Agenda item

To determine the application.

Nikki Carter presented the report to members and drew members attention to the update report that had been circulated.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Councillor Skoulding, a District Councillor objector to the proposal. Councillor Skoulding stated that the toilet block is very necessary for March and he would personally like it to stay and be revamped but if it must go he feels it would make more sense to build the new toilet block before demolishing the current one. He expressed the view that if portaloos are used for about 18 months this is going to cost a fortune and he can imagine seeing these portaloos going down the river, with consideration required to be given to the needs of the disabled and the elderly so, in his view, it makes more sense to keep the current toilets until the new toilets are built. 

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Councillors Count and Mrs French, District Councillors in support of the proposal. Councillor Count expressed the opinion that one of the major jewels in the crown of the town of March, not just the Fountain, War Memorial and the Stone Cross, is the river coursing straight through the centre, which is not made enough of it is just accepted and people are used to it. He feels the proposal to move the toilet block and bus shelter to open up the area to provide seating to enhance the view of the river are all positives in his opinion and unlike others he cannot see the beauty in these buildings and cannot understand why people believe residents would want to embrace a view of a toilet block, with people entering and leaving, over a beautiful view of the wonderful river, which he recognises is a personal opinion.

Councillor Count expressed the view that when someone arrives in March that does not know the town he would want them to see and enjoy a beautiful river not people going in and out of the toilets but he does understand people talking about the need for toilets in a town centre location, with the initial proposals not having any public toilets and himself and Councillor Mrs French, amongst others, fought long and hard to have new ones included in the budget and to have them located in the town centre. He stated that he felt the toilets would be better off in the car park because the people that use them tend to drive to City Road car park and these are people that do long stay car parking but residents said otherwise, Councillor Mrs French said otherwise and it has been talked about listening to residents and this is one of those examples where the Council did listen to residents and he backed down on his thoughts and accepts that a town centre location is the best place for the toilets.

Councillor Count stated that he supports the removal of the toilet block and the bus shelter to open up that space so people can enjoy the beautiful river in March and he feels it is essential that town centre toilets are kept, with the new location in Grey’s Lane being appropriate.

Members asked questions of Councillor Count as follows:

·       Councillor Cornwell asked from Councillor Count’s personal point of view where does he see a new toilet block being located because as the previous speaker said toilets are important and maybe rather than considering any temporary toilets priority should be put into providing the new toilets before the existing ones are demolished. Councillor Count responded that the current location proposed for the new toilets is in Greys Lane, further away from the town centre but still literally in the town centre and he agrees with this as the best location having moved away from his original thoughts primarily based on what the people of March want who want a town centre location. He agrees with Councillor Skoulding that it would be wonderful to have the new permanent ones built prior but this is not possible due to the funding and budget as there are delivery time schedules so there will be a period where the situation is not perfect but there will be temporary toilets in the meantime and the new ones will be built with enhanced changing facilities and disabled facilities.

·       Councillor Marks referred to relocation and that March has a lorry park with no toilets so he thinks what is already happening where lorry drivers are staying overnight would it not make more sense to put a facility here? Councillor Count stated that was his initial preferred location, however, the people of March, whose views he respects and has come around to their way of thinking, feel it is much more important to have those that are may be frailer, less able to go longer distances have it right in the town centre so that is what the proposal is for it to still be in the town centre. He made the point there has been a lorry park for as long as he has lived in March and he is not aware of any significant issues with having the toilets further away and there used to be a second set of toilets by West End but no problems have arisen since that toilet block closed so either they use places like pubs or cafes or they are using the town centre toilets of which the new ones will be virtually the same location but just stopping them blocking the view of the river.

Councillor Mrs French stated that the plan is to demolish the toilets and rebuild new ones but there is not a design for the new ones as yet but the roof tiles of the current toilets are going to be reused on the new block so it has to be demolished first, put the temporary toilets in and as Councillor Count alluded to there is approximately £160K from changing places to supply a disability adult changing facilities which includes a hoist. She made the point that there is only one toilet working in the current block as they keep breaking down and the Council is unable to get the parts.

Members asked questions of Councillor Mrs French as follows:

·       Councillor Cornwell asked if there is any real reason why the new ones cannot be prepared now because the rest of the High Street project will not depend upon the demolition of the old toilets. Councillor Mrs French responded that he was correct, the first stage is to get the application approved today for demolishing and then officers through the consultants will hopefully very quickly come up with an actual planning application bearing in mind that it is proposed to use the tiles and possibly the other features. Councillor Cornwell referred to the previous application that had been considered which was to take the Fountain down and put something up so he is a bit disappointed that this application does not include the new toilet block. Councillor Mrs French responded that this application needs to be approved to demolish then for the architects to prepare a new plan including possibly the turret and the old tiles, which they would not want to do if this application was refused. Councillor Cornwell asked if the new plan will include the retention or replacement of the trees and the grass etc that will have to be in this location. Councillor Mrs French responded that this will all come within the planning application.

·       Councillor Sutton stated that he does not understand the comments that an architect has got to wait for a demolition before designing a new toilet. Councillor Mrs French responded that why would this Council waste money on an architect to supply drawings for a new toilet if this application is refused.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Jennifer Lawler, an objector to the proposal. Mrs Lawler expressed the view that again there has not been the legal requirement of statutory community involvement for the Broad Street project under Article 15 of the Development Management Procedure Order. She stated that in conversations with hundreds of people when raising the petition to prevent the demolition of this toilet block it appears again that the large proportion of the town population were totally unaware of this major design of the town, with no promised in-person consultation and people at the face-to-face meetings were shown details and learnt it was too late and plans would go ahead including demolition of the toilet block.

Mrs Lawler expressed the opinion that people were shocked to hear that the toilets and shelter together with trees on the riverbank would be cleared to expose a less attractive view of the river. She stated that many reasons were given against demolition, with the main being the loss of amenities, with Fenland having statistically significantly fewer people reporting good or very good health compared with England as a whole and many people with medical conditions saying they need the security of knowing that easily accessible toilets are there in the town centre and the shelter is available for both the need to rest and inclement weather, with the removal of both resulting in discrimination against people with disabilities who are unable to come into town without the security of knowing that there are facilities available near the shops.

Mrs Lawler expressed the view that the toilets are a lifeline to people and the preferred option is for the toilets to be modernised and restored with a new façade but there must be the provision for new toilets before any demolition occurs. She made the point that this application is for demolition and not for rebuilding and she has been told there will be a time without toilets and people can use them in shops but that, in her opinion, is unacceptable, with the town’s Women’s Guild quoted as saying they were concerned at the decline in the number of free to access public toilets being a threat to citizens hygiene, health, mobility, dignity and equality, with available High Street toilets being essential in the town centre for an aging population and increasing percentage of older residents, those with medical concerns and visitors, families especially at town events in the area use these as they are the only public toilets in March, conveniences belong in the town centre and the present building is in full view and visible for visitors.

Mrs Lawler expressed the view that the shelter is a sound protected well-frequented seating and meeting place for various age groups offering shelter in all weathers and contrary to rumours of unwelcome users she has spoken with many town residents who use it and need the facility to rest while in town and do not want to lose it. She referred to environmental concerns in that the toilet building has been a prominent landmark on this site for nearly a hundred years and is a familiar well-liked building adding character to Broad Street, with demolition of these buildings offering changes of character and leaving an empty space. 

Mrs Lawler stated that it is disturbing that when conservationists are calling for buildings to be refurbished rather than demolished there is an application to demolish a sound building in order to build a replacement just a few metres away and if it is not required as toilets the building should be given an alternative use. She feels that opening an area on a steep riverbank with proposed seating facing old buildings does not open up an attractive view, with there being, in her opinion, far more attractive views of the river.

Mrs Lawler stated that the proposed replacement toilet building would be near the riverside grounds and the play area of Listed Bank House, with there being concerns about night-time vandalism and anti-social behaviour in this more secluded area. She expressed the opinion that the present site is ideal as it is open to the high street view.

Mrs Lawler stated that, being mindful of climate change and the beneficial effects of trees on health and well-being adding beauty and improving air quality in the urban environment, trees must be retained on the bank adding character to the area and importantly supporting the bank, with the tree report recommending trees are retained and new planting added to benefit wildlife and biodiversity. She expressed the opinion that demolishing a sound building to obtain a view, and not an attractive one, sets a disturbing precedence for removing buildings which are not recognised as being important and raises concerns for other March buildings.

Members asked questions of Mrs Lawler as follows:

·       Councillor Meekins referred to Mrs Lawler mentioning in both the previous application and this one that she had had hundreds of conversations. Mrs Lawler responded that she has spoken to masses of people for months, she is involved in many groups in March, people have contacted her and she is on social media. Councillor Meekins asked if a survey was undertaken or was it just people talking to her and made the point that the March Society has not put anything in the comments about the hundreds of people that these conversations took place with as he would have thought if she was campaigning for something and hundreds of conversations had taken place with the vast majority of them being against it she would have produced some statistics to back his argument up and the March Society does not do that so he wonders where the facts and figures are to back up her statement. Mrs Lawler responded that she omitted putting that as she was just giving the March Society’s objections but a petition of over 500 signatures was handed in and because she was so busy she did not go all out to have a campaign. She stated that people have approached her since the closing date to ask if they could sign up.

·       Councillor Sutton asked for clarification on the number of signatures for the petition? Mrs Lawler responded that there were actually 515 signatures she believes.

·       Councillor Meekins stated that it does say a 318 signature petition was submitted and names, signatures and addresses have not been checked. Mrs Lawler stated that there was also an on-line petition on the Council’s website as well so the two added together came to over 500.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Fiona Bage, agent, and Simon Machen and Phil Hughes, on behalf of the application. Ms Bage stated that the application seeks planning permission for demolition of the existing toilet block and shelter, with the works forming part of the wider scheme of the funding works through the March Future High Street Project which is intended to address the challenges and assist in the regeneration of the centre of March. She expressed the view that the demolition of the structures is intended to open up views of the riverbank and create an area of improved public realm within the vicinity and permission for demolition is only required by virtue of the buildings being located within a Conservation Area.

Ms Bage advised that, whilst not forming part of this current application, new toilet facilities will be provided and there is the commitment from the Council already to do this with £250,000 worth of funding already allocated to provide these facilities, which are approximately 12 metres away from the existing facilities, therefore, in her view, the new toilets will be conveniently located near to the existing centre. She stated that the new and improved facilities as one of the councillors mentioned will be built to modern standards and meet more specialised needs than the current facilities which cannot be provided within the confines of the existing building.

Ms Bage stated that if there is any crossover between the demolition of the current provision and the creation of the new facility, temporary facilities will be provided and made the point that no trees are to be removed through the current application. She acknowledged that a number of objections have been received as a result of the public consultation, in her view, a number of these concerns in respect of the proposals relate to the wider scheme, such as loss of car parking, highway implications, etc, with these works not being part of the current application for demolition of the toilet or shelter.

Ms Bage stated that the proposal is policy compliant, is not considered to harm the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, which is the one reason why the building needs consent for demolition in the first place, there are no objections raised from statutory or internal consultees with several conditions being requested by consultees in respect of trees and ecology due to the location of the works in close proximity of the river and the existing trees along the riverbank and they are more than happy to accept these conditions. She expressed the view that the planning officer has worked really proactively with them through the course of the application and they are pleased to secure a recommendation for approval and requested that members support the scheme in line with this recommendation.

Members asked questions of Ms Bage, Mr Machen and Mr Hughes as follows:

·       Councillor Cornwell asked if a scheme has been drawn up yet as to what the final product will look like? Ms Bage stated that those works would be permitted development works through the highway works with the rest of the pedestrianised scheme but there is an indicative scheme as part of the application.

·       Councillor Cornwell asked what type of safety provisions are being thought of as the rest of the town where the river comes through is post and fence on the two eastern sides and opposite there is protection on the southern bank, with further along there being natural protection but this is the old quay he believes of the old port going back to the days when the barges operated and is there going to be a quay type structure here and is there going to be any protection at all from the Saturday night crowd. Mr Machen responded that in terms of the details of the public realm scheme that will replace the toilets that is a combination of hard surfacing, landscaping and seating and there will need to be some demarcation to the edge of the relatively steep bank but it is worth bearing in mind that anyone could wander around the back of the existing toilet block and fall in the river now, although he is not aware this happens on a regular basis. He stated that any works that are undertaken within the public realm particularly where it involves public highway are subject to risk assessment. Mr Machen made the point that in an ideal world the planning application for the new toilet block would be submitted alongside the application to demolish the existing toilets, however, where new toilets should be located or whether the existing toilets should be refurbished has been discussed a number of times, particularly with March Town Council. Mr Hughes stated that subject to the outcome of today an architect’s design should be available in the next two months and then a planning application to follow. He emphasised that the Council has a £250,000 put aside to develop brand new toilets in a central town location and those toilets would consist of two fully accessible toilets and one Changing Place toilet to modern standards, which would be the best standard toilets in Fenland.

·       Councillor Mrs Davis asked for clarification that the existing toilets have to be demolished as to build proper disability toilets you are unable to reconstruct inside and need the building to be slightly bigger? Mr Hughes responded that it would be quite a big space and taller than the existing one as well. He stated that in terms of the phasing, the wider Broad Street works and changing the riverbank requires the demolition initially.

·       Councillor Marks asked what the age of the existing toilets are? Ms Bage advised they are from the 1920s.

·       Councillor Cornwell asked for confirmation that a working compound facility will remain in the quay? Mr Hughes responded that it has just been replaced at a cost of £12-13,000 and it is also refurbishing the building itself improving the lighting and fresh water supply so that the pump out station for boat users is being improved at the moment ready for the Summer.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·       Councillor Benney made the point that there is an application for the demolition without the rebuilding and he would not want to see it demolished and then the money is no longer available and asked if conditions can be placed on the application that if approved that safeguard the demolition with a plan for re-building so that it is not demolished and then nothing is built to replace it. Nick Harding responded that this would be a tricky one to deliver because in terms of the street works that is something that does not need consent, the Council is not in control from a planning perspective and there is a legal process to go through for the application to construct a new block. Stephen Turnbull added that the best that could be undertaken would be a Section 106 Obligation but the Council is the landowner itself. Nick Harding explained that the Council cannot enter into a Section 106 Obligation with itself and given that the Council is the applicant the decision would be made in good faith that the demolition of the existing toilets would not commence until there is assurance about the implementation of the street works and the wider scheme for the replacement toilet block.

·       Councillor Mrs Mayor made the point that no one has mentioned that it is not a statutory duty to provide toilets in towns so it could be knocked down and not rebuilt. Nick Harding responded that as explained by the agent consent required for the demolition of the toilet block is as a consequence of it being in a Conservation Area and it is part of the Council’s wider duty to consider the equality issue in respect of the loss of the toilets, would that be detrimental to a certain section of the community if there was not going to be a replacement but there is the promise of a replacement so that issue of equality is resolved.

·       Councillor Cornwell queried if it is being said that in giving approval for the demolition of the toilets it is being linked to the replacement of the facility? Nick Harding responded in the negative, there is not going to be any condition or legal agreement attached to the planning permission for demolition if that is what is resolved by the committee today that insists on the replacement toilets being provided given that the Council is the authority that is behind both the demolition and the replacement toilets, which is a fairly good covenant to say that those replacements will be provided. Councillor Cornwell made the point that an option is not really wanted, it needs to be clear steer that permission is given for one on the condition that a replacement is secured. Stephen Turnbull responded that as it is a Council scheme the conventional way of approaching these things is that the members of the Planning Committee will entrust that this will happen and be assured that this will happen by the people promoting the scheme elsewhere within the Council. Councillor Cornwell queried that members should not be dealing with the application any differently to whether it is a private individual, company or the Council. Stephen Turnbull stated this is correct but the committee cannot require the Council to enter into a Section 106 Obligation with itself.

·       Councillor Sutton referred to Councillor Mrs French’s presentation where she said the Council did not want to waste money on architect’s fees for new drawings but in Ms Bage’s presentation she indicated that there were indicative drawings so have these drawings been seen by officers, if they have should members not have seen them also and if they are available why are they not in front of members as it just seems an incomplete application. Nick Harding responded that there is no planning application for replacement toilets, the application before members is for the demolition and it has been heard today from the speakers that there is funding included within the project to provide for the replacement and given that this is a Council scheme it is being accepted in good faith which does not seem to be unreasonable. He made the point that there will be an application in due course for the new toilets and he is sure this will come before Planning Committee but the applicant cannot be criticised for not including the replacement scheme as Mr Machen has indicated there has been more toing and froing discussions in order to get the scheme right for the replacement toilets and that has set back the work programme slightly as otherwise the committee might have seen both applications together.  

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

·       Councillor Mrs Mayor expressed the opinion that she would have liked to have seen an application come forward for demolition and rebuild, but members have got what is in front of them and this is what needs a decision.

Proposed by Councillor Mrs Mayor, seconded by Councillor Benney and agreed that the application be GRANTED as per the officer’s recommendation.

(Councillors Connor declared that he is perceived to be pre-determined on this application and took no part in the discussion and voting thereon. Councillor Mrs Davis took the Chair for this item)

(Councillor Benney declared that he is a member of Cabinet but is not pre-determined and will approach the application with an open mind)

(Councillor Mrs French declared an interest in this application, by virtue of being a member of MATS and the Member High Street Steering Group, and after speaking as part of the public participation took no part in the discussion and voting thereon)

(Councillor Murphy declared that he is a member of Cabinet and is Portfolio Holder for the Environment responsible for public toilets, and took no part in the discussion and voting thereon)

(Councillor Purser declared an interest in this application, by virtue of being a member of MATS, and took no part in the discussion and voting thereon)

(Councillor Skoulding declared that he was pre-determined on this application and after speaking during the public participation took no part in the discussion and voting thereon)