Agenda item

To determine the application.

Alison Hoffman presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Councillor Bill Haggata, a Chatteris Town Councillor.  Councillor Haggata stated that the application is for the replacing and redesign of the shop front following a ram raid and robbery to the business which resulted in the loss of trade whilst the building was secured. He explained that the building trades as a NISA supermarket and serves as an important part of the population of the Chatteris community as it is in a prominent location.

Councillor Haggata explained that he is the Chairman of Chatteris Town Council Planning Committee, and the application received the unanimous support for the proposal to go ahead when brought before the Planning Committee. He expressed the view that the Town Council are very disappointed with the officer’s recommendation for the application to be one of refusal on a conservation issue and that as a responsible Planning Committee and Town Council they understand the conservation of eligible buildings, but they also understand the need for the retail business to progress and move forward with modern up to date retail requirements such as the need for a modern shopfront which attract and enable easy access for all parts of society and to enable business to remain viable and in fair competition with its competitors in what is currently a very difficult time for the high street.

Councillor Haggata expressed the view that the conservation issue appears to be the location of the business on the corner of the intersection of Park Street, Market Hill, and East Park Street, within this location and immediately opposite is the old Barclays Bank which is a Listed Building which is undergoing conversion to Chatteris Museum. He made the point that when it was a bank it had alterations to the internal entrance door with up to date stainless steel and glass entry doors fitted, which was likely to be for security purposes, along with a cash machine with stainless steel surround which was on show day and night to meet today’s trading conditions, and would not have been there when the building was built.

Councillor Haggata explained that along Market Street there is the old Lloyds Bank building which has a modern frontage, as well as the Post Office and Cafe in the High Street both of which have modern frontages. He added that further along the High Street there is a restaurant with a completely new shop front and in East Park Street there is a new shop front of similar design which has obtained planning permission and sells similar products to that of the proposal before members and is also within sight of this application.

Councillor Haggata expressed the view that the Town Council do not see anything out of character with the application and believe the alterations will improve the appearance of the location and they understand the requirement for such alterations in the 2022 competitive trading environment, especially after the two years of lockdown and the disruption for businesses. He explained that even the historic church in the town has seen the need to install a new glass internal entry door.

Councillor Haggata referred to his mention earlier of the need for businesses to cater for all sections of society and the proposed alterations will enable much easier access for disabled and wheelchair reliant customers which should be a given requirement in today’s society, and, in his opinion, the supermarket frontage improvements will enhance the area in the opinion of the Town Council. He expressed the view that that there is a great deal of local support for the improvements and Chatteris Town Council unanimously supports the application and asked the committee to consider and grant the application. 

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Mr Ian Benney, in support of the application. Mr Benney referred the committee to the presentation screen showing a photograph of the shop taken shortly after the ram raid explaining that there will be the requirement for some structural work to be undertaken, which will be a steel frame to hold the front of the building up when it is reinstated. He pointed out a large window on the presentation screen which if approved will change to an aluminium front to match the sliding doors, along with the third window which will be bricked up.

Mr Benney pointed out the alleyway between number 5 and 7 Park Street and added that in the report it states that it is an eighteenth-century building, but in 1911, the front of the building was taken down, highlighting to the committee the difference in the type of the brick at the back which is the old part and behind the chimney there are common bricks, so there are a good mix of brick types. He pointed out a view of the street scene in Chatteris and highlighted one of the Grade 2 Listed Buildings which is next door at number 7 Park Street, and showed another part of the street scene, which is not in the Conservation Area, highlighting two premises and expressed the opinion that the area is not full of historic buildings that maybe implied.

Mr Benney referred to the presentation screen and pointed out a shop in Wenny Road which is 188 metres from the application site before the committee, with an application being passed last year under delegated authority and the shop has a door in the centre and brick at the bottom and either side, with the owner of the shop having to submit a retrospective application which was approved. He explained that this site was also in the Conservation Area and the Conservation Officer had stated that ‘the loss of timber frame shopfront and brick below and the replacement with full glazing is regrettable but the overall impact is neutral and so I have no objection to this’.

Mr Benney stated that the application also received nine letters of support which is the same amount that he has received for the current application. He referred to the officer also making reference to the National Design Guide, and he highlighted the aspects the officer had alluded to such as understand and relate well to the site, its local and wider context, well designed, high quality and attractive, socially inclusive, and well managed and maintained, which he stated he intends to put the same into his premises as that particular shop.

Mr Benney made reference to another application at Bridge House which was also approved last year and is also in the Conservation Area and it also has a central door with brick below and a typical Victorian shop front being approved under delegated authority. He explained that all of these examples are in the Conservation Area and have the full support of the Town Council.

Mr Benney expressed the opinion that the Conservation Officer had stated that the principal of altering the fabric of an existing building within the settlement of Chatteris is considered to be acceptable and had also added that in this instance it was felt that the sleek and modern alternative, which retains the scale of the opening and does not alter the overall character of the building.  He referred to the Nisa local store in Whittlesey and feels that the alterations that have taken place to that premises, mirror the alterations that he would like to undertake to the building in Chatteris.

Mr Benney stated that his proposal includes the same colour aluminium shopfront, and he expressed the view that the shop in Whittlesey is also within a Conservation Area and the Conservation Officer concluded that the proposal was considered acceptable and represented no adverse harm in terms of the principle of development and historic environment.

Members asked Mr Benney the following questions.

·         Councillor Mrs French asked what benefits the proposal will bring to the local area? Mr Benney stated that when he used to manage the business, he applied for planning permission in 2006 for similar alterations and that was refused at that time. He added that at that time he would receive frequent complaints concerning disabled access issues for larger wheelchairs and  a number of older people use the store, who have shopping trollies, along with people with children’s buggies who do have difficulties in getting through the door as it is not a user-friendly doorway. Mr Benney explained that when he made the previous planning application 2006, he had contacted the Papworth Trust who deal with the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA), and they undertook a report which he had commissioned and submitted with his application at that time they stated that the sliding doorway would improve the accessibility for all and make it more a DDA complaint premises. He stated that the proposal if approved would enhance the shopping experience for those customers who live in the town and there is a perception with shops that the larger competitors have set standards of what customers expect from a supermarket and by making the changes to the shop in Chatteris it will enhance the premises and meet the customers’ expectations.

·         Councillor Mrs French asked whether there are many empty shops within the town of Chatteris? Mr Benney stated that there are 54 shops in use and 17 empty shops in Chatteris which, in his opinion, is a high number and is a reflection of the damage that the pandemic has had.

·         Councillor Marks asked whether the proposal would improve security to the shop? Mr Benney stated there will be the installation of metal posts inside the shop to stop a ram raid and he added that the shop can only be made as safe as possible, but it will not stop those who are determined to break in.

·         Councillor Marks asked whether there are any Listed Buildings in the vicinity and Mr Benney stated that there are a few, including three on Wenny Road and the old Barclays Bank building.

(Mr Benney left the Council Chamber for the remainder of this item)

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Mr Matthew Hall, the Agent.  Mr Hall stated that the site was subject to a planning application appeal in 2006/2007 which was refused and since that time the Local Plan was introduced in 2014. He referred the committee to the presentation screen and drew the committee’s attention to the Apple Green petrol station which is immediately adjacent to the Conservation Area.

Mr Hall showed a slide on the presentation screen of Bridge House which is in the Conservation Area and was approved with a modern frontage in 2021 and explained that in the officer’s report it stated that the proposal would not impact the scale of the shop front and is a sleek modern alternative and would not impact on the historic fabric’. He stated that the current proposal does not impact the scale of the building and uses the existing structural shopfront opening and provides a modern alternative, with the proposal allowing a wider access into the main façade of the building, not a single restrictive pedestrian door, and will allow better accessibility for those persons with more mobility and the door will be self-opening.

Mr Hall explained that the examples he has provided are either in the Conservation Area or adjacent to it and the other example is the one Mr Benney referred to in Wenny Road, which is the same as the proposal before members. He stated that as a result of the ram raid, the historic fabric, the door, and timber was lost and there are other shopfronts in the Chatteris Conservation Area, and the majority of consultees support this application.

Members asked Mr Hall the following questions:

·         Councillor Sutton questioned whether the original shopfront could not be replicated instead? Mr Hall stated that currently there is temporary propping, and the structural opening of the building is there, and he added that a timber shopfront, glazing and timber pedestrian door could be replicated.

Members asked officer’s the following questions:

·         Councillor Skoulding questioned why some applications for new shop frontages have received officer recommendation for approval but the recommendation for this is one of refusal. Alison Hoffman stated that each application is looked at on its own merits and the position and the fabric of the building also need to be considered. She added that the advice that the officers were given which was endorsed by the Planning Inspectorate in 2006 is that a modern shopfront in this location in this design with no traditional features is unacceptable and does nothing to preserve and protect the character of the Conservation Area. Alison Hoffman explained that officers would consider the shopfront proposal in context by considering the building and make their assessment based on that. She added that officers will also have looked at the planning history of the site which supports the conclusions of officers in 2006 when making their assessment, and the similarities of the current proposal, and therefore it would be inappropriate for officers to make a different recommendation in this case, especially as specialist conservation input has been provided.

·         Nick Harding stated that determination cannot be made by looking at a picture, the quality of a building needs to be considered along with the context that surrounds it, such as the quality of the surrounding buildings. He added that one of the examples shown on the screen was in Broad Street Whittlesey which was a modern shop front and was standing proud of a building of history along with a date stone, however, he expressed the view that if you look at the building prior to the works you would be able to see that the works that were applied for and approved, were an actual improvement of what was there before.  Nick Harding made reference to the appeal decision and added that although it is an old one, it is still very pertinent to the application before the committee today. He added that the committee saw the photographs of the building prior to the damage, and he explained that it is a relatively simple design, and it would not take too many revisions to the submitted scheme to appease the planning and conservation officers. Nick Harding referred to the National Planning Policy with regard to its view on heritage assets and explained that it states that development proposals should be such that they sustain and enhance the significance of the heritage asset and they should make a positive contribution to the heritage context and that the heritage can bring benefits and make sustainable communities more viable and it is desirable for new development to make a positive contribution to the local character and distinctiveness of the particular location. He stated that it is the view of officers that the proposals do not make a positive contribution to the local character and distinctiveness. Nick Harding referred to the 2021 edition of the Heritage at Risk Study which states that the Chatteris Conservation Area as being very bad but improving and, in his view, by refusing the application and seeking a better-quality design, the Council would be helping to play a part in improving the Conservation Area of Chatteris.

·         Councillor Miscandlon referred to the site planning history and asked officers to confirm how many premises in the Conservation Area have been altered between 2007 and 2022 as, in his opinion, it would appear that many of the frontages and attributes are now modern that would not have been in existence in 2007. He added that the world has changed considerably since 2007 and expressed the opinion that the proposed changes to the shopfront enhance the premises from what it was, as there is also damage to the first floor, so there needs to be structural redesign to the front of the premises to make it secure for the first floor to make it secure.

·         Nick Harding explained that the works that are required to make the building safe can be undertaken through building regulations and would not need planning approval as it is not a Listed Building. He added that since 2007 there have been many applications which have resulted in changes of use and new shop fronts and the vast majority of those shop fronts have been traditional in design and have been approved and it is only a modest number of shop front changes which have been modern in their appearance. He explained that officers have stated that the decisions about whether to approve those applications have taken into account the original building and its design aesthetics, the quality of the Conservation Area and the buildings that surround those application sites when making their recommendations.

·         Councillor Connor referred the committee to the presentation screen in order for them to review a photograph of a takeaway business at 7 Park Street which is also a Listed Building, but, in his opinion, is not of a good design. Nick Harding explained to members that when considering the shopfront, there is the need to see through the colour scheme and the content of the signage above the shop window, as from a planning perspective the officers have no control over that content and if those elements are taken out of the equation, then the traditional fixtures of the building can still be seen.

·         Councillor Mrs Mayor questioned that if there had been no ram raid, would a planning application have even been submitted and she wonders if consideration could have been given to make it a more sympathetic design. Nick Harding stated that the revisions required to make the scheme acceptable are modest, in his opinion, such as increasing the height of the storm riser, separation into the fenestration, a wider door with an automatic door opener and that would be all that would be required.

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

·         Councillor Sutton stated that he visited the proposed site and whilst he was there, he witnessed an elderly customer trying to access the premises with her disabled walker and could not access the door without assistance from the staff. He expressed the view that now he has experienced that incident his view on the application is now different to what it was previously. Councillor Sutton agrees wholeheartedly with the officers that the scheme does not enhance the area, but it does not do anything either to cause any demonstrable harm either in his opinion. He expressed the view that the automatic doors will have benefits to a section of the community.

·         Councillor Murphy stated that if the application is refused it could prove to be detrimental in a couple of ways. He added that the owner of the business could decide to close and leave the premises empty, so it becomes derelict and secondly denying the hundreds of customers who use the shop daily the opportunity to do so. Councillor Murphy explained that, in his opinion, it is the busiest shop in the town and if it were to close it would be very bad for the town of Chatteris. He expressed the view that the old should be able to blend in with the new as takes place already in other towns and cities and the application site is within a row of shops which will over a number of years be altered, in his opinion, to keep up with modern times and the mixture of old and new will become the norm. Councillor Murphy expressed the view that the premises will be fit for purpose once it is altered and it fulfils the following parts of the Fenland Local Plan, LP16 (d,f,I,j,k, and o) and it fulfils LP17 a, b and  f. He expressed the view that in the future, vulnerable shops will all have to have roller shutters for their own security and insurance and that as part of the National Planning Policy Framework 197, it states that the application has to have regard to scale, any harm and loss which, in his opinion, it does, and he stated that Chatteris Town Council support the application and so does he.

·         Councillor Purser stated that he has listened to other members comments, and he expressed the view that it is the ideal opportunity to alter the doorway to make it user friendly. He expressed the view that the retail is a very tough business to be in and local people should be encouraged to use and support the local shops and amenities. He stated that he will fully support the application.

·         Councillor Skoulding stated that he will support the application and it will be far better for those members of the community who use a wheelchair and pushchairs as the days of leaving a pram outside of the shop are long gone.

·         Councillor Cornwell expressed the view that the recommendation is incorrect, and he is of the opinion that Inspector’s decision in 2006 did not take into account the DDA Act, possibly because it was such a new piece of legislation. He added that in relation to the building itself, it is for a 1911 shopfront and the whole front was changed at that time. Councillor Cornwell stated that whilst it is old, it does not aid the sustainability of use of the building, and it is used by members of the community who are covered by the DDA. He stated that it is in a town centre location and is convenient for those members of the community who cannot get out of the town easily to get to the larger stores and unless the Council can aid the business by maintaining some sustainability, in his opinion, the Council are working against the disadvantage of the town and the people who live there and, therefore, even though the proposal is not 100% suitable it has to be balanced off against its use and purpose, and under those circumstances given that some of the other buildings in Chatteris have been allowed to modernise their frontages he will support the application.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that she agrees with the comment by Councillor Miscandlon with regard to the 2006 appeal decision and the fact that things have moved along and progressed since that time. She added that the DDA was introduced in 1995 and repealed in 2010. She will support the application and expressed the view that the building, in her opinion, is a bit of an eyesore, and the proposed design is agreeable.

·         Councillor Marks stated that 188 metres away there is another shop front which is exactly the same as the proposal before members and, therefore, there needs to be consistency taken into consideration.

·         Nick Harding reiterated the significance of the previous refusal and the Inspectors appeal decision notwithstanding its age as it is still relevant to the committee’s decision making. He added that whilst it is not a material planning consideration, there is the assumption that the property was insured, and the reinstatement of the shop front would be covered by the insurance company and, therefore, the committee cannot make the decision based on the fact that if the planning application is refused then the shop will cease trading. He added that a like for like shopfront replacement would not need any planning consent and could go ahead without any planning involvement and he explained that officers are not dictating that they will only ever accept a like for like application and are only stating that they would like to see a proposal which has more of a traditional shop front design, with a wider door and automatic door opener and a better design in terms of storm riser and a sub division of the shop front window. Nick Harding added that those elements are not particularly difficult, expensive, or challenging to do and he expressed the view that the officer’s recommendation is not unreasonable.

Proposed by Councillor Sutton, seconded by Councillor Skoulding and agreed that the application be APPROVED against the officer’s recommendation

Members do not support officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning permission as they feel that Part LP2 of the Local Plan plays a significant part in the application and the benefit to the community outweighs any form of unsympathetic appearance.

(Councillor Murphy registered,in accordancewith Paragraph14 ofthe Codeof Conducton       Planning Matters, that he is a member of Chatteris Town Council, but takes no part in planningmatters)

(Councillor Murphy stated that the agent for this item is known to him in a professional capacity, but it would not make any difference to his decision making and voting on the application)

(Councillor Benney declared that he is the freeholder for the application and was speaking in support of the application, but was only present in the room to undertake his presentation and left the meeting for the duration of the discussion and voting thereon)