Agenda item

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Mr Weetman from the Chatteris Past, Present and Future Society in objection to the proposal.

Mr Weetman expressed the view that theapplicant’s HeritageConsultant, MrDonoyou, mayhave inadvertentlymisled thiscommittee in December when he told members that “the reason the ceilings are barrel vaulted is becausethey havea zincventilation shaftat thetop andhistorically thebuilding couldhave beenused forpoultry rearingor otheranimal stock”, but he is perplexed as to why such a description does not appear in Mr Donoyou’s historic buildinganalysis, written in 2018 and re-submitted in support of this application on 30th March, and he stated that the very  detailed, eleven-pagereport didn’trefer tothe building’suse asa poultryhouse or toventilation shafts. He stated that in his society’s initial response to the application, he provided copies of advertisements for thesale ofFortrey house and he added that theseclearly describethe buildingas acoach house,with stablesand atwo-storey granary. He added that thoseadverts datefrom 1894and 1946 and neithermention thebuilding’s useas a poultry shed and added that Members should be very clear that this is a Grade II Listed Coach House that   is of vital significance to the main heritage asset at 22 London Road and that noevidence has been found, thatit wasever usedas apoultry house.

Mr Weetman stated that in Mr Donoyou’s 2018 report, it refers to the barrel-vaulted ceilings as an “impressive” and“striking architectural feature” of the coach house and added that it goes on to say that a “barrel-vaultedceiling ina late19th centuryutilitarian structureis both an unusual andnotable featureof thiscurtilage building” and he questioned as to whetherMr Donoyou was wrong in2018 oris hewrong now?  He stated that the applicant has repeatedly implied that Historic England has no objections to thedemolition of the building and its opinion is a gross mischaracterisation of Historic England’s responses,which say that while the building falls outside of its prioritisation criteria for casework and he added that HistoricEngland saythat theCouncil shoulddefer tothe adviceof its Conservation Officer.

Mr Weetman stated that theCouncil’s Conservation Officer has clearly laid out important reasons as to why the application should not  be granted if the Council wishes to make a decision that is consistent with its legal obligation in accordance with the Fenland Adopted Local Plan and the National PlanningPolicy Framework,as wellas the Council’slegal dutyto protectlisted buildings. He expressed the opinion that if the Council wishes to make a decision that does not comply with the Council’s Local Plan andthe NationalPlanning PolicyFramework, councillorsare clearlyleaving theCouncil vulnerableto a judicial review by one of the four national societies that have strongly opposed this application  todemolish partof Chatteris’heritage andfurther diminishits “atrisk” ConservationArea.

Mr Weetman stated that he does not intend to fully re-hash the planning points raised by the Conservation Officer and theadvice provided by the Planning Officer, except to remind councillors that the application mustmeet allfour ofthe criteriaset outin Paragraph195 ofthe NationalPlanning PolicyFramework. He added that if anyone of thesecriteria hasnot beenmet, theapplication mustnot begranted and, in his view, it ishugely doubtful that the applicant has provided sufficient evidence that they have met any of thesecriteria atall, letalone eachand everyone ofthem.

Mr Weetman explained that, in particular, one of the criteria says that it must not be possible to save the building throughmarketing of the property, but a neighbouring resident has made an offer to purchase the building for use as an art studio and educational facility and this would result in significantly greater publicbenefit thana singledwelling. He stated that theapplicant providesno evidencethat theyhave fullyexplored this opportunity, so the applicant has already failed the test set out in the National PlanningPolicy Framework and has also failed to sufficiently explore the non-residential uses for thebuilding, andthe effortsto findcharitable fundingseem half-heartedat best.

Mr Weetman stated that the Conservation Officer,and the Planning Officer’sreport, bothoutline exactreasons whyeach andevery oneof theother testsin theNational PlanningPolicy Frameworkhave notbeen met, and, in his opinion, granting the application would be a clear breach of the Council’s legal obligations and it may alsobe a breach of the Members Code of Conduct, since there has been no significant change in thecircumstances of this property since Fenland District Council refused a 3-bed conversion at the  site due to the damage it would cause to a designated heritage asset. He explained that the Council’s PlanningCode of Conduct is clear that approving such a follow-up application may be an indication of, inthe wordsof theCode ofConduct, “perversityand maladministration”in theplanning process and stated that thefact thatthe previousapplication wasnot determinedby thiscommittee doesnot seemto bea mitigatingfactor inthis regard.

Mr Weetman stated that he would like topoint outthat therehas beenan alternativeoption availableto theapplicant throughoutthis process, whereby the developercould haveasked HistoricEngland, fora relativelysmall fee, to consider de-listing the coach house at 22 London Road or to modify the listing toexplicitly excludethe coachhouse and ifthe coachhouse isas insignificantas theapplicant claims,this process would have been concluded within 12 weeks. He stated that if the applicant had taken this actionwhen Isuggested itat theDecember meeting,the processwould havebeen concludedby now.

Mr Weetman explained that giventhat thiswould havebeen amuch quickerprocess, andgiven thatit wouldhave avoidedasking councillors to contemplate ignoring countless planning policies and breaking the law inthe process, members must surely wonder why the applicant hasn’t decided to do this? He expressed the view that the applicant has not tried to de-list the coach house, because it is in facthistorically significant and instead of doing the right thing, the applicant is forcing members into anuntenable positionand membersshouldn’t allowit.

Members received a presentation in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Kate Wood, the Agent and Richard Donoyou, the Heritage Consultant.

Kate Wood stated that Richard Donoyou would present on behalf of them both and she would answer any questions that members may have. Mr Donoyou referred to the presentation screen which showed a slide of the existing street scene and then a further slide of the conversion street scene and stated that, when the application was previously refused, one of the main reasons cited for refusal was that the view of the Council’s planning officers was that the proposal would have a negative impact on the relationship of the conversion to the existing house and the street scene in general and it was said to be not in the public interest. He stated that the application was accompanied with a financial analysis of the conversion scheme cost and the market value and the scheme would not make any profit which he accepted in 2019, and since that time an independent viability assessment has been carried out, which has been reviewed by a Fenland Senior Planning Officer.

Mr Donoyou added that if consideration is given to the preference suggested by the Council’s Conservation Officer, which is for a one bedroomed unit, a development of such a type would result in a loss of over £100,000. He stated that it is pleasing to note that members of the committee have had the opportunity to carry out a site inspection and he referred to a speaker from Save Britain’s Heritage, who spoke at the meeting in December, who had made reference to a possible judicial review if the application was approved and when questioned by members he had admitted that he had never visited Chatteris, but still felt empowered to make a threat of a judicial review.

Mr Donoyou stated that after four months, Save Britain’s Heritage have still not inspected the building or visited Chatteris and, in his view, it should be noted that anybody can seek a judicial review on any decision made by a Local Authority, including the applicant. He referred to the point that had been made with regard to the demolition of a third of the listed building at 22 London Road, but having looked through the officers reports and in coming to that decision, there is no mention of judicial review, even though the building is specifically listed and queried whether there has been any threat of legal proceedings from any party, following that decision.

Mr Donoyou stated that he has considered the legal position of the application in relation to the four tests that had been outlined following the December meeting and made the point that the building was offered to Cambridgeshire Historic Buildings Trust and they had responded by stating that the Coach House had insufficient architectural merit for them to be really interested in it and the requirement for a one bedroomed unit even at a nominal cost, would in their opinion, not be financially favourable and, therefore, declined all interest. He stated that he has been made aware that a local resident has offered to purchase the building, but he reputed that fact and added that the owner of the building has never been contacted and neither has his agent and he added that to bring the building into a usable condition would cost in the region of £100,000.

Mr Donoyou expressed the opinion that enough has been done to fulfil the four tests as detailed in  paragraph 195 and added that the reason that there has been no progress with the building is due to the constrictive requirements of the Conservation Officer. He added that an application was submitted to convert a building which was refused and stated that the objective is to work together to provide a scheme which will work and allow the renovation of a Listed Building at number 22 and to enhance a derelict site in the Chatteris Conservation Area.

Mr Donoyou added that it is in everyone’s interest to overcome the issue of unused buildings and asked the committee to consider the scheme carefully and referred them to the presentation screen to view a further slide. He stated that if the committee feel that they cannot approve the proposal he asked them to consider the submitted conversion scheme and advise him further with regard to the possible resubmission of the scheme.

Members asked Mr Donoyou and Miss Wood the following questions:

·         Councillor Miscandlon asked for clarity with regard to when they were made aware of the legal position and the requirements concerning the maintenance of the Listed Building to bring it back into use? Miss Wood stated that the owner knew of the legalities when he purchased the building and Mr Donoyou confirmed that the purchase took place in 2018. Councillor Miscandlon stated that due to the timescales the building has deteriorated over three years and Mr Donoyou stated that the building is regularly photographed, and, in his opinion, there has not been a significant deterioration of the building.

·         Councillor Mrs Davis asked whether any attempts have been made to get the building delisted? Miss Wood stated a building cannot be delisted if it is not on the list. She added that if attempts were made to delist the building in this case, then number 22 would also have to be delisted, which is a Listed Building that is valued and that advice was provided by Historic England.

·         Councillor Cornwell asked for clarity with regard to the ownership of the building from 2018 and asked what protective measures have been put in place for the building since that time? Mr Donoyou stated that the building and site have been made secure and as a result of that there has been no vandalism or unauthorised entry and remains in a similar state, since when it was purchased. Councillor Cornwell questioned that the holes in the roof, the slipped slates and the poor condition of the staircase are in exactly the same condition, without any deterioration due to weather since 2018? Mr Donoyou confirmed that the staircase was unusable in 2018 and the Council’s Conservation Officer has stated that the upper floor of the granary section was not inspected due to the condition of the staircase. Councillor Cornwell asked for clarity with regard to the roof and Mr Donoyou stated that the roof has not been raised as an issue by the planning officers and they have not insisted on adding an Urgent Works Notice to a Listed Building. Councillor Cornwell expressed the view that if the building had been maintained better over the last three years, it may now be in a better state of repair for any conversion. Miss Wood stated that in 2018/2109, the application was for a conversion and it was always in the owners interest to maintain the building to facilitate the conversion and to keep the costs to a minimum in order to provide the conversion works, but since that time the application has been refused and an alternative has been looked at with regard to demolishing and replacing the building, but if the proposal is refused, then consideration will have to be given to turning the site into a three bedroomed dwelling as per the previous proposal and now that more information is available in terms of the viability assessment which brings forward a change in circumstances since the previous refusal. She added that it is not in anybody’s interest to let the building fall into disrepair. 

·         Councillor Meekins referred to Mr Donoyou stating that the reason that the application was refused in 2019 was to do with the appearance of the building, however, he thought that it was due to the extensions that were being applied for. Mr Donoyou stated there were a number of reasons for the refusal and made the point that there was a proposal of a small rear extension and officers had advised at one point that the proposal would be acceptable, but then it was added as a reason for refusal, with the reasons for refusal including the relationship of the conversion scheme and the small extension with the Listed Building and the impact of the Listed Building on the street scene. He added that the illustration provided is a true and honest reflection and most people they would not have been aware that from the street scene point of view that the building had changed in any way at all and, therefore, he was surprised to hear that the conversion scheme was deemed to be not in the public interest and compromised its relationship with the listed building. Mr Donoyou added that the building cannot be converted and make a large financial loss at the same time, with the development for renovation and conversion of the coach house needing to be financially at a break-even position and the conversion scheme has to be one which will not make a financial loss.

·         Councillor Benney stated that the presentation appears to bring forward a conversion scheme and he asked whether, if the proposal was not approved, would a conversion scheme be something he would like to consider? Mr Donoyou stated that the site was purchased with the intention of a development within the yard and the conversion of the Listed Building and the Coach House, but it appears that he is unable to produce a scheme which satisfies the planning officers requirements and at least to break even financially, hence, the proposal before members today. Mr Donoyou added that if the committee could advise him to submit a conversion scheme, then he will be happy to work with the planning officers in order to submit an application and for the economics of the scheme to be independently examined. He stated that the Coach House will not make as a conversion any profit at all and will only form part of the development.

·         Councillor Murphy questioned whether it would be possible for the application to be deferred in order for a conversion scheme to be submitted? Nick Harding stated that would not be feasible as it would be a fundamental different proposal to the one that is before the committee.

Members asked officer’s the following questions:

·         Councillor Cornwell asked Nick Harding to provide the committee with advice on how to determine the application. Nick Harding stated that the committee cannot indicate that it would go onto approve a subsequent application for a conversion scheme as the detail of the conversion scheme is not yet known. He added that any further application received will be reviewed in conjunction with the Council’s adopted planning policies and any other national guidance available. Nick Harding added that with regard to the 2019 application, that was refused for the conversion, it did include some alterations to the roof of the building as well as the rear extensions, so it was not a simple scheme, which, in his view, influenced the reasons for refusal. He added that the applicant could resubmit the previously rejected scheme or alternatively the applicant could enter into pre application discussions with officers to reach a suitable conversion scheme that meets both requirements of the applicant and would also accord with the appropriateness of a listed building.

·         Councillor Benney asked whether it is possible that the Coach House could be delisted or is it something that just will not happen? Nick Harding stated that the full criteria, which is identified in the National Planning Policy Framework has no reference to the question of delisting or not, because they are there on the basis that the property in question is Listed and therefore the issue of delisting is a separate matter. He added that application to delist would involve both properties and he is not in a position to prejudge any conclusion that would be drawn by Historic England. Claire Fidler, the Conservation Officer, added that Miss Wood is correct in what she has stated with regard to the fact that the Coach House cannot be delisted by itself, but the applicant could apply to Historic England and ask them to clarify the listing of number 22, with the potential result that Historic England and the Secretary of State would deem that the Coach House was not of significance to the principal dwelling, so that the listing would then be clarified.

·         Councillor Meekins stated that it is his understanding that if the application were approved the committee would be breaking the law by approving demolition of a Listed Building and if that is the case, does each committee member deem themselves liable. The Legal Officer, Chris Gordon, stated that by granting planning permission you would not be breaking the law, however, it would not look favourably on the Council. Nick Harding stated that should there be a legal challenge to any planning permission granted then individual members of the Planning Committee would not be liable, it would be a corporate decision that was made and if the challenge was accepted by the judge the outcome would be that the consent approved by the Council is quashed and then it would come back to Planning Committee for redetermination. He added that the judgement from the court would identify from what areas in the law the committee had gone awry in and the purpose for reconsidering the applications would be taken in a way that addresses the short comings of the original decision made.

·         Councillor Mrs Davis asked for clarification with regard to the delisting point. Claire Fidler stated that somebody could apply to Historic England for clarification on the listing as it stands and then Inspectors might determine that the Coach House does or does not contribute to the significance of the principal dwelling, and then exclude it from its curtilage, however, it would still be within the setting of the Listed Building and an application would need to be considered for demolition against section 16 and 66 of the law in terms of how the demolition would affect the setting and, therefore, the significance of the principle dwelling.

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

·         Councillor Cornwell stated that a solution needs to be reached, so that the building can be protected, and the Council fulfils its duty under legislation. He added that, in his opinion, it would be better that the application be refused ion accordance with the officer’s recommendations, but with the expectation that negotiations between the applicant and officers takes place so that the site is developed with the retention of the Coach House and its conversion and protection for the future.

·         Councillor Benney stated that his concern is that a blot will be left on the landscape. He added that, in his opinion, the site should have been included when the six bungalows were developed, but the proposal cannot be passed in its present form, but neither does he want to refuse the proposal. Councillor Benney stated that Mr Donoyou appears to be considering resubmitting the original plan for a conversion and questioned whether the proposal could be deferred to give the applicant the opportunity to investigate the options available to him. He stated that a one bedroomed property on the site is not viable and it could remain empty for years and he emphasised that he wants to see a positive outcome on the site. Councillor Benney stated that the applicant should be given the opportunity to investigate the possibilities of delisting the building and if that is not possible then he could withdraw the application and there would not be a refusal on site and a new scheme could be submitted by working with officers.

·         Councillor Miscandlon stated that it is not in the developer’s interest to leave a derelict building at the front of his prestigious site that is being developed. He expressed the opinion that the application should be refused so that the developer can reconsider the options and come back with a positive application.

·         Councillor Murphy stated that he agrees with the comments raised by Councillor Cornwell and Councillor Benney. He queried that should the applicant come back again with another application would he be charged? Councillor Murphy expressed the opinion that Listed Buildings and archaeological buildings need to be reviewed regularly, so that there is an awareness of them, their condition and the significance of them.

·         Councillor Connor stated that a compromise does need to be reached and stated that the developer should be allowed to investigate the delisting possibilities and if this cannot be achieved, then he should be encouraged to work with officers to bring the site to a satisfactory conclusion.

·         Councillor Mrs Davis questioned whether the committee could request that the application be withdrawn in order to allow the applicant to resubmit a further proposal without incurring costs? Nick Harding stated that the committee does not have the ability to give the applicant a zero fee application as the fees are prescribed in the legislation. He stated that with regard to the comments made by members concerning a further deferment of the application, he would advise the committee against that, due to the fact that if the delisting exercise is not successful then the situation will still be the same as the development proposal still does not meet all the criteria  as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework. He added that if the delisting exercise is successful, the applicant can always decide if the committee were to refuse the application, to withdraw the application before the decision notice is issued and the applicant would not then have a notice to show that their application was refused.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that in 2015, the building was placed on the at-risk register by the Council. She made the point that six years have now passed and she questioned why the Conservation Officer is not looking at buildings at risk.

·         Nick Harding stated that the responsibility of the maintenance of the buildings lays with the owner.

F/YR20/0585/F

Proposed by Councillor Meekins, seconded by Councillor Mrs Davis and agreed that the application be REFUSED as per the officer’s recommendation. 

F/YR20/0586/LB

Proposed by Councillor Mrs Mayor, seconded by Councillor Miscandlon and agreed that the application be REFUSED as per the officer’s recommendation. 

(Councillor Sutton stated that he would take no part in this item as in his opinion he felt he was predetermined)