Agenda item

To determine the application.

Alan Davies presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Matthew Hall, the agent. Mr Hall stated that the officer’s report highlights that there had been a previous approval for the conversion of the first floor to a residential flat and the proposal before the committee also includes that as well. He made the point that the application site is located in a built-up residential area and, in his opinion, that it will be classed as a town centre location.

Mr Hall explained that when he submitted the application as part of the submission, he included a list of public houses and clubs within March, and there are 14 other drinking establishments and clubs with Wetherspoons probably being the largest one which is located 170 metres away from the application site, with the business which used to operate from the application site having been closed for 12 months. He stated that he has reviewed some of the comments made by the local residents as the site is surrounded by residential properties and the site it is located right next door to people’s gardens.

Mr Hall explained that the existing parking space will be utilized as there is a space available and  the Highway Authority have not raised any objection and the existing bin storage will be kept and there have been no concerns highlighted. He referred to the first floor windows and the ground floor windows located to the front of the property where concerns have been raised are already in place and on the rear elevation there is a staircase and a door and the proposal plans to remove that due to the fact that when you stand on the staircase then you can see into three of the surrounding gardens.

Mr Hall stated that the former landlady is in support of the proposal, who was the landlady of the business for 14 years, and as stated in the officer’s report she has confirmed that the business closed as it was not viable to continue and was closed down prior to the applicant purchasing the building. He explained that there are no technical objections to the proposal from any of the consultees to the application and within the officer’s report it makes reference to space standards, but stated that the application is for a conversion and, therefore, he will be working with the existing structure and has no plans for it to be extended as there is very limited room, making the point that he intends to keep the outside of the building as it is.

Mr Hall stated that the officer has pointed out that flat one and flat three are satisfactory but flat two is below standard and referred to another application for three flats in Norfolk Street in Wisbech from 2019 which was recommended for approval and was supported by members of the committee, with that proposal being for three new flats and flat one was 38 metre squared which was below standards. He explained that flat 2 was 41m squared which was 2 bedrooms and was below standard and flat 3 was 46 metres squared and was also below standards and he stated that all areas on the current proposal are all in excess.

Mr Hall expressed the opinion that the site it is not in a rural location, it is located in the middle of the town centre and surrounded by residential properties. He expressed the view that he believes that there some benefit to residents as opposed to what is there now as there is an external staircase which currently abuts neighbouring amenity for three properties and overlooks their gardens as well as an external door and he explained that this staircase will be removed.

Mr Hall added that by changing the premises to residential will mean that there is less of a noise issue in a built-up area and the officer report states that it does not have an overbearing impact, and it is very detailed with regards to the openings on all elevations. He expressed the opinion that by converting the building from a closed drinking establishment to residential usage it will mean that it will match in with the character of the area and, therefore, be residential development all round.

Members asked Mr Hall the following questions:

·         Councillor Mrs French asked why the commercial business has not been advertised for sale? Mr Hall explained that he has spoken to the applicant who has advised him that the site was advertised for six months with Maxey Grounds before he purchased it. He added that he has not advertised the building since as the business has been closed and it was not felt that it was viable to reopen the business and, therefore, a marketing exercise was not undertaken.

·         Councillor Gerstner questioned that when the building was trading as a drinking establishment was a trade waste collection in operation? Mr Hall stated that there does appear to be a large commercial sized bin at the site as well as a brown bin and anticipates that they will be kept or there will be separate bins for residents if the application is approved. Councillor Gerstner stated that as the proposal is for three flats there is the possibility of there being three bins for each flat along with food waste. Mr Hall explained that when it was a drinking establishment, they did also serve food which would have resulted in food waste. He added that he would look to ascertain advice from the Council’s refuse and recycling team with regards to waste collections and bin requirements. Councillor Gerstner made the point that there is the potential for all bins to be placed out on the pavement on collection days. Mr Hall confirmed this to be correct.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that there will not be three brown bins at the site as the properties will not have gardens.

·         Councillor Benney stated that the point had been made that the property had been marketed by Maxey Grounds for six months and he asked whether that had been prior to the applicant purchasing the building or was it marketed after that for six months? Mr Hall stated that it is his understanding that it was prior to the applicant purchasing the site.

·         Councillor Mrs French asked whether the site is still on the market? Mr Hall confirmed that it is not.

·         Councillor Marks stated that it is being referred to as a drinking establishment but to him it sounds more like a club, rather than a walk in off the street pub and he asked whether it was a member only club meaning that the members have now gone elsewhere? Mr Hall explained that it is his understanding that the premises was used for events including quiz nights, pool and darts where it was members only. He added that prior to its closure, people could just walk in off of the street, but there were some instances where it was for members only.

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough referred to the floor space of the flats and the fact that one of the flats does not meet the required standard and another which does not have any storage area. She asked whether it was just the internal design of the building which was not followed through without changing it drastically? Mr Hall stated that he would agree and added that he has tried to work around the existing structure that is there, with two out of the three flats complying, and one does not.

·         Councillor Marks asked for clarification as he was under the impression that it was two flats which were not compliant? Alan Davies explained that there is one flat which does not comply in terms of overall space standards (flat two) and flat three complies with the overall requirement but does not have any built-in storage space, with nationally described space standards having two elements, one being the overall floor space and the other being the storage. He explained that officers would give more consideration to the overall floor space and flat three does not have built in storage space but that could be rectified because the floor space for flat three, which is a first-floor flat, is more than sufficient in terms of combined space standards of overall space.

·         Councillor Marks asked for the square meterage of the flat which does not meet the space standards? Mr Hall explained that it is just over 58 square metres.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough asked, with regards to the flat which does not have adequate floor space, what are the legal and safety implications of that? Alan Davies explained that when considering the national described space standards, there is a requirement to ensure that all future residential development has a minimum floor space, it is not legislation but is national guidance and, therefore, it is incumbent on each local authority to adopt the guidance. He added that the Council have not adopted it as a policy, but it is generally used as guidance to determine planning applications to ensure that future occupants of any residential scheme have sufficient amenity space. Alan Davies continued that with regards to fire and building regulations they are all separate matters.

·         Councillor Purser stated that there is only one parking space for the three flats and it is his understanding that it is not a requirement to provide any parking spaces, but he asked for clarification. Alan Davies stated that the application is for three flats, the actual parking standards are 1.25 parking spaces per dwelling which is far more than what is currently provided. He added that as part of the application the Highways Authority have been consulted, and they are happy with the one parking space and have raised no objection. Alan Davies made the point that the site is in the town centre and, therefore, there are facilities within a walkable distance, as well as connections to sustainable transport and, therefore, there are no concerns with regards to the under provision of parking spaces.

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

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that it is a town centre location and at the top of the road there are 15 car parking spaces which belong to the Council and 72 car parking spaces in Darthill Road. She added that she does have concerns over the size of the flats as there is a lack of compliance and she added that it is a shame that the application is not just for two flats as it would have had amenity space.

·         Councillor Marks stated that the committee has in the past approved temporary accommodation in Wisbech which are containers. He added that Mr Hall has explained that the flat which does not accord with national space standards is of a size of 58 square metres, however, a shipping container is 14.86 metres is a lot smaller and that is still being used to house people.

·         Councillor Benney stated that, with regards to the non-marketing, whilst he accepts that there is policy, it is the duty of the committee to look at applications and if it is felt that there is benefit in any way policies can be worked around to reach a satisfactory solution. He added that he has visited the site and, in his opinion, the building is a mess and is a blot on the landscape. Councillor Benney added that it has been marketed for six months and now somebody has purchased it which, in his view, should be welcomed and he feels that the site is never going to open as a pub or a club again as it would never work as a commercial enterprise again and it is an ex commercial premises in the middle of a residential area, which, in his opinion, is crying out for renovation. He explained that he looked at the floor plans and if it was changed into two flats it would never be viable and it would end up being another building in another market town that sits there until it becomes dilapidated, referring to a site in Chatteris which has suffered from a building collapse and questioned whether the residents of March want the same thing to happen to this site. Councillor Benney stated that the application is positive and will bring three flats forward which will provide homes which are in very short supply and whilst he appreciates that they are small flats there are many people who do not want expensive houses to rent, and they just want somewhere to live, and the application will provide that. He stated the fact that it was on the market for six months and eventually found somebody to purchase it is, in his opinion, excellent. Councillor Benney referred to an application in Orange Grove in Wisbech in 2021 which was developed in the back of a public house in Wisbech and fronted onto the A47, with it being a three-storey building and a new build which, in his opinion, was one of the worst applications he has seen come before the committee. He expressed the view that it appeared to be cramped, and he would not wish to live there but the officer recommendation was for one of approval and it was not up to the same standard as the application being determined now. Councillor Benney referred to the national space standards, making the point that they are only guidelines and do not have to be adhered to and, in his view, not to pass this application would be remiss of the committee and they would be missing an ideal opportunity to bring a building back into use. He made the point that planning is about land usage, and it is an unattractive building, but he questioned what else it could be used for and it could become a blot on the landscape. Councillor Benney stated that the site was marketed, somebody bought it after 6 months who has decided not for it to be a pub but for it to converted to flats and that is what the building lends itself to and he can see no reason why it should be refused.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that the benefit to the wider community needs to be considered and by removing the external staircase it will restore privacy to the three individual properties who have suffered from overlooking. She added that the Buffs Club was there for many years, and does not know how the external staircase was ever allowed, and she does feel that the application will be of a benefit to the community.

·         Councillor Marks stated that he agrees and the benefit to the community is also not having a building which is going to stand empty for a long period of time as it could encourage squatters and become at risk of arson attacks. He added that there have been other premises empty for a period of time such as the George Public House which has been empty for seven years and although it has been marketed nobody has chosen to purchase the site. Councillor Marks added that the benefit to the community will be for the premises to be changed to flats rather than in its current state.

·         Councillor Purser stated that by turning the empty building into flats will be a far better viable proposition although he would have preferred to see it converted into two flats rather than three.

·         Councillor Gerstner stated that he wholeheartedly agrees that the building should be converted into flats which will be of benefit to the community. He added that he would prefer to see the building converted into two flats rather than three and made the point that whilst he does not know the details concerning the viability or how much the building has cost the applicant or how much the conversion is going to cost, the applicant will know that himself. Councillor Gerstner stated that the application is recommended for refusal by officers and should the application be refused and come back to the committee for two flats then he would fully support that, but in its current format for three flats he cannot support it.

·         Councillor Benney stated that to convert the building into two flats would mean that they would be larger but for anybody to do anything to a property does mean that they need to make money out of it and if they do not make money then it does not come to fruition. He expressed the opinion that if this application is not approved then the building will end up falling down and nothing will happen with the site and why should something positive be refused which will bring a building back into use. Councillor Benney added that the building is not a new build, and the applicant is working with the existing constraints and there is no possibility to add an extension to bring the building up to the national space standards as it would not work. He questioned whether members want to see another blot on the landscape in March which is what will happen should the application not be approved, with there being a need for housing and the need to bring this type of building back into use. Councillor Benney added that if the application is refused then the town of March will suffer.

·         Councillor Marks stated that Collingwoods is located just around the corner, and it is scruffy, making the point that when considering the significant investment which has been spent on the rest of the town when you compare the Collingwoods corner which has a dilapidated building and is going to rack and ruin, it lets down the town. He made the point that he is pleased to see that the George Public House has been purchased and will tidy that end of town up and he agrees with Councillor Benney that if something is not done with the application site then it will end up being a blot on the landscape if something is not done with it very soon. Councillor Marks also reiterated the point that Fenland is also short of houses and homes for young people to afford to live.

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough added that she did have concerns over the floor space but the application before the committee needs to be determined and, in her view, the good far outweighs the harm and she will support the proposal.

·         David Rowen stated that planning is an evidential process and part of the problem with this application from an officer’s perspective is that the lack of evidence which has been provided to officers. He explained that it has been stated during the agent’s presentation that the building has been marketed, but nothing has been submitted as part of the application. David Rowen added that members have debated the issue of two flats as opposed to three but there has been no information submitted and, in his view, officers are working in the dark and to a degree the committee are as well. He stated that speculation about the condition of the building and what may or may not happen to it in the future is not material to the determination of the application and the building has only been vacant for a year and does not appear to be in any sort of structural disrepair. David Rowen made the point that given the evidence that policy requires which would justify the lessening of the space standards then ultimately it might have led to a different officer’s recommendation.

·         David Rowen stated that with regards to comparisons made to other sites, applications are dealt with on a case-by-case basis, and added that reference has been made to Orange Grove in Wisbech from 2019 which was a vacant site within a Conservation Area and weight was given to developing what was an eyesore. He added that members have also referred to the size of homeless accommodation in Wisbech and explained that the containers were very much units which were for people whose only option was to live on the streets, and they were interim accommodation as opposed to potentially longer-term accommodation as the application before the committee today. David Rowen expressed the view that there are distinct differences between the current application and some of the other cases that have been highlighted, making the point that there has been no evidence provided to support a lot of the issues that have been raised by members as justification for granting the application.

·         Councillor Benney stated that he understands the points made by David Rowen as officers are guided by the Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework, however, he added that the committee are in place to look at the overall proposal and to consider the community benefit in parts of this which is the softer side of planning. He added that he fully understands the decision which officers have made with the application, but whilst he appreciates that there are policies, there also has to be an element of common sense and there is compassion within planning and this is the compassion being considered in this case where the building can be saved from going into disrepair and from being a blot on the landscape.

Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Sennitt Clough and agreed that the application be GRANTED against 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 by bringing the building back into use there will be a community benefit and it will provide much needed housing and the National Space Standards are only a guideline, and other applications have been approved previously which are smaller, with the Council having a duty to provide housing. 

(All members present declared that the applicant is a fellow councillor, but they do not socialise with him and will consider the application with an open mind)

(Councillor Benney declared that the agent has undertaken work for Chatteris Town Council and himself personally, but he is not pre-determined and will consider the application with an open mind)

(Councillors Mrs French and Purser declared, in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that they are members of March Town Council but take no part in planning)

(Councillor Purser declared that the agent is undertaking work for him, but he is not pre-determined and will consider the application with an open mind)