Agenda item

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·       Councillor Miscandlon stated that officers have advised that the applicant was given the opportunity to amend their application from a solid to a see-through screen and he asked officers if they are aware why the applicant failed to consider the advice given? David Rowen stated that he is unaware why the applicant chose to rebut the option presented to them. Councillor Miscandlon stated that, in his opinion, the applicant was probably misled by the salesperson into purchasing a solid shutter even though the advice from officers was to have a see-through shutter which would have been more acceptable.

·       Councillor Marks stated that there a number of premises in Chatteris which have the solid roller shutters including the old Budgens site at the roundabout. He added that there are four or five properties that he can recall, and he questioned as to whether they would have obtained planning permission? David Rowen stated that they probably should have done, and he explained that he has researched planning permissions for the inclusion of shutters, and he is not aware of many permissions which have been granted recently. Councillor Marks stated that if the property is in a Conservation Area a precedent has been set by allowing other solid roller shutters being allowed. David Rowen reiterated that he is not aware of too many examples of roller shutters having been granted in the Chatteris Conservation Area and if permissions had been granted historically then that does not automatically mean that permission should be granted in this case particularly given how explicit Policy LP17 is in terms of its resistance to solid roller shutters being installed on premises.

·       Councillor Mrs Davis asked whether the applicant submitted an application for the roller shutters at the same time as they submitted the application for the bi-fold doors? David Rowen explained that the previous two applications at the premises were purely for the shop fronts and contained no details of the shutters at all.

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

·       Councillor Sutton expressed the opinion the officer’s recommendation is correct.

·       Councillor Benney stated that the building has been there for many years and was derelict and over time it has been brought back to life and has become a thriving business. He added that he is aware that the owner of the business has suffered from vandalism before the bi-fold doors were installed and, in his opinion, the roller shutters are to stop vandalism as if the whole glass frontage was vandalised it would cost a significant amount to replace, and businesses cannot afford to do that. Councillor Benney expressed the view that application such as these should be approved as they allow for individuals to protect their properties and to safeguard their investment. He referred to a business four doors from the application site which has a stone clad frontage with a tree growing from it, which has been like it for some considerable time and there has been no enforcement undertaken. Councillor Benney notes that within the emerging Local Plan it states that roller shutters can be installed where there is a history of violence and damage and, in his opinion, this property fulfils the criteria as set out, with the business smartening up that particular area of the town which has had some very derelict buildings in area. He added that the shutters will allow the business owner to protect his business and continue and he cannot see anything wrong with the proposal as a boarded-up premises is not beneficial to the business, customers or the residents that live there and he will support the application.

·       Councillor Mrs Davis stated that the appreciates the points raised by Councillor Benney, however, if the applicant had chosen alternative mesh roller shutters the application would not have had to come before the committee. She added that the committee need to be very careful about setting a precedent when considering solid roller shutters when premises can install mesh shutters instead. Councillor Mrs Davis added that she sympathises with the owner, and she agrees with Councillor Miscandlon that the owner was probably given advice from the roller shutter installation company that the solid shutters were better, however, in her opinion, the owner of the business should have taken the advice from the Planning Officers. She added that as much as she would like to support the business and she does have sympathy for them due to the ongoing vandalism, she is not content about setting a precedent for the solid shutters being installed. 

·       Councillor Benney explained that the business is open from early morning and late at night and the shutters are only down when the premises is closed. He added that the owners work very long hours, and the vandalism happens at night and whilst he agrees with the comments concerning perforated shutters, he made the point that the BP garage has solid roller shutters and that is also in a Conservation Area. Councillor Benney expressed the view that every application is judged on its own merit and although the application is a retrospective application, he questioned whether the business is going to be further penalised from the Covid recovery period and high energy bills. He expressed the view a number of businesses are going to be lost from the High Street if they are not supported and to make the applicant remove the roller shutters and replace them would mean an unnecessary cost.

·       Councillor Mrs Davis addressed Councillor Benney and asked him to clarify that a precedent has already been set as there are other businesses in Chatteris which already have the same type of roller shutter. Councillor Benney stated that he is fairly certain that the BP garage has roller shutters.

·       Councillor Marks stated that old Budgens store has solid shutters and added that is also very close to the road, which in the past has caused stones to fly up and that is another reason why most people go for solid shutters as opposed to see through.

·       Councillor Miscandlon referred to 5.3 of the officer’s report which makes reference to designing out crime, with the crime statistics which have been provided not reflecting much evidence of crime having been reported over the past three years and he made the point that by using crime as a justification for the installation of something which is not in keeping with the area is totally misleading.

·       Councillor Murphy stated that that the application site is not within the desirable part of the town and that area has many different styles and types of buildings and the premises itself is very smart and, in his view, it is a very good business which appears to be successful. He added that the business is in the part of the town where it is needed and there are a lot of housing estates in the vicinity. Councillor Murphy expressed the view that the business is in the part of Chatteris which unfortunately does suffer from vandalism, and he cannot see why there is concern about the shutters standing out from the building, adding that historically he had a business which suffered from vandalism and as a business owner he can empathise with the applicant. He stated that the report states that the shutters are not in keeping with the area and he questioned what could be classed as in keeping with the area as everything is different in that part of town and nothing is uniform in design. Councillor Murphy expressed the view that the applicant has invested well into their business which is very well supported and he will be supporting the application.

·       Councillor Sutton expressed the view that it appears that all the applicant has had to do is spend money, go against planning regulations, bring the application to committee and it will be approved. He stated that the elected members for Chatteris appear to be keen to see the application approved and he questioned whether they would like to see the whole of the High Street with black shutters installed as he has seen that in other parts of the country, with a town having numerous shutters installed and the area unfortunately deteriorating.

·       Councillor Murphy expressed the view that unfortunately you have to think of the future as vandalism is an everyday occurrence nowadays and, in his opinion, it will only get worse. He stated that Chatteris Town Council are in support of the proposal.

·       Councillor Mrs Davis stated that she had made a comment earlier about being careful of setting a precedent, but it would appear that from the comments made by the Chatteris Councillors that a precedent has already been set and, therefore, she has changed her mind on the proposal, and she will be supporting the application.

·       Nick Harding pointed out to members that the BP petrol station which formed part of the members debate is actually outside of the Conservation Area and the application site being determined is inside the Conservation Area. Nick Harding clarified that the BP station he is referring to is located on the corner of Park Street and Huntingdon Road which Councillor Murphy stated is right within the centre of Chatteris.

·       Councillor Benney made the point that Budgens has solid shutters which is within the Conservation Area.

Proposed by Councillor Sutton that the application should be REFUSED as per the officer’s recommendation however this was proposal was not supported due to no member seconding the proposal.

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

Members did not support officer’s recommendation for refusal as they feel that the principle of the application is needed which outweighs policy LP17(e) in the Local Plan and they feel that the proposal is not detrimental to the area and will be of benefit the town of Chatteris.

(Councillors Murphy and Benney 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)