Agenda item

To determine the applications.

David Rowen presented the report to members and informed members that 25 letters of support for the application had been received due to the perceived improvements to the appearance of the site from residents of March, Doddington, Wimblington and Chatteris.

The committee had regard to its inspection of the site (as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection: Policy and Procedure (minute P19/04 refers)) during its deliberations.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Councillor Gowler of Chatteris Town Council. Councillor Gowler stated that Chatteris Town Council support this application and was delighted to see positive action regarding this property which is on the main route into the Town Centre and has been in decline for decades becoming an embarrassing eyesore to any visitors to the town. He expressed the view that it is visibly in a dangerous state of repair and is a major concern to neighbours of which one has submitted a comment on the Planning Portal requesting that urgent attention is given to action being taken to ensure the safety of their family.

Councillor Gowler expressed the opinion that the current owners of the property have made well documented efforts to renovate the property in conjunction with officers including offering to demolish the building and re-build it back to its original state, but this was deemed to be unacceptable. He expressed the view that the owners have invested considerable time and money into this project only to meet with what appears to be a wholly inflexible approach by officers.

Councillor Gowler stated that whilst the efforts of the Conservation Officer are fully appreciated and they have rules and regulations to adhere to the suggestions for the building appear, in his view, to be micro-managing potential renovation rather than considering the application presented. He feels the reply from the Council’s Architecture displays a precise explanation and in some cases rebuttal of the Conservation Officer’s comments and his professional assessment of the building should, in his opinion, be seriously considered.

Councillor Gowler expressed the view that consideration should also be given to the comments on the delays on any progress to this proposal, with Covid having a severe impact on the whole world and on many construction projects. He stated that the building has been deteriorating for the best part of 30 years despite attempts by the owners to start the renovation which has been disappointedly met with various obstructions and roadblocks by the Council.

Councillor Gowler stated that a major concern relating to this application is the potential message it portrays to anybody considering renovating any property within the Conservation Area in Chatteris and across Fenland, with these renovations needing to be highly encouraged and not discouraged as there are many properties in a similar condition across the District. He made the point that whilst enforcement action could be taken by the Council he feels it is obviously the case that it is impractical due to the sheer number of dilapidated buildings in the area, all of which will fall into further disrepair as months and years go on with the inevitable outcome for them to deteriorate beyond any potential possibility of recovery.

Councillor Gowler stated that the Town Council consider the application to be acceptable in terms of renovating the property which will result in giving it a practical purpose while maintaining its external aesthetics within the Conservation Area of Chatteris. He stated that the Town Council welcomes the resolution of this blot on the landscape in the Town and urged members to take this into consideration when making their decision.

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

·       Councillor Murphy stated that everything he says is his opinion and thoughts only. He expressed the opinion that this shop/dwelling is classed as a Listed Building, but he would call it listing as the walls are only one brick thick and are all bowed outward so it is very unsafe as is the roof which is almost totally dilapidated beyond repair and the insignificant house attached to this building is also classed as Listed because of its attachment, but he wonders what would have been the outcome it if had been an outside loo attached. Councillor Murphy stated that the shop was owned by Miss Wool but in its later years was rammed in the front by a vehicle and was so damaged it was never any good. He made the point that the NPPF defines a heritage asset as a building, monument and an area or landscape as having a degree of significance, which he agrees with, but, in his view, this site does not comply with these three conditions at all. Councillor Murphy referred to the report containing 9 pages of comments from the Conservation Officer on why this application should be refused but there is not one paragraph helping to alleviate or helping to bring a positive conclusion, which he feels should work both ways. In his opinion, the building needs to be demolished and replaced with a modern dwelling to enhance the area and he agrees with Chatteris Town Council’s recommendation for approval. Councillor Murphy expressed the opinion that the Council must be seen to be doing something positive in Chatteris or there will be eyesores in every road such as now in High Street, Bridge Street, Ash Grove, London Road and Victoria Street. He supports the proposal for reasons of visual impact, scale, character and appearance and referred to parts of the NPPF, 185C the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to the local character and distinctiveness, 191 he does not believe there is evidence of deliberate neglect or damage as developers are not going to throw money protecting this type of site not knowing if the outcome stands a change of fruition; 192c the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness; 195b no viable use of the heritage asset itself can be found in the medium term and 195d the harm or loss is outweighed by the benefit of bringing the site back to use. Councillor Murphy stated that he will be recommending the proposal for approval.

·       Councillor Benney echoed and agreed with the comments of Councillor Murphy. He stated that he has said at committee many times before that conservation gets in the way of conserving things and if these applications are not approved today this will be another building that is left until it falls down and if it does it could end up being a problem to the Council and he feels there is a positive application before members that will bring about a conclusion to a building that has been in a very poor state of repair for many years. Councillor Benney expressed the view that this is an opportunity to take this building off the At Risk Register as somebody has come forward with a scheme and is prepared to put their money into it and the Council should be supporting it. He feels that more of an earlier intervention would stop some of the latter intervention that this Council has to pick up and foot the bill for and he will be joining Councillor Murphy in supporting both applications for approval.

·       Councillor Sutton stated that he does not fully disagree with either of the previous speakers but there are guidelines within the NPPF and the committee cannot be seen to be making decision against the law. He stated that having read through the report and information on the Planning Portal there has been the olive branch shown by the Council’s officers for something better and that has not been taken up by the applicant or agent so he does not think he can vote to overturn officer’s recommendation but would suggest the application is deferred to hang the olive branch out one last time and if they do not take it he feels it would have to be refused.

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that she is glad to see that someone has come up with a planning application to actually bring a building back into use.

·       Nick Harding stated that he has met with the building owner a number of times as has the Conservation Officer, even before the current owner the Conservation Officers were working hard to secure a positive future for this building and members can see from the report that officers have provided advice and guidance on making the property wind and water tight, making it safe, how an application could come forward and how this application could be revised to make it more acceptable and what change to the information submitted with the application is needed in order to look at it more positively so officer’s have attempted to assist. He acknowledged that in terms of making the property wind and water tight work has been undertaken over what was required but the tarpaulin over the roof has not been adequately maintained and, in his view, there is a clear evidence base of the building having not been looked after appropriately and the national policy is quite clear that the dilapidation of the property should not be taken into account given that a fair degree of it has been deliberate. Nick Harding made the point, as detailed in the report, there is clear process that has to be gone through in the consideration of a development proposal in relation to this Listed Building before consideration is given to other aspects of the scheme. He referred to one particular issue which is the demolition of part of this structure being justified purely on the basis of it being needed for car parking and that does not satisfy the legislative requirements that officers have to work towards. Nick Harding made the point that the recommendation to the committee is not ill-considered or unfounded, officers have to set out quite clearly the national legislative and policy approach to this application.

·       Councillor Mrs Mayor stated that she does not support deferring this application due to the amount of work already gone into this proposal by officers and they cannot keep going back and forwards asking the applicant to do more work and the proposal needs a decision.

·       Councillor Benney made the point that the report talks a lot about the significant loss but that significant loss is a subjective view and, in his opinion, the loss of part of this building is going to save the rest of it and inaction will mean this will drag on for years and it will deteriorate more until it comes back with a demolition order on it. He expressed the view that the site will be conserved by approving the application, there is someone who is prepared to pay for the development and to find people who are willing to take on a Grade II Listed Building to the grade of a Grade II Listed Building comes at a great cost and is prohibitive and this applicant has invested time and money getting to this point which means he will go forward with its redevelopment. Councillor Benney stated that he would rather see a positive development like this one is than let the opportunity go as the building could be lost forever.

·       Councillor Sutton referred to Councillor Benney’s comments about the applicant investing time and money and whilst he recognises they have it does not always give the right outcome as on Ash Grove committee overturned officer’s recommendation there and that property still stands as it is and nothing has happened so it does not mean to say that if this proposal is approved today that the development will take place.

·       Councillor Connor stated that he does tend to agree with Councillor Murphy’s and Benney’s comments and he can see Councillor Sutton’s point but there are not many applicants that are going to bring these Grade II Listed Buildings back into use as they do cost lots of money and if the finances do not stack up nothing is going to happen. He queried what would happen if nothing were done and, in his view, it would be nice to conserve these buildings, but the applicant is trying to make an effort and if nothing is done it will deteriorate and fall down eventually. Councillor Connor stated on balance he is going to go against officer’s recommendation.

·       The Legal Officer pointed out that given the shortcomings as highlighted in the report of the heritage assessment that should members approve the applications, and should somebody challenge that approval there is a risk of a legal challenge which would involve time and costs.

·       Councillor Sutton expressed the opinion that this is good advice from the Legal Officer, and this is the exact reason why he does not think the applicant has given fair play in refusing to look at what officers are suggesting and why he thinks a deferral would be best way forward.

·       Councillor Murphy stated that he is against a deferral as the issue has been going on for 30 years now, another period of time will make no difference and it needs approving now.

·       Councillor Marks questioned why, if the Council could be legally challenged in approving the application, has no one legally challenged why the building has stood there and gone derelict over a long period of time? He expressed the view that the building is an eyesore, it is not going to get any better and expressed disbelief why the committee is discussing it. Claire Fidler, the Conservation Officer, responded that there is no legal duty on an owner to maintain their building and when a building reaches the condition such as this property has the Council does have statutory powers where they can take action but this inevitably comes with cost and resource which is something the Council would have to agree to. She made the point that officers would always wish to work more proactively with an owner, which has clearly been demonstrated in this case and over the past 30 years the Council has funded the internal propping that is there and provided endless advice and guidance as to a positive way forward. Claire Fidler advised that the owner was threatened with legal action in order to get the tarpaulin over the roof after it was stripped under a Building Control Notice and that is something the Council would rather have not done but it came to this just to make the building wind and weather tight, which has not been maintained. She stated that the Council never wants to take legal action as it is not a friendly or proactive way of approaching things, officers encourage a Listed Building Consent application which has taken a significant amount of time to be submitted.

·       Councillor Marks accepted the comments made by the Conservation Officer but stated that it is now four years down the line and if the money had been spent at that time it would probably cost less than if this is approved now. Claire Fidler responded that costs for legal action are significant and there are reports showing those indicative costs if members wish to see them at another time.

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that the committee took tough action last month to serve Section 215 and 216 notices and she said at the time it is well before time that the Council started doing this instead of these building falling into disrepair, lets put Section 215 and 216 notices on these properties and the owners might start doing something with them before they get into a dreadful state. Nick Harding responded that he welcomes this approach but has no budget for this action. Councillor Mrs French expressed the view that he needs to speak to the Portfolio Holder who is sympathetic to this issue.

·       Councillor Purser made the point that the building is dilapidated and if the building is taken down safely that is the best way forward, if it is left as it is it could damage the properties around it or be a danger to people. Nick Harding reiterated that officers have worked with or tried to work with the applicant, along with colleagues from CNC Building Control, to make the building safe and stop further dilapidation and not all of that has been successful.

F/YR22/0217/LB

Proposed by Councillor Murphy, seconded by Councillor Benney and agreed that the application be GRANTED against officer’s recommendation, with authority delegated to officers to apply suitable conditions in association with Councillors Connor and Murphy.

F/YR22/0218/F

Proposed by Councillor Murphy, seconded by Councillor Benney and agreed that the application be GRANTED against officer’s recommendation, with authority delegated to officers to apply suitable condition in conjunction with Councillors Connor and Murphy.

Members do not support officers recommendation of refusal as they feel the proposal is not contrary to the NPPF as the new development will make a positive contribution to the local character and distinctiveness, there is no viable use of the heritage asset in the medium term, the harm and loss is outweighed by the benefit of bringing the site back into use and there is not evidence of deliberate neglect or damage as a developer would not spend money on a site not knowing if the outcome stands a chance of fruition.

(Councillors Benney and Murphy declared, under Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that they are members of Chatteris Town Council, but take no part in planning matters)

(Councillor Mrs French clarified that, due to comments that had been received in relation to observations she had made at a previous Planning Committee meeting in relation to this building, she was not pre-determined and would be approaching the applications with an open mind)