Agenda item

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

The Legal Officer stated that no member indicated that they are a member of Whittlesey Conservative Club as this would be a disclosable pecuniary interest.  He advised that, in this instance, where the applicant has a political affinity it is essential that all members of the committee display absolute scrupulous decision-making on the application.  Members have all been made aware of the issues of bias and pre-determination and members need to satisfy themselves and demonstrate that they are not biased or pre-determined about this application as if any decision were taken and challenged at the Court, they would be questioning this.  He stated it is absolutely essential that the planning merits of the application are carefully assessed and demonstrably so in the way in which this application is determined.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from David Broker, the agent.  Mr Broker stated that the only reason for this application is to secure funds for the continued operation of the Conservative Club, which is a decision made with a heavy heart and does distract from the club premises, but without these funds the club could close.  He made the point that club membership has declined by 25% and opening hours have been reduced by 30%, with income only being able to be maintained by an increase in fees and charges but this alone cannot sustain the business.

Mr Broker expressed the view that the club can survive with less parking spaces but cannot survive with less funding and the previous application was withdrawn to enable them to address the concerns of the Planning Department, which they have tried to do but according to the officer’s report they have failed.  He feels the site is considered to be in a suitable location for development and not within the Conservation Area, but the Conservation Officer is still involved being critical of the design.

Mr Broker stated that from the previous application officers did not want a simple terrace of 4 dwellings and this has been reduced to 3 and the appearance changed away from a terrace but this is now not what officers think is suitable.  He made the point that access and bin storage is questioned but it is clearly demonstrated that this is one of the best accessible sites in the Town Centre, with space for bins adjacent to the main road.

Mr Broker referred to the enclosure of the development being questioned but asked how it differed from those other backland developments that have been approved.  In terms of overlooking of one dwelling into another’s garden, he feels this could easily be rectified with a window being moved to the side.

Mr Broker appreciated that the Planning Department must tick all the boxes, but the tick box system does not always, in his view, allow for a broader picture as in relation to the aesthetics, which the officer’s report criticises, it does not consider the extensive number of in town, backland and small space grabbing residential developments that have been previously permitted.  He asked for consistency, for this reason, in decision-making and drew members attention to sites, of which photos had been provided to members, within the immediate vicinity showing the tight means of access and views into the sites, together with the development of 4 houses on the Ivy Leaf Club car park, which has not been proved but could have been built and sold to sustain the Ivy Leaf.  He stated that all three sites in the photographs are in town developments with small amenity areas and asked members to consider this application site against those.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·         Councillor Murphy referred to the one of the recommendations for refusal being poor living conditions for the future occupiers, and made the point that there are a lot of places he would view as having poor living conditions for a person but it is up to the person who actually buys the property and lives in it whether it is poor living conditions or not so he cannot see how this can be detrimental as you either live there or not.  David Rowen responded that the purpose of the planning system is to ensure good quality development takes place in the correct locations with adequate amenity.  He stated that the view on whether people want to live there or not goes against the crux of the planning system and the purpose of why everyone is at committee today.

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

·         Councillor Benney expressed the view that it is not a planning consideration on whether this application is keeping the Conservative Club going but on land usage and he feels the amenity space is good, much better than some approved in Orange Grove, Wisbech, it is in a town centre location with parking and it will deliver 3 homes.  He feels in relation to the access onto Whitmore Street, a commercial property will always have more traffic than residential and he does not believe there is anything wrong with this application.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that he visited the site when the last application was submitted for 4 dwellings, he tried to envisage 4 dwellings on the site and feels he would have not supported that application.  He stated that he returned to the site last week and feels the new dwellings are more architecturally pleasing.  Councillor Sutton expressed the view that it has been helpful to have received the photographs for sites A, B and C and he does not see why there is anything wrong with the application as it is a huge improvement on the previous application.  He expressed the opinion that the loss of car parking spaces will have a minimal effect on the club.

·         Councillor Skoulding stated that he went to look at the site, it is a car park so has lots of cars passing the site.  He feels it is an ideal place to build 3 dwellings, the properties look nice and will fit in the area.

·         Councillor Mrs French questioned why there is such a lengthy report from the Conservation Officer as the site does not lie in a Conservation Area and wondered if it was due to the brick wall as part of the brick wall was rebuilt but looks like it is falling down.

·         Councillor Mrs Davis expressed concern about reducing the car park as she has attended functions at the club and the car park is full, questioning where those cars are going to park when a function is on.  She feels there does not seem to be a clear demarcation to mark off the car park for the club and it is not going to be easy for residents to park in their spaces when there is a function.  Councillor Mrs Davis expressed the opinion that to survive the club is going to have to put on functions and will need the car park.

David Rowen stated that the Local Plan makes a clear distinction on amenity standards expected of dwellings and flats, with a lower standard for flats, and the amenity space for this development is considered to be sub-standard in terms of size and usability.  He feels the question that members need to be asking themselves is do you really want people living in a car park, which is what this application proposes.

Proposed by Councillor Sutton, seconded by Councillor Skoulding and agreed that the application be APPROVED against the officer’s recommendation, with authority delegated to officers to apply relevant conditions.

Members do not support officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning permission as they feel the heritage asset is not affected, it is not detrimental to the character of the area, whilst there is a distance to move the bins for collection the Recap advice is only guidance and other similar developments have been allowed on appeal which have the same bin distances and other similar developments have been allowed in similar circumstances in Town Centre locations.

(Councillor Benney declared that he is an officer of the North-East Cambridgeshire Conservative Association (NECCA) and a member of Chatteris Conservative Club, but will be approaching the application with an open mind)

(Councillor Connor declared that he is an officer of NECCA, but will be approaching the application with an open mind)

(Councillor Mrs Davis declared that she is an executive officer of a new NECCA branch, but will be approaching the application with an open mind)

(Councillor Mrs French declared that she is Chairman of NECCA, but does not belong to any Conservative Clubs and Whittlesey Conservative Club does not pay any subscriptions to NECCA, and will be approaching the application with an open mind)

(Councillor Mrs Mayor registered, under Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that she sits on Whittlesey Town Council’s Planning Committee, but was not in attendance when this application was considered.  She also declared that she is a member of the Conservative Party, but not Whittlesey Conservative Club, but the application site lies within her ward and she did take part in the discussions when Whittlesey Town Council provided their recommendation on the withdrawn application.  She, therefore, took no part in the discussions and voting thereon)

(Councillor Miscandlon registered, in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that he is Chairman of Whittlesey Town Council’s Planning Committee, and took no part in the discussion and voting thereon)

(Councillor Murphy declared that he is a member of Chatteris Conservative Club, and will be approaching this application with an open mind)

(Councillor Topgood declared that he is an officer of NECCA, but will be approaching this application with an open mind)