Agenda item

To determine the application.

(Members resolved to exclude the public from the meeting for part of this item of business in so far as it related to confidential papers which were circulated at the meeting on the grounds that it involved the disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 3 of Part 1 of scheduled 12A of the Local Government Act 1972)

The Chairman explained that a confidential document would be circulated to members once the registered speakers had finished their presentations. He made the public and press aware that they would be asked to leave the Council Chamber during this time, to allow members deliberation of the document. 

David Rowen presented the report and update to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Councillor Steve Tierney.

Councillor Tierney asked members to consider the people they serve and not bureaucracy when considering this application. He said the site deserves special consideration as The Retreat is a fantastic local business working in a tough area where other businesses have previously failed. He explained that he had recently attended a presentation at Meadowgate School where students were celebrating their work with The Retreat. He explained that the owners of the salon work hard to serve the community and he had personally spoken to hundreds of people who support them and their business. He highlighted that Wisbech Town Council had passed a motion to support the proposed application and the Mayor of Wisbech is in attendance today to show his support too. He said the Deputy Leader of the Council, Councillor David Oliver also backs the application. He said the public opinion is that the Council are putting bureaucratic barriers above helping a legitimate business and he reminded members that the site is located opposite a car-wash and between two nightclubs. The windows installed are attractive and shutters will protect the business from the anti-social behaviour problems they face. He highlighted that windows are expensive to replace when they are subject to vandalism and the Police cannot protect the premises at all times, therefore this application should receive special dispensation as they are in a situation through no fault of their own. He explained that the applicants had employed a firm to install the UPVC windows, who had assured them that they would apply for the appropriate planning permission on the applicant’s behalf. This firm is no longer in business and the applicants are left with the consequences of this. He asked members to go against officer’s recommendations and send a positive message to the public in relation to protection of local businesses against vandalism. He said the Committee should view this case as an exception. He disagreed that a precedent would be set by granting the planning permission as each application is assessed on its own merits and asked members to make a common sense decision. 

Members asked Councillor Tierney the following questions;

1.    Councillor Mrs Laws said Councillor Tierney had referenced the installation of shutters however the application is for protective railings. Councillor Tierney said he had made a mistake and corrected his statement.

2.    Councillor Court asked if the building is listed. Councillor Tierney confirmed it is not listed but located in a conservation area.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Mr and Mrs Faulkner (the Applicants).

Mr and Mrs Faulkner thanked members for the opportunity to speak and offered special thanks to Councillor David Oliver for his support. Mrs Faulkner said they had received huge amounts of support from Wisbech Town Council and the public, with over two-thousand signatures in support of their application. She confirmed that they had put their faith in a local firm to install the UPVC windows, who assured them that they had obtained the relevant planning permissions on their behalf. They were devastated to learn that this was not the case and planning permission had not been given. She explained that in the last three years they had suffered more damage to their building than ever before. Due to their location, between two nightclubs, they are prone to acts of anti-social behaviour and decided to change the windows to acoustic, high-quality, double-glazed sash windows to try and prevent further vandalism. She highlighted that 10.3 of the Fenland Local Plan, supports proposals which help reduce crime and confirmed that if the application is refused, they cannot afford to replace the UPVC windows with the same quality timber-frame windows due to the high cost. Because of this, they would have to revert back to single-glazed windows which will have an adverse effect on their health and wellbeing due to the noise of the surrounding premises. She added that nobody had approached them in relation to the UPVC windows and they were only made aware of the issues surrounding these, when they sought advice on replacing the ground floor windows this year. She highlighted that within close proximity of the shop, are buildings with plastic windows, illegal shutters and a fire-damaged listed building nearby too. She argued that these are far more detrimental to the character of the conservation area than the shops windows. Mrs Faulkner said the salon is losing foot-fall and looks an eyesore in its current state, as the boards at the window cannot be removed until the railings are installed due to the high-risk of further vandalism. She explained that the salon had recently styled the Rose Queen’s hair as well as donating hair to the Little Princess Trust charity. The salon currently has eight employees of which three are Apprentices and offer work experience to pupils of Meadowgate School too. She concluded that she and her husband are innocent victims in this upsetting situation and thanked members for their time.

Members asked Mr and Mrs Faulkner the following questions;

1.    Councillor Mrs Laws asked if they were aware at the time of purchase that the property was located in a conservation area and what this entailed. Mr Faulkner confirmed they were aware of this but did not realise the restrictions.

2.    Councillor Mrs Laws asked if the applicants had ever approached the Council about the windows. Mr Faulkner said no as they had entrusted the window company to do this.

3.    Councillor Mrs Laws asked if anybody had ever recommended they seek pre-application advice or recommend they submit the application for the windows and railings separately. Mr Faulkner said following meetings with their agent and the Council’s planning officers, it was suggested the application be submitted as one application to save the cost of submitting two.

The meeting was adjourned at 2:09 PM to allow members time to consider the confidential papers. The Press and Public were asked to leave the Council Chamber during this time.

The meeting resumed at 2:26 PM. The Press and Public returned to the Council Chamber after the confidential papers were read and discussed by members privately.

Members asked questions, made comments and received response as follows;

1.    Councillor Mrs Laws asked for confirmation that the building is subject to an Article 4 too. David Rowen confirmed that properties located in Wisbech and Bowthorpe Conservation areas, are subject to an Article 4. This is imposed on particular areas to restrict certain forms of development. For example, the restriction removes the permitted development right for householders to change their windows and instead states that planning permission must be obtained.

2.    Councillor Murphy said he was surprised that the applicants had not considered that planning permission may be required to replace the windows and asked why they had not obtained more than one quote for the work. He said the Council had had a similar situation in another town which had caused many issues which he is keen to avoid happening again.

3.    Councillor Mrs Laws said she would have had no issues with granting planning permission for the railings as she agrees that business owners need to protect their premises and feels railings would be suitable both for the protection of the building and aesthetics of the area. She said whilst she understands the financial impact changing the windows would have on the applicants, this cannot be used as a planning consideration. She is mindful that the building is located in a conservation area and is subject to an Article 4 also. She said she is upset to say that she cannot see how this application can be granted on this basis and offered her sympathies to the applicant. She suggested the application should have been submitted as two separate applications and with a heavy heart, suggested the application is refused.

4.    Councillor Mrs Hay agreed and added that she had no issues with the installation of railings either. She said whilst she has sympathy for the applicant, their lack of knowledge of the process cannot be a reason to approve permission for the windows. She feels granting the application would set a precedent and therefore she cannot support the application.

5.    Councillor Mrs Laws asked if it was possible to make a decision on the railings and windows separately. David Rowen confirmed that split decisions cannot be issued on planning permissions by Local Authorities.

6.    Councillor Murphy said this is a terrible situation however granting permission would set a precedent for other similar applications.

7.    Councillor Sutton said this decision was one of the hardest he has considered during his time as a member of the Planning Committee. He said members have policies they must adhere to and cannot wear their heart on their sleeves. He was concerned that if they were to grant permission, the wrong message would be sent out to the Heritage Lottery Fund who invest a lot of money in to improvements in Wisbech. He confirmed that other windows in the area that do not comply with planning policy will be identified and the relevant action taken against them.

8.    Councillor Mrs Laws said whilst she understands Councillor Tierney’s point regarding assessing applications on a case-by-case basis; this site is located in a conservation area and will set a precedent if it is approved. She said Wisbech has one of the highest amounts of listed properties in the area and they must be mindful of the funds that are granted to the town because of this.

9.    Councillor Mrs Newell asked why nothing has been done about the other properties in the area with UPVC windows. David Rowen confirmed that examples of these had been submitted arising from this application however initial investigations showed these windows were unauthorised. He reiterated that dependent on the decision today, officers will investigate these claims further and take the appropriate enforcement action where necessary.

10. All members confirmed that the decision made was with a ‘heavy heart’.

Proposed by Councillor Mrs Laws, seconded by Councillor Mrs Hay and decided that the application be REFUSED as per officer’s recommendation.