made by the officer because there is no better proposal on the table (see last paragraph of Conservation Referral Comments document “It is disappointing that the house is not to be returned to a single dwelling, as it would have brought it closer to its historic appearance and plan form and would have enhanced its significance. However, the alterations now proposed are no more harmful than the current arrangement over all’). It should not be a fait acompli that an absentee developer can buy up Wisbech’s historic property and turn it into a modern-day slum for profit. The planning committee should send out a message that starting now that houses in the conservation area should be retained as good family housing”.

Members received a written representation, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure from Marcus Aspden, read out by David Rowen, Development Manager.

“Change of Use

With regards to the change of use application, I feel the HMO will over intensely utilise the current property and the neighbouring areas. What control measures will be put in place to ensure parking facilities are not affected? The application does not provide details for dealing with refuse collections - how will these be controlled? I feel consent should not be granted without details and control measures in place.

Internal Alterations

The agent, in recent correspondence has stated the alterations and change of use and the works planned will improve the current condition and appearance of the property. As the council are aware, the Owner of a Listed Building has a duty to maintain and keep their property in repair, it should not be left to fall derelict. If necessary, the local authority or council should serve an enforcement notice on the owner to undertake repair and maintenance works. Allowing a property to fall into disrepair and then using this as a reason for a change of use application and alterations should not be considered in support of the application. On the 7th September FDC recommended Objecting to the application (notes posted on the website on 8th Sept). What has been submitted by the applicant to change the Council’s opinion to now recommend approval?”

Members received a presentation in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure from Ray Johnson of the Wisbech Civic Society in objection to the proposal.

Mr Johnson stated that the Wisbech Society strongly objects to the planning application to convert a fine example of a late 18^th century family town house into a nine bed HMO. He expressed the view that Museum Square is the cultural heart of Wisbech and is a gem in terms of its architecture significance to the town with its unique historic setting with its Grade 1 Listed Church and church gardens, Grade 2* Listed Castle and Museum as well as many other Grade 2 Listed Buildings and monuments. Mr Johnson expressed the opinion that Museum Square is a sensitive area of the town, regularly used for public events, such as Rose Fair and other museum, civic and church events, and these events could be severely disrupted by the accumulated storage of household waste to the outside of the property or insensitive car parking, as there are no allocated car parking spaces to the frontage. He feels Museum Square and adjacent Church gardens are a haven for residents and visitors to rest and admire the surrounding buildings and their setting which will be seriously affected by the potential for excessive noise and disturbance that a nine bed HMO can bring.

Mr Johnson stated that the town needs additional housing, but this should be of a quality and desirability that offers its occupiers a place to call ‘home’ not merely somewhere to sleep and asked is allowing a HMO to be established in the cultural centre of Wisbech the appropriate response to much needed housing, or simply an attempt by opportunistic developers, who he emphasised, are not locally based or invested in the towns society, to make profit at the expense of people?

He added that Wisbech is the Birthplace of Octavia Hill, who as well being a founder of the National Trust, was a social reformer and pioneer in improving housing conditions for the working classes and the application does not appear to have taken into consideration the progressive practices she introduced and possibly could be considered a disappointment to this amazing woman. Mr Johnson stated that although the Planning and Conservation Departments have applied the Planning Laws and guidelines precisely, he believes that they have been too rigid in their application and have not sufficiently considered the strong local feeling against this application with 44 written objections; and in failing to do so, have not used the leeway provided by the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which delivered the Fenland 'Local Development Plan (LDP) in 2014'. He referred to the wording Policy LP18 of Fenlands Local Plan under the Historic Environment and Heritage Assets and Historic England’s guidance regarding enhancement and conserving heritage assets and the contribution that the historic environment can bring to the area

Mr Johnson concluded that on the basis of the Fenland Local Plan and the advice given to Local Authorities by Historic England, the Wisbech Society strongly contends that it is clear that the proposed HMO within the cultural centre of Wisbech will seriously affect the setting of the building and the historic asset which is the Town's Museum Square with the proposal for an HMO in Museum Square negatively affecting its local character and distinctiveness while offering no wider social or public benefit.

Members received a presentation in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure from Mr Jeremy Baldwin, the Applicant.

Mr Baldwin stated that the building is not in disrepair and it is a large four-storey house of approximately 2000 sq. ft. internalarea, which has been used as office accommodation for the past 20 years. He added that the Fenland Probation Service previously used the building as offices and an employee that worked there for 16 years has stated that the offices provided a work space for 7-8 staff and would typically host between 10-15 meetings with outside clients each working day, with all of the associated traffic load and foot-fall in and out of the building, and there was never any concerns over parking raised.

Mr Baldwin stated that the property is ina centrallocation andis wellsuited toserve agrowing and economicallyimportant elementof the Town’scommunity lookingfor a high quality “shared living” experience with the proposal bringing back into residential use a property which has been for 20+ years used as a commercial office building. He feels this is in keeping with the stated objectives and preferences of the Conservation Officer, who has been fully consulted as part of this application and who has visited and surveyed the property.

Mr Baldwin explained that therewill bea sizableinjection of investmentto rehabilitate theproperty which although costly, will benefitthe local economy, both in terms of materials supply and employment for local trades and the refurbishment and improvement of the property externally will enhance the local street scene, improve the look of the square and the Conservation Area more widely. He explained that there are already 20 Licenced HMOs within 220m of 2 Museum Square and 3 of these are also Listed Buildings with one of these being a 30 seconds walk from 2 Museum Square next to the Fenland Library and the designation of 2 Museum Square as a Listed Building, should not be relevant in the assessment of the usage application, provided the Conservation issues arefully identified and respected as in this case.

Mr Baldwin stated that the proposalto usethe houseas an HMOhas thesupport of theresponsible HousingOfficer whohas metwith the applicantand surveyedthe building to ensure that the necessary amenity standards will be met and she is satisfied that this is thecase.He added that parking is referred to in several of the objections registered, but it should be noted that there is a public car park 70m away from the property, less than a 2 minutes’ walk which was not considered an issue when the property was used as offices; with the likely parking demand as an HMO being almostcertainly lessthan when theproperty wasused asoffices with7-8staff and15 visitors aday and the Council’sown policyis forreduced parking in Town Centres with nil being considered acceptable in certain circumstances.

Mr Baldwin expressed the opinion that the suggestion that HMO’s are a source of “anti-social” behaviour is a dangerous generalisation and should not be relevant in considering this application. He added that whilst there may be HMO’s in Wisbech which are not professionally managed in his view these are very much in the minority and are not the yardstick against which other HMO’s are assessed with the Council having a proactive management policy concerning the private rental sector and HMO’s, and therefore this should not be anissue.

Mr Baldwin added that many the objections to the Planning Application are “Cut and Paste” letters with follow precisely the same format and content and the protests appear to be a “whipped-up”, carefully orchestrated storm with little foundation in reality and even perhaps, “Nimbyish”. He explained that not everyone canafford torent othertypes ofaccommodation, andthe proposedhigh-quality shared livingalternative isgenuinely verynecessary inthe Town with “shared living” accommodation being on the rise across the country, and 2 Museum Square is ideally suited for this use.  He concluded that the proposal is centrally located, well designed,properly licenced,and affordable;itwill bea benefitto theeconomy ofthe Townand fillsan essentialneed inthe rentalmarket.

Members asked Mr Baldwin the following questions:

·         Councillor Meekins asked Mr Baldwin to clarify the overhauling works to the front of the property that he had referred to and asked what further works will be carried out? Mr Baldwin stated that the Conservation Officer wanted to see detail of the overhauling of sash windows and that has been provided to her, along with the full details to tidy up the front of the building. He added that the rear sash windows will need slight repairs, but the front windows will only need to be repainted. He referred to the drawings in the officer’s presentation which highlighted conservation approved grills and vent outlets which will maintain the character of the building.

·         Councillor Meekins asked for clarity regarding the location of the fire escapes as the plans only show one fire escape. Mr Baldwin explained that the central staircase is the main means of escape, which conforms with building regulations and a fire risk assessment has been carried out which will form part of the licensing process for the HMO which is a secondary regulatory process to deal with.

·         Councillor Marks asked that if planning permission is refused to turn the property into an HMO, will he look to change the property into a single dwelling? Mr Baldwin stated that the application is for a marginal increase in the occupancy levels of the building and if refused it will just operate as a 6 bedroomed HMO. Councillor Marks asked whether there will be caretaker living on site? Mr Baldwin confirmed it will be managed professionally and high-quality shared living is increasing across the country and there is a constant demand for this type of accommodation.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Skoulding asked for confirmation as to whether the local car parks referred to in the officer’s report have any time limits associated with them? David Rowen stated he is unsure regarding any restrictions, but as residents there maybe the opportunity to apply for a dispensation when parking there.

·         Councillor Mrs French clarified that there are no restrictions currently associated with the car parks, however, in the future this maybe something that is introduced as part of the Civil Parking Enforcement initiative to include permits and time restrictions.

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

·         Councillor Meekins expressed the opinion that the refuse collection in the area is collected in bags, which will look unsightly and attract vermin. He stated that, within the building itself, there is one historic fireplace and he questioned whether this will be removed, retained or boxed in and preserved. Councillor Meekins referred to the plans and highlighted that on the second floor there are three bedrooms and a sitting area, but there is no inclusion of a toilet or washing facilities. He made the point that although there are two large car parks near the development, people will choose to park in the vicinity of their home, and in his opinion, this could cause an issue. Councillor Meekins stated that Museum Square is the cultural centre of Wisbech, with the Museum, Castle and Church in the vicinity of the HMO and he added that the property is going to well managed but, in his opinion, there is the scope for residents that will live there to be non-compliant with the house rules. He stated that he will be voting against the officer’s recommendation.

·         Councillor Cornwell expressed the view that members are always cautious when determining HMO properties in the Wisbech area, which is why some strict controls had been introduced previously and Mr Baldwin has confirmed that if the application is approved then it will need to be managed appropriately. He added that in his opinion the HMO is not situated in the right location, since it will be surrounded by Grade 1 and 2 Listed Buildings along with the Castle and Church and he questioned why the refuse cannot be stored and serviced from Love Lane.

·         Councillor Lynn stated that he was worked in some of the HMO properties in the area and due to the size and nature of them, they have all had en suite rooms, whereas this proposal does not, in his opinion, have sufficient bathrooms and kitchen facilities for 9 people. He added that the officer’s report states that the drainage from the property will egress into Love Lane and there are concerns as to whether that drain will be fit for purpose. Councillor Lynn expressed the opinion that the proposal for 9 people is too overcrowded with too few amenities and he cannot support the application.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that he does not have an issue with the building being used as an HMO or the location of it but in his opinion if the proposal had been brought forward with bedroom 7 being used as a wet room and toilet for the residents of the upper floor, he would have supported the application. He suggested that if the application could be deferred and bedroom 7 could be altered into a wet room officers could be given delegated authority to grant the application. Councillor Sutton stated that public comments cannot be taken into consideration unless they are for material planning reasons.

·         Councillor Benney stated that he agrees with Councillor Sutton regarding his comments concerning letters of objection. He added that consideration needs to be given to the quality of life for the residents who live in this type of accommodation, with many of the people who come to Wisbech to work, being from other countries and he is concerned about the cramped conditions that 9 people would be living in and they should be entitled to live in good high-quality accommodation, which, in his opinion the proposal does not equate to. Councillor Benney referred to the comment made regarding the footfall when the premises was a Probation Office, and expressed the view that although at that time there was a high level of footfall, during office hours, with nine residents plus guests visiting the property at different times of day and night, there will be a significant increase in footfall. He feels that the real concern is not so much about the building, it is how people are treated,  referring to the Fenland Local Plan Policy LP2, Facilitating Health and Wellbeing for Fenland residents and he questioned how nine people can flourish, living together, who may not know each other with residing in this type of environment not promoting a healthy lifestyle. Councillor Benney added that with reference to crime, Wisbech does have a slightly higher rate of crime than some other Fenland areas and this should be taken into consideration when determining the application. He referred to LP16 of the Local Plan and questioned how the proposal protects a heritage asset with it will also having an impact on the neighbouring properties with noise. He stated that there is no statement to support how the waste will be stored and added that if the waste is stored in bags this will lead to an accumulation of refuse which has not been taken into consideration. Councillor Benney stated that he has looked into other HMO properties in Wisbech and referred to F/YR16/1185/F which was also for a nine bedroomed HMO at 17 Leverington Road, which was refused, and it went to appeal, and it was dismissed. He concluded by stating that the application should be refused and converted into an HMO for 6.

·         David Rowen stated that regarding the living standards within the property, that would fall under the licensing regulations for properties of this type which set out the amenity standards required with comments having been received from the Licensing Team who have stated that the amenity provision is acceptable.

·         Councillor Sutton referred to the Leverington Road site which was refused on the grounds of lack of amenity space on all floors and the application was brought back before the committee with amended plans and the application was granted. He expressed the opinion that if room 7 was changed into a wet room and toilet so that each floor of the property has its own facilities it would resolve the issue.

·         Councillor Cornwell referred to the comments made by the Licensing Team and stated that when reviewing information, they are working on a minimum standard to reach the conclusion that the proposal is acceptable. Members have intimated that they would prefer to see an additional toilet and wet room and this will then enhance the quality of life and meet the requirements of the Local Plan.

·         Nick Harding stated that he has reviewed the appeal decision notice for Leverington Road proposal, which was for two bathrooms shared between 16 people, whereas this proposal has 2 bathrooms for 9 people and is therefore better designed.

F/YR20/0710/F – Change of Use.

It was proposed by Councillor Sutton, seconded by Councillor Skoulding and AGREED that the application be deferred to encourage the applicant to submit amended plans to change bedroom 7 into a wet room for the health and wellbeing of the residents under LP2 of the Local Plan.

F/YR20/0711/LB – Internal and external Alterations to a listed Building

It was proposed by Councillor Connor, seconded by Councillor Sutton and AGREED that the application be deferred, in association with the previous application F/YR20/0710/F.