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 building was vacant for approximately 7 years before the applicant took on the premises, having now occupied it for 3 months under a 10-year lease and Chloe’s Jewellers has been operating for more than 90 years and has branches at Thetford, Melton Mowbray, Royston and Wisbech. He added that the applicant is in talks with possible shops in Newmarket and Sudbury.

Mr Hall referred to 5.3 of the officer’s report where the crime officer states that the site is in an area of medium to high risk to vulnerability of crime. He stated that on 16 January this property was broken into, the external shutter was present as a deterrent, but a hole was cut through the roof to gain access, the Police were called, but he does not have a crime number or e-mail, which resulted in a loss of £23,000.

Mr Hall made the point that this is not the only commercial property in March Conservation Area that has an external roller shutter, with two other jewellers in the Conservation Area both having these, the pawn brokers at 6 High Street and opposite this site at Malletts. He feels that there are also shutters at various other premises, Anne’s Thai Kitchen on the adjacent street which can be seen from this site, Amical Vets directly opposite a Grade II Listed Building and on shops down Fenland Walk, with the shops being outside of the Conservation Area but the walkway being in the Conservation Area and whilst he appreciates these have all been there a while they are part of the character of the area.

Mr Hall stated that there are no objections from the public to this application, March Town Council support it as does the Designing Out Crime Officer and two other businesses in the same trade in the Conservation Area both have shutters as well.

Members asked questions of Mr Hall as follows:

·       Councillor Marks expressed the view that the roller shutters look at little stark and if planning consent is given asked if they would consider them being painted? Mr Hall responded that Malletts has been spray painted the same colour as the shop surround and he could agree to this, it would be black as in the surround around the shop and it would not be orange.

·       David Rowen requested clarification that when the shop was broken into the break in took place through the roof. Mr Hall responded that it was on 16 January the break in took place, the shutter was down and the thieves cut a hole through the roof. David Rowen stated that the reason he asked that question was because the break in took place after the shutter was in situ and the shutter is not effective as a deterrent from preventing crime and the solid shutter exasperates the crime as nobody can see in the shop and see that a theft is taking place.

·       Councillor Marks stated that he agrees to a certain degree and questioned where CCTV was watching at the time because someone running across a roof should be fairly well spotted.

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

·       Councillor Murphy stated that he lived in a shop and shop premises for over 50 years and was part of the local traders association, referring to 1.2 of the officer’s report which he feels does say it all, reading it out and making the point that when he was in the traders association they talked about exactly the same thing. He added this is in a Conservation Area and you can now get in store shutters so they do not show out on the street scene and he does believe that officers have got the recommendation correct because there is nothing worse than a row of shutters all the way down the street which will get worse going forward as every shop will want them for safety reasons and they are not necessarily for safety reasons.

·       Councillor Marks stated he is not a shopkeeper and does understand what Councillor Murphy has said, however, putting shutters behind a window, one of the biggest expenses a shop gets is the glass when it gets smashed and it gets to a point where they may not be able to get insurance. He added that it is a roller shutter, it is in front of what looks to be some valuable items, and he understands what David Rowen said that the roller shutter did not work particularly well, but it showed a different weakness in the building. Councillor Marks made the point that so many cash machines are being stolen, the thieves get a teleporter to smash into it so now they are putting posts in front of cash machines and now thieves are stealing mini diggers because they will find a solution to any problem but the more security that is in place the better. He reiterated what was the CCTV operator doing at the time and why did they not see somebody running across a roof. Councillor Marks expressed the view that the shutters are a deterrent, he does not like the colour of them and thinks if they were painted black it would look better and wherever it is, in a Conservation Area or not, he thinks it would match in better. He feels it needs protection and it may be that the insurance company have specified it, with the owner not being able to run his business because the insurance company has said they have to have them or otherwise the premiums would increase meaning another business is lost out of March who pay rates.

·       Councillor Connor agreed with the comments of Councillor Marks, the shop has previously been empty for 7 years so they are not easy to lease and there are extra business rates being collected for Fenland. He referred to the comments of Councillor Murphy and would have thought he was a shopkeeper many years ago, with Councillor Murphy indicating it was 10 years ago, and Councillor Connor expressed the view that even in 10 years things have changed in March, people are climbing on roofs, running amok and breaking into places, as he is sure they are in every market town. He believes the need for shutters is imperative as if you break the windows of the shop, it is a massive amount of money per capita of the profit and if it happens once or twice in a year or over two years the premium goes up and then the profit is diminished one way or another. Councillor Connor made the point that members have heard the owner lost £23,000, not through the shutters, but perhaps the building needs some more security measures but shutters are a deterrent, with various other shops having them. He stated that he did call this application into committee and he will support it.

·       Councillor Purser stated that he fully supports it but as Councillor Marks alluded to if the shutters were painted a nicer colour rather than the stark silver colour to blend in with the surroundings it would be better. He made the point that there is expensive jewellery in the shop, he was a shopkeeper and had windows broken, not as a result of a break in, but due to the inebriated state of people and the issues it caused clearing the mess up and trying to get the windows boarded up and replaced so to protect it with shutters is beneficial but there are alternative shutters where you can still see through and different colours.

·       Councillor Benney stated that he was a shopkeeper and roller shutters do stop a lot of nuisance crime, with a pane of glass that size costing probably a couple of thousands pound to replace and if you have 2-3 of these a year an insurance claim is not submitted as the excess will be expensive and it also puts the insurance up. He stated that his shop got ram raided 4 years ago and his insurance at the time was around £1,200 and when he paid the insurance last month it is now £2,700 due to submitting a claim and it then gets to the point where someone cannot get insurance, with 4 broken windows a year meaning that there is no profit that year. Councillor Benney made the point that to say it did not stop crime, it did stop it coming through the front, he got broken into the several times and the last time he thought he was really secure and they came with a steel saw and cut through the back doors so thieves always find a way round it. He does think the current shutters are stark, looking like they belong on an industrial site and he would prefer perforated ones so the inside can be seen as if you put an internal light in the shop if people are driving past they would see somebody in the shop and he does not think it would cost too much to change to perforated black shutters, which he would much prefer to see than what is currently there. He asked if it would be possible to look at deferring it to have those shutters changed?

·       David Rowen stated that, as has been alluded to by Councillors Benney and Purser, this is the worst form of shutter that you could have on a shop front from a visual point of view and a practical one of how it deters crime as it masks crime. He expressed the view that a far better option would be some form of grille style shutter that would still protect the glass but would also give that visual permeability into the shop. David Rowen referred to the comments of Councillor Connor that this is an application in front of members for a solid shutter so that is what this application needs to be decided upon but there is a viable, reasonable, preferable alternative that could be secured and questioned whether that could be undertaken through a deferment or whether that would be better through the determination of this application in line with officer’s recommendation and officers can then seek to work outside the application process with the owner of the shop to obtain something that is better. He feels there are two options but the option he would not recommend is approving this application for the reasons that both Councillors Benney and Purser have identified.

·       Councillor Benney stated that he would like the application deferred as the owner either wants his planning permission or not and the current shutter is a bit stark. He asked if officers would work with the agent if it is agreed that it is deferred and he would be happy for this to be delegated if it could. Councillor Benney stated he would be happy with a perforated shutter in a black colour that blends in with what is there as it is very industrial what is there currently.

·       Councillor Connor stated that he would prefer another type of shutter but was told that committee needed to determine what is in front of it but would be happy to defer it to bring it back to next month’s committee or if it is an easy one it could be delegated to officers.

·       Councillor Marks expressed confusion as he sat in a meeting yesterday and was told when deferral was mentioned that committee had to determine what is in front of it questioning what has changed in the last 24 hours. David Rowen responded that it could not be conditioned that there are different shutters but in terms of deferring this was not discussed in detail other than to say that deferment is not an ideal scenario but if that is the committee’s decision that it is deferred to secure something better than that it is within members’ gift. Councillor Marks disagreed, he would have thought deferral was the sensible thing and is surprised at the comments today, but he is happy to support a deferral.

·       Councillor Benney asked if officers would work with the agent if deferred to seek a change of the shutter and come back to the committee? David Rowen responded that whether it is a refusal and a resubmission or a deferral to secure something acceptable then officers would work with the applicant/agent to deliver that.

·       Councillor Connor stated that he is in favour of a deferment because if they have to submit another application they will have to pay again.

·       Councillor Benney asked if the agent can be asked if they will work with the officers to come back with a different scheme as members need to know if is possible before making their decision? Councillor Connor allowed the agent to respond whether they will work with officers to obtain a better scheme. Mr Hall stated that they would work with officers for a different external roller shutter.

Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Purser and agreed that the application be DEFERRED to enable officers to work with the applicant and agent to bring forward a perforated different coloured roller shutter.

(Councillor Mrs French declared that she is a member of the Broad Street Regeneration Committee and took no part in the discussion or voting on this application)

(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)

(Councillor Murphy declared that he knows the agent, but he is not pre-determined and will consider the application with an open mind)

(Councillor Purser registered, in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that he is a member of March Town Council but takes no part in planning. He further declared that the agent has undertaken work for him, but he is not pre-determined and will consider the application with an open mind)