Agenda item

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.  The Conservation Officer was in attendance for this item to answer any questions members had.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Kate Wood, the agent, and Richard Donoyou, Heritage Consultant.  Ms Wood made the point that they have been to committee before about the most appropriate way to deal with this building, with in 2019 a conversion being proposed similar to the current application, which was refused on the grounds of the loss of internal heritage assets and that the external changes to the building would have harmed the significance of the application building, 22 London Road and the wider Conservation Area.  She stated that the main external change was the raising of the single-storey element of the roof along with a single-storey rear extension and internally concerns were raised about the vaulted ceiling and the staircase.

Ms Wood stated that following the refusal they applied to replace the building with a new dwelling, which was also refused, but comfort was taken from the committee’s debate regarding that application whereby it was made clear to them that finding some way to retain the existing building was a preference of members.  She stated as a result they have submitted this current application making changes since the previous refusal to overcome concerns that were raised, in particular the height of the single-storey part of the roof has not been raised as much as previously although it is barely noticeable as a change to the existing height and more of the internal features have been retained, additionally a viability assessment has been submitted to justify the need for the building to be converted to a 3-bed dwelling rather than 1 or 2 bedrooms.

Ms Wood expressed the opinion that the proposal is still unviable but they accept that there is a responsibility to the building and the development of the wider scheme relies on this building’s future being clear.  She expressed the view that they are confident the building will remain subservient to its parent dwelling at No.22 and will retain its heritage character and appearance for future generations.

Ms Wood feels the question for members to consider is whether this proposal has sufficiently overcome the previous reasons for refusal for conversion of the building and she would hope that the physical changes to design along with the justification set out in the viability assessment will be sufficient.  She stated that they are keen to commence work on the wider site of which this building is part of in order to provide a pleasant residential development which will include securing this site for the future as a public benefit for Chatteris.

Mr Donoyou referred to the last committee meeting where they were asked to come back with a revised scheme, which they have done and there are things which they agree with officers.  These are that the building was constructed in the 1870s, where most of the towns were being constructed with terraced houses around about the 1870s/1880s period; this building was much altered in the 1920s when a new roof was put on, the plaster ceilings were added and the big sliding doors at the back were inserted.  He made the point that this is a building from 1870 which has been altered and later still the north gable was demolished to give more space for vehicles to access the site and it was rebuilt in very poor quality Fletton bricks, with much of this work undertaken to this building and the Listed Building being of average quality.

Mr Donoyou stated that he disagrees with officers on the status of the building, with the Conservation Officer describing it as a high status building but he thinks it is just a 19^th century building built for agricultural storage purposes, it has mass produced cast iron windows and inside the roof trusses of the two-storey section were produced in factories using vaulted pine.  He also disagrees on the principles for conversion of the scheme as he feels it makes a very good 3-bedroomed unit, but the Conservation Officer is fairly insistent that it is a 1-bed unit and he is also in disagreement on the amount of fabric that can be reasonably retained, in particular what remains of a barrel vaulted ceiling where there is no plaster and the lathe crumbles in your hand.  He made the point that it is fundamental that a 3-bed scheme is approved but even as a 3-bed scheme no money will be made.

Mr Donoyou referred to the Cambridgeshire Historic Buildings Trust who have said that they could not take the building on firstly because they did not think it was of sufficient architectural quality and secondly from their point of view, as a charity, the project would still not be viable.  He stated that they have submitted an independent valuation assessment which demonstrate the costs, which have been corroborated by the Planning Obligations Manager.

Mr Donoyou referred to the Ancient Monument Society comments about raising the roof level, who say “raising the roof level of the single-storey section to create habitable roof space and access to the two-storey section appears reasonable, within the context of the adjoining listed house and other buildings in the Conservation Area” and then goes on to say “it would introduce a suitable new use to this redundant building and create a characterful and interesting new home that would sustain the curtilage listed heritage asset and enhance the character of the Conservation Area”.  He circulated to members two photos showing London Road as existing and a graphic representation of the scheme, challenging members to find a criticism of the scheme.

Mr Donoyou concluded that this development is not being undertaken by one of the big developers, it is a local company based in Peterborough who has been happy to take a chance and invest in Chatteris.  He feels the big developers would not take on this project and for five years the applicant has tried many different approaches, provided more and more detailed information and spent a considerable amount of time and money to bring forward a project that is, in his view, looks good and is viable and he is sure that the Council wants local developers to invest in its towns and asked members to give this application serious consideration.  From his point of view, he feels that it is a massive public benefit to be able to see this proposal and the adjoining Listed Building properly restored and together with the 6 new dwellings which have been approved on the builder’s yard will provide 8 new homes in Chatteris Town Centre.

Members asked questions of Ms Wood and Mr Donoyou as follows:

·         Councillor Miscandlon expressed the view that it would have been advantageous to have seen a computer generated picture of the development as the applicant sees it as the pictures do not inform members of what is being developed only what is there.  Mr Donoyou responded that the second smaller picture does show what the development will look like.

·         Councillor Marks referred to the previous application being considered via Zoom and then an on-site meeting, which he was not able to attend, and asked if the vaulted ceiling has deteriorated in the past two years?  Mr Donoyou responded that there are actually three ceilings, the first one has plaster and lathe and is capable of restoration which they are committed to doing; the second one is an attic shaped ceiling which has plaster and is possible to restore, which they are committed to doing; the third ceiling has never had any plaster on it since the applicant acquired the building and the lathe crumbles in your hand, it is difficult to restore a plastered ceiling that is not there but it is proposed to insert another barrel vaulted ceiling in its place a little bit higher up.  He stated that the plaster ceilings overall are held up by the roof and the roof is in poor condition, with part of the proposal being to construct another roof over the top to anchor the existing roof and the ceilings to the new roof so everything will be stable.  Mr Donoyou expressed the view, as it stands, it is not possible to stabilise the ceiling to an unstable structure and independent advice has been sought from a plaster specialist in coming to these conclusions.

·         Councillor Connor stated that he was pleased to hear that the two ceilings would be kept and specialist plastered but asked that the application would not come back before committee, if approved, to say the works could not be undertaken.  Mr Donoyou responded that he has assessed the ceilings and they are restorable but obviously it is another cost into the building but that is included in the developer’s costs and provided they can construct a structure to anchor the existing structure to they would not need to come back to the Council.

·         Councillor Benney asked, if approved, what timescales are being looked at for starting the work and completing the whole site?  Mr Donoyou responded as soon as possible.

·         Councillor Benney stated that he went in the building when it was owned by Travis Perkins, with it being 2014 when they vacated the site, it was derelict then with it being used for storage and when members did the site visit for the previous application it was in such a bad state of repair members could not even go inside to look at it as it was considered too dangerous.  He asked has any work been undertaken to stabilise the building and where would the applicant go from here if the application is not approved today?  Mr Donoyou responded that they have reached the end of the line, at the last committee members told them to come back with a scheme and they have done their upmost, with the bottom line being the scheme will lose money even as a 3-bed unit and if they are going to take on the scheme there has to be a method which a structural engineer can prove to secure the building as it stands and if those two things do not fall into place he is not sure where they are going to go.  Ms Wood expressed the view that they would be coming to the Council to ask for grant money.  Councillor Benney made the point that there are so many public buildings throughout Fenland that are in such a poor state of repair due to a lack of money and these schemes do not work without grant money, the Council has some that it is responsible for and it cannot get grant money so he does not know how the applicant would be successful in obtaining grant money.  He feels it is a positive development, it is something that will clear this site and restore the building, and whilst he recognises that money is going to be lost on it whatever they do, he does not see what else can be done with the building and as a Chatteris Councillor he does not want to see another derelict building in the town.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Cornwell referred to Paragraph 1.5 of the officer’s report which deals with a conflict with relevant policies and the suggestion, if approved, that this proposal would be failing statutory responsibilities.  He asked if, the application is approved today, is the authority at risk of being prosecuted under these pieces of legislation?  The Legal Officer stated that the obligations which the committee and the Council is subject to are set out within the report and they are essentially to pay special regard to the desirability of preserving and enhancing the Listed Building so the obligation is for the committee to actively demonstrate that it has given careful consideration to this building and if a party was subsequently concerned about any decision taken if it could be shown that the committee had not discharged those duties then that would potentially render the decision unsafe from a legality perspective and potentially susceptible to judicial review challenge.  He made the point that so long as the committee very carefully consider the merits of this application and, in particular, the impact upon the Listed Building and its setting then that ought not to be a problem in the future.

·         Councillor Cornwell asked that if the committee consider that the future of the building as being vulnerable and the scheme put forward is acceptable to members to protect relevant parts of that building then it could be taken at risk of not being challenged.  The Legal Officer responded that the matter of weight for all these competing considerations is largely one for the members of the committee but these duties require the committee to actively and carefully consider the Listed Building features and its setting, so members need to weigh up the competing importance of those factors.

·         Councillor Marks asked how much longer would be given to the vaulted ceiling before it would not be able to rescued in any way?  The Conservation Officer responded that it is a couple of years since she has been on site, but she would concur with the agent that it is probably beyond repair in its current situation, but where an element has reached that level of condition you would repair on a like for like basis and what is before committee is a proposal for an alteration.

·         Councillor Connor referred to the taking down of the gable end and asked if it would be reconstructed with reclaimed or similar bricks, if approved, and can this be conditioned?  David Rowen responded that the plans indicate that this gable element would be rebuilt in reused Cambs bricks and if members are minded to grant planning permission and Listed Building consent given that there is a new build element to the application he believes it would be entirely reasonable to impose a condition to give full control over the materials to be used for the rebuild and the new build to the rear.

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

·         Councillor Murphy stated that he has lived in Chatteris all his life and knows this area very well as a farmyard and as a builder’s yard.  He stated this building was only a barn used for many purposes and he used to sit in the Cock pub opposite, which has since been converted into a very nice large residential building, and when the delivery lorries came to this site or went in or out they nearly took the pub wall down as it was a dangerous entrance and exit which got worse and the Town Council tried to persuade the company to move, which they eventually did several years ago.  Councillor Murphy expressed the view that it is now years later and still nothing has progressed in this area.  He feels that London Road is an attractive road with large well-kept houses, which this development would only enhance and areas, such as Mepal, Sutton and Witchford, are all building at a rate so why not Chatteris.  Councillor Murphy expressed the opinion that local estate agents are saying there needs to be more homes built for demand and he feels that more housing is needed in Chatteris to keep Chatteris growing and its survival and not stagnating as it did years ago.  He referred to there being several developments around the town, large and small, which are not being built out at this present time, with more coming forward in the future, but they are being thwarted by actions of organisations and individuals and he requested that obstacles are stopped being put in the way of the developers making them have higher costs and longer timescales and sometimes pulling the plug and walking away and let them get on with making the town attractive and vibrant and a place for people that want to live there.  Councillor Murphy made the point that the Town Council support the application, the Highways Authority and Environmental Health have no objection and there are 10 letters of support with only 1 objection.  He expressed the opinion that common sense needs to prevail to allow developers to build without any more interference to ensure the future of Chatteris.  Councillor Murphy stated that he will be voting against the officer’s recommendation to approve the application without any more restrictions being put in place.

·         Councillor Cornwell expressed the view that this proposal has been debated over a number of meetings and the developers have come forward with a scheme that gives a balanced protection of what is there with the intention to undertake work to the building to make it more modern and usable.  He feels it is a question of balance as, whilst the Council does not want to have these buildings empty continuously as they would just deteriorate, by undertaking certain modernisation and undertaking the protective works that the developer has agreed to do members have to accept that this is the best that can be done and move on.  Councillor Cornwell stated that he would go against the officer’s recommendation and approve the application.

·         Councillor Mrs French expressed the view that the last time a scheme for this building was discussed she asked why the Conservation Officer did not seek to get this building preserved years ago when it first became empty, to which she did not get an answer to, and Fenland has many buildings in a similar situation and there will be more applications come forward to do works to them.  She stated that she supports preserving and restoring Listed Buildings, but members did ask the agent to go away and come back with another scheme, which they have done and they have done the best they can.  Councillor Mrs French stated that as much as she understands the views of the Conservation Officer if this proposal is not approved the building is going to end up derelict and demolished.

·         Councillor Mrs Davis agreed with the comments of Councillor Mrs French in that if the committee does not approve this latest application then the building is just going to further deteriorate so that none of the features can be saved.  She feels an effort is being made to save as much as possible and listening to the legal advice she is confident in going against the officer’s recommendation.

·         Councillor Miscandlon stated he has made a third visit to the site and since the last visit the building has deteriorated.  He made the point that the developers were asked to go away and come back with a conversion which is sympathetic to the building, with the Conservation Officer saying that not all of it is going to be preserved, which, in his view, is right as there are parts that have deteriorated beyond repair, but he feels the applicant has provided a sympathetic conversion which he will support.

·         Councillor Topgood made the point that Fenland has hundreds of these heritage buildings that are deteriorating and someone has come along to preserve as much as possible on this building and stop it from further deterioration, but obstacles are being put in their way.  He feels this proposal is the best scheme for this building as it is going to protect it and its features.

·         Councillor Benney stated that most of his views have been said by other councillors, but to him this comes down to money as you cannot expect a developer to pay more money out than he is going to get back.  He made the point that the building can be boarded up and left until it falls down and if this is left much longer this is what will happen, so he feels action is better than inaction.  Councillor Benney expressed the view that the committee needs to do something positive with this building, there is a positive scheme in front of members that will save this building, and conservation is standing in the way of saving these buildings and a lot of other buildings in Fenland due to the additional costs incurred and unless grant money is available and it is normally not, these building just deteriorate. He expressed the opinion that this building can be saved by approving the application and if it is not approved the committee is condemning the building to fall apart and lose what exists.

·         Nick Harding stated that he has a lot of time and respect for members and prides himself on being able to work with members as do all his officers in the service, however, mention has been made about obstacles and interference, which he finds difficult to accept as officers are employed by the Council to give professional advice to members and there is always going to be occasions whereby there is disagreement on certain matters.  He feels that those difference of opinions are in a professional and friendly manner, which he hopes will continue.  Nick Harding stated that in this particular case professional officers have given members their best technical advice, including on the legislative framework within law they have to follow.  He appreciates that the amount of weight that members can give to the different elements of the decision-making process may be different to that presented by officers.  Nick Harding stated that, in terms of the general condition of buildings in Fenland, there is a good number of conservation areas, a good number of Listed and curtilage buildings, but there is one Conservation Officer, with no budget for interventions on buildings which are not appropriately maintained and in that light and given the number of Listed Building applications that the Council has to deal with officers have to be selective about those cases that they get engaged in where action is needed to preserve a Listed Building or within a Conservation Area.  He does not think the decision corporately made by the Council in what it wants to achieve in terms of conservation and Listed Buildings should be used as a tool to say that re-development of Listed Buildings should be semi-automatic in terms of a yes.  Nick Harding reiterated that officers have given the best advice that they can and officers’ professional opinion is that this development proposal does not quite hit the mark in terms of being acceptable and the Conservation Officer has always acted positively in providing advice on the proposal and this is now down to a difference of opinion on weight being given to the various factors that by law the committee has to have regard to.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that he 100% supports everything that Nick Harding has said, there cannot be any finger pointing at officers as it was this committee that refused it previously with the request for the applicant to go away and come back with a revised scheme.  He referred to talk about costs but as far as he is concerned he is not worried if they lose money or make money as Planning should not be about what money is made but whether it is right for that land and land use.  Councillor Sutton expressed the view that it is a question of whether this scheme is close enough to what the committee think it should be to approve and, in his view, it was valuable to see the visualisations circulated by the agent for him to say externally it is acceptable and whilst internally it might not be quite what the Council wants he feels if it is not approved today it will fall into disrepair which will be regretted so he will be supporting the application.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that she was not aiming her comments at any officers, the point she was making with conservation is that right across the district there are dilapidated properties that have existed for years and more resources need to be invested in conservation.

·         Councillor Murphy stated that his comments were not aimed at officers, but he was referring to outside sources that come forward to try and stop development.

·         Councillor Mrs Davis hoped that she spoke for all members when she says she has a healthy respect for officers, listen to what they say and understand that they have to put forward their views according to rules and regulations, but members can put a different weight on certain elements.

·         Councillor Connor stated that he has listened carefully to what members have been saying and it looks like there is a steer to go against officer’s recommendation to approve the application, but he does believe listening to the Legal Officer that the committee has done the very best it can and it would be a dereliction of duty if members let this building fall further into disrepair and it eventually falls down.  He is giving more weight to keeping and improving this building rather than doing nothing to preserve it.

·         Nick Harding reminded members that if there is a proposal being made to go against the officer’s recommendation then reasons for doing so need to be given that relate to the reasons for refusal.  David Rowen added that members need to pay attention to paragraphs 10.3 – 10.13 of the report as these issues need to be addressed when giving any proposal to go against officer’s recommendation.

F/YR21/1015/F

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

Members do not support officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning permission as they feel that leaving the property to deteriorate further would not enhance the area or benefit Chatteris, the proposal would be saving a building, protecting it and enhancing the historic Conservation Area of Chatteris, it is within the curtilage of a Listed Building and not a Listed Building itself but a conversion of an old farm building with many of the historic features of the building being retained and restored and a condition could be applied to the permission to record any heritage asset that is lost.

F/YR21/1017/LB

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

Members do not support officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning permission for the reasons set out above and they feel that the proposal ensures the future conservation of a heritage asset and enhances the Conservation Area and heritage asset, it provides a new development in a Conservation Area and when the work is undertaken externally it will be an enhancement to the area and the building itself.

(Councillor Benney registered, in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that he is a member of Chatteris Town Council, he usually attends, as an observer, the Town Council Planning Committee meetings but was absent when these applications were discussed)

(Councillor Murphy registered, in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that he is a member of Chatteris Town Council, but takes no part in planning matters)