Agenda item

To determine the application.

David Rowen 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 Mr Matthew Hall, the agent. Mr Hall stated that he has spoken to the applicant regarding the history of the site and when the applicant purchased the site many years ago along with the adjacent row of properties, they did not have internal toilets and two of the properties did not have electric and were in a poor condition and over time the properties now all have electricity, toilets, and new kitchens. He stated that this has all meant that this building to be demolished has no longer been required for the external toilets and washroom due to the improvements by the applicant and it has not been used for a number of years.

Mr Hall stated that the report makes reference to a planning approval for this building to be converted in 2016 into a dwelling, however, the report does not state that the conversion was to remove all of the internal walls which are all original, over double the size of the building, due to the fact that on its own it is not suitable for a residential dwelling and it would have had an extension which would be two storey which would change the appearance of the outbuilding. He explained that it is all to be built on the boundary which is only one metre from the neighbouring property to the south, with the neighbour immediately to the south raising concerns regarding the stability of the building due to slippage of roof tiles and sections of mortar appearing on his pathway and this building is on the boundary.

Mr Hall explained that in the officer’s report under 1.3 it states that the building can be used in some form or another and he questioned what use could be made of it, it is too small for a garage and would also mean the removal of all the internal walls and when he walked up to one of the doorways he found it necessary to crouch down, making the point that if a floor was introduced even with minimal insulation then that would reduce the headroom. He expressed the opinion that it would be impractical to convert the site into a dwelling without substantial demolition works and the building has not been used for a number of years by the owner or tenants to his knowledge.

Mr Hall explained that as the officer has pointed out the demolition would allow for some additional parking on site for residents and there have been other buildings on the site located along the southern boundary which have all been given approval to be demolished and that has taken place. He stated that under LP16 it states that the proposal should not have a detrimental effect on the street scene settlement pattern or landscape of the area and the building cannot be seen from the street scene and there will be no removal of any vegetation.

Mr Hall made reference to the map on the presentation screen and the settlement pattern immediately either side of the proposal site and even going further into Chatteris has all been developed from what it was originally. He explained that at the front of the site delegated approval was  given within the last 12 months to demolish the property which is in a very poor condition, and he asked members to support the application.

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

·         Councillor Hicks stated that the site is in a very poor state and even if it was repurposed it would not be the same as it was 200 years ago as it would not be the same building. He referred to the officer’s report where it states that it would have a detrimental impact on the character and historic interest of the Chatteris Conservation area, but, in his opinion, the site cannot be seen from the road anyway and he does not see how it will impact on the street scene and, therefore, he will be in favour of the demolition of the building.

·         Councillor Benney stated that the officer’s report refers to 130 and 133 High Street and he explained that 130 High Street keeps falling down and there have been planning applications approved for that site as it is derelict and is falling down because the cost of conservation is greater than the cost of a finished site and, therefore, nothing happens to it. He made the point that 133 has been developed, however, only on the strength of the housing that was approved and passed at the back of it. Councillor Benney stated that when considering the current proposal, to the red line on the right-hand side of the plan there was a house with no roof, and it was a pebble dashed house with boards on it and was graffitied and had a tree growing within it. He made the point that the application was approved in a Conservation Area, and it was located on the street scene, however, the proposal before members which is a shed which serves no purpose and even if it was included in a development, he doubts whether you would want to subject anybody to live there. Councillor Benney expressed the view that the aim is to raise the standards of building and not revert back to the 18^th  or 19^th  Century and you cannot conserve everything. He stated that somebody has to live there, and he questioned how you can convert something to make it viable for someone to be able to reside there. Councillor Benney added that it is an absolute nonsense and whilst he appreciates the planning policies, in his view, the sooner the building is demolished the better it will be.

·         David Rowen stated that with regards to the comments made concerning how can the building be incorporated into development, the presentation depicts how the site could be incorporated into what looks like a very nice dwelling whilst only being a very small part of a house. He added that with regards as to whether it can be seen from the wider street scene, that is not a determining factor in the significance from a historic environment perspective as to whether demolition should take place or not and the Conservation Officer along with the Conservation Team at County Council have both indicated that they have concerns over the loss of the building and he highlighted that the Council does have a legal duty to give due consideration to those issues.

·         Councillor Hicks stated that if the building were demolished, something identical could be put in its place which would be a new build and there would be no difference aesthetically when looking at it.

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

Members do not support officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning permission as they feel that officers have already permitted the demolition of another building which was in better condition and was also in a Conservation Area and not a Listed Building but has Listed Buildings around it, if nothing happens then it will fall into further disrepair until it is no longer salvageable, by demolishing the building it will enhance the area as it is currently an eyesore in the setting, there is no benefit in keeping the building, there is not an application before the committee to consider anything to be built in its place, and the loss of this building will not be significant.

(Councillor Connor stated that he is perceived to be pre-determined on this application and he took no part in the discussion or voting thereon. Councillor Marks took the Chair.)

(Councillor Benney declared, in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning matters, that he is a member of Chatteris Town Council, but take no part in Planning)

(Councillor Benney declared that he knows the Agent for this application, he has undertaken work for him, but he is not pre-determined and will approach the application with an open mind)