Agenda item

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure from Councillor Mrs French, the Ward Councillor for the application site. Councillor Mrs French stated that the application is for an existing business who are looking to expand, making the point that in the current economic climate, the business owner needs to be commended as there are not many businesses looking to grow. She added that, if approved, it would also mean the provision of one bedroomed flats which are very much needed and the current number of people who are on the waiting list for homes in Fenland is 1700.

Councillor Mrs French acknowledged that the application site is located within the Conservation Area of March but, in her view, the conservation policy is very out of date, making the point that many years ago she walked with the then Councillor Skoulding from St Peters Road to the marketplace where the Conservation Area ends and there were 342 illegal windows and other conservation contraventions and in her view the conservation areas all need to be reviewed in order that they are updated. She stated that the old Police Station is in need of attention as it has been neglected over the years and she added that the veterinary practice Amical should never have been allowed to be built in a Conservation Area.

Councillor Mrs French added that to the right of the Vets there are new flats being built at the present time along with further development across the road. She expressed the view that the application will not adversely impact the area and it will enhance the area by removing the car sales business which is not acceptable to be in a conservation area.

Councillor Mrs French asked members to approve the application, as it will enhance the business and provide flats that are badly needed which will provide new homes and be of public benefit. She made the point that the issues of noise and odour can be conditioned if the application is approved, and she asked the committee to support the application.

Members asked Councillor Mrs French the following questions:

·         Councillor Marks asked for clarity with regards to the number of Listed Buildings that there are near the site? Councillor Mrs French confirmed that there are three, Audmoor House, The Old Courthouse and The Maze. Councillor Marks asked whether Amical Vets is listed, and it was confirmed that it is not listed. 

·         Councillor Marks made the point that The Old Courthouse is now a snooker hall which is almost derelict and there are new properties which are located in the car park of Amical vets which will change the street scene. He added that there are further properties being built further down the road and added that the building next door to the application site looks to be modern in his opinion and it was confirmed it was about 22 years old. Councillor Marks expressed the opinion that the street scene will not alter drastically by adding another building. Councillor Mrs French expressed the view that a new building will enhance the area.

·         Councillor Marks stated that from recollection the Oliver Cromwell Hotel, which is located behind the application site, has got walkways above where guests walk to their rooms, and he asked how long that has been on site? Councillor Mrs French stated that it was converted in 1999. 

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Huseyin Cicek, the agent. Mr Cicek stated that the application involves replacing the current 2 storey building with a three-storey building replacing the takeaway unit and adding two commercial units on the ground floor, one of which is retail Class E use and a takeaway to be preserved. He stated that the upper units will provide seven high quality flats comprising of five one bedroomed flats and two-bedroom units, with proper waste management and secure cycle storage also being on site.

Mr Cicek expressed the view that the commercial units will help boast the local economy by attracting new businesses, increasing footfall and creating jobs which is crucial for helping to keep the town centre of March alive. He explained that the mix of housing that the proposal will bring will be a mixture of 1 and 2 bedroomed flats which are in high demand and will help to meet the needs of the growing community and goes towards supporting the local businesses.

Mr Cicek stated that the plan includes good waste management arrangements along with secure bike storage facilities which will include promoting greener living and due to its central location, it will be easy access to public transport and, therefore, supporting a sustainable lifestyle. He expressed the opinion that the current building does not enhance the Conservation Area and this proposal will enhance the area with a high-quality attractive building which is respectful to the historic character of the neighbouring building, with the proposal aiming to create a high-quality environment by replacing an under used site with a well-designed building that meets the modern needs.

Mr Cicek referred to policy LP18 of the Local Plan and stated that the policy refers to preserving and enhancing the historic environment and, in his opinion, the application respects the character of the Conservation Area and will blend in with the surroundings. He added that policy TC1 of the March Neighbourhood Plan supports the project, and it will enhance the economic viability of the town centre and the commercial units will bring new businesses boosting the local economy.

Mr Cicek stated that, under Policy H2, the proposal encourages a mixture of housing types for local needs and the flats provide a good mixture of one and two bedroomed options which will address local housing demands. He added that the several positive impacts to March Town Centre include replacing old buildings with new well designed, it will improve the look of the Conservation Area and will attract new businesses which will create new jobs.

Mr Cicek expressed the view that the new housing will provide much needed housing for both young and old people looking to live in the town centre, with the proposal for a new three storey building bringing significant benefits to March and the proposal is in accordance with local planning policies as it respects the Conservation Area and supports economic and community growth. He asked the committee to approve the proposal and recognise the positive impact the proposal will have for the local community.

Members asked Mr Cicek the following questions:

·         Councillor Imafidon asked whether the commercial waste and domestic waste will be separated for collection, and he questioned where the collection point will be for the waste to be removed? Mr Cicek stated that both commercial and domestic waste bins will be separate and will be at the back of the property in separate waste collection areas. He explained that with regards to the collection point, there is a footpath through Chapel Street and there are other domestic properties already receiving a waste collection and, therefore, the collection vehicles will access Chapel Stret and collect the waste from there.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Imafidon made reference to one of the conditions listed concerning the site being located in a Conservation Area and when he visited the site it is clear that there a number of new developments including the one next door to the site. He referred to the presentation screen and stated that the Hair Studio appears to be a relatively new building, along with a development of flats next to Cassanos, with there being further new development in the Conservation Area, which was permitted, and he questioned what the difference is between that new development and the proposal before the committee. Councillor Imafidon stated that the car sales business does not enhance a Conservation Area and he questioned why the proposal should be refused when the others have been approved? David Rowen explained that the fact that it is a Conservation Area does not mean that it should be mothballed in terms of development, and it does not mean that no new development should ever take place, however, any development that does take place should be sympathetic to the historic environment, should be appropriately designed and should fit in with its surroundings. He referred to the development taking place to the south of the veterinary clinic and explained that it was a scheme where a great deal of work was undertaken to reach an appropriate design and was considered to be a scale and form which enables it to fit in well within the location in the street scene. David Rowen referred to another site near to West End DIY and explained that it is virtually a like for like replacement for the building that was there. He added that with regards to the building that is located immediately to the north of the application site, planning permission was granted in 1983 and, in his opinion, if an application was submitted for that building at the current time then a greater amount of work would take place with regards to the design and detail of it.

·         David Rowen made the point that with regards to the current application it is considered that the appearance of the front elevation with the proliferation of dormer windows are not overly sympathetic or attractive in appearance. He added that the third floor is proposed to use a cladding system which is not a prevalent material for buildings fronting onto the street and the side elevation has a mansard roof which is not overly typical and the whole expanse of elevation will be visible within the street scene and from a design point of view that is the main concern, given the fact that there are no buildings to shield that to the south. David Rowen added that it is of sufficient concern that the Conservation Officer has raised concern as have Historic England.

·         Councillor Marks stated that he agrees that the slide which shows the dormer windows does appear to show very small windows and does not look to be in character as it looks very stark on a drawing but once it is built it may look different but at the current time it is guess work. He referred to the presentation screen and questioned whether one of the buildings shown is currently three storeys high and it was confirmed that it is three storeys. Councillor Marks added that the officer’s report states that the applicant has failed to include a noise impact assessment and odour assessment but made the point that with regards to noise there is a hotel car park to the rear of the application site where there will be transient people arriving at all times of the day and he questioned whether the concern is with the residents of the property or that residents are going to make the noise by having seven properties there. David Rowen stated that the issue of the noise and odour assessment is particularly in relation to the extractor unit that would be installed for the takeaway. Councillor Marks expressed the opinion that when you see the proposed chimney outside of the building it looks wrong, and he questioned whether there is any other method that can be used for extraction purposes and could it be incorporated within the building. David Rowen explained that the proposal contains the detail with regards to the chimney to house the extractor unit to serve the takeaway and there has been no information provided to indicate what equipment is needed to operate a chimney of that size. He explained that a chimney of that size requires extraction equipment of a certain power in order to push the air and odour up the chimney for dispersal. David Rowen added that none of this detail has been provided in order for an assessment to take place with regards to the equipment which is needed to work in an efficient manner.

·         Councillor Connor stated that, if the application was approved, would Environmental Health Officers provide their advice as to what would be considered as acceptable? David Rowen explained that Environmental Health have objected to the proposal due to their being a lack of information available to consider. He added that if planning permission is granted for the chimney as it stands there needs to be a confidence that the chimney will work with something that is acceptable.

·         Councillor Imafidon asked whether a condition could be added if the application was approved to state that the details of the capacity of the extraction unit must be provided. David Rowen stated that if planning permission is granted then you inherently need some equipment that can make the chimney work, but you do not know what that equipment is or what its impacts are and, therefore, planning permission would be granted for something that you are trying to make work retrospectively which in fact may not.

·         Councillor Connor made reference to the condition of the old Police Station which is located in the Conservation Area, and he asked officers to look into the building in order for it to go into further disrepair.

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

·         Councillor Marks expressed the view that it is a site and area which is scruffy and run down, which has a hotel located behind the application site which has one bedroomed rooms, and you could consider that there is not much difference between that and a one bedroomed flat. He made the point that as there is no associated parking with the proposal site, residents can park on the street, and he does not see that as causing an issue. Councillor Marks made the point that the Freezer Centre is being made into flats and whilst he understands the points made with regards to the roof, in his view, it may be better to have something which is slightly unusual rather than a square box like the property next door which is not pleasant to the eye. He expressed the view that the proposal will bring two shops and there has been no mention of any anti-social behaviour and consideration needs to be given to the fact that the applicant wishes to expand his business. He added that with regards to the point made concerning the double doors, in his view, if those residents want to overlook the Oliver Cromwell Hotel car park that is down to personal choice. Councillor Marks stated that apart from the issue concerning the chimney, he does not have any issue with the application.

·         Councillor Benney stated that he does not have an issue with the application as it will bring much needed flats albeit being three storeys and he is sure that it will eventually fit with the street scene as did a similar application of a three-storey block in Chatteris. He added that the pizza place is not an attractive building in its current form as it has bricked up windows and a car sales business beside it. Councillor Benney added that he does understand the officers views with regards to a development proposal and residential amenity but, in his view, this application site is not any more cramped than an application passed previously in Orange Grove in Wisbech. He stated that he will support the application, however, in his opinion the chimney issue does need to be conditioned and he understands the size of the flues to the size of the extraction required, but the application has come to the committee in an incomplete state as that information is not present. Councillor Benney added that he is confident that officers can overcome that issue and he would not want to see the application refused on that point today.

·         Councillor Connor made the point that he will support the proposal and he concurs with Councillor Mrs French that the applicant should be applauded as they wish to expand their business in the current economic climate.

·         Councillor Imafidon stated that he will also support the proposal as he feels that the development will enhance the street scene rather than be detrimental to it. He added that there is a building next door to it and the footprint of the new development will enhance and create a gap. Councillor Imafidon expressed the view that the car sales business looks horrible located on the High Street and he does not think that there is room for it. He stated that the top floor of the bowling centre looks disused and there are broken windows with vegetation growing all around it. Councillor Imafidon expressed the view that the application will enhance the street scene and improve it and, therefore, he will support the proposal.

·         Councillor Marks asked whether there is any way that the chimney can be conditioned as it just looks like a block stuck on the side of a building. He added that he appreciates the technical detail associated with it and its operation, however, questioned whether officers could work with the architects to improve the current position.

·         David Rowen stated that if members choose to grant the application then the only way to address the noise and odour arising from the chimney would be through a condition. He added that he has already indicated the difficulties in doing it and the associated risks attached by granting planning permission for something which turns out to be unacceptable, which members need to consider.

·         Councillor Marks stated that the reason there is a chimney is for a takeaway and if the application is approved but the applicant cannot reach a satisfactory resolution with regards to the chimney then they could still have two shops, but they are not able to run the takeaway. He questioned whether that is a risk the developer takes as opposed to members of the Planning Committee. David Rowen stated that what has been applied for is for one of the units to be sui generis, a takeaway unit, and if extract equipment cannot be installed which is to the satisfaction of Environmental Health then there is an implication as to whether the business can operate. He pointed out to members that on the existing takeaway unit the extract equipment is on the southern side of the building which is on the car sales side of the building and away from the residential units presumably so that the noise and odour are kept to a minimum.

·         Councillor Benney stated that the type of extraction unit needs to suit the type of business that is there to make it work and, therefore, if the extraction system does not accord with the requirements to operate a pizza take away then that will be down to the applicant, and they will need to submit a further planning application for a variation or a new application to meet his needs. He added that if the application is approved and the chimney cannot be agreed with Environmental Health then that will be an issue for the applicant to address as he will not be able to operate as a takeaway if the equipment is not signed off by the Environmental Health Officers.

·         Councillor Marks added that the application could be passed but with the addition of a condition which states that members do not believe that an outer chimney should be permitted. He made the point that members are of the opinion that the chimney element of the application is what lets the whole scheme down.

·         David Rowen stated that there is no part of the officer’s recommendation to refuse the application based on the appearance of the chimney and it is the lack of the technical information regarding its performance and its potential implications on the amenity of neighbouring residents. He added that is largely going to sit behind the building to the north and largely obscured from the wider public view and it does not form part of the visual or character reasons for refusal.

·         Councillor Connor stated that the applicant would have to work with Environmental Health in order to find something that was fit for purpose and the risk lies with the applicant not with the committee.

·         David Rowen stated that it is a fair summary and added that it is a far from desirable way of dealing with an application and, in his view, it is much better to actually know what you are granting planning permission for can work, but if the committee wish to take that decision then it is their choice.

·         Councillor Benney expressed the view that the applicant should know what they are applying for and if the committee are granting what he has got, should it mean that he has to have smaller burners in order to meet the standards of the flue then that may need to be an option that the applicant has to consider. He added that if the application is refused that would mean that the whole application has to come back, and he sees no purpose for that. Councillor Benney stated that the applicant has applied for what he wants, and it will have to be agreed by Environmental Health in order for him to obtain his certificate so that he can trade.

·         Councillor Marks made reference to Policy LP2 and stated that it states that the policy requires development proposal to promote high level of residential amenity and in his view the proposal will bring seven more homes which is needed. He added that under LP16 of the Local Plan it states that the proposal should not adversely impact the amenity of neighbouring users whilst providing sufficient amenity space for the proposal. Councillor Marks explained that it is very difficult to do that with one bedroomed flats to have amenity space, however there are two balconies associated with the proposal and he questioned whether it is going to impact a property which in the committees view is already unsightly.   

·         David Rowen stated that the recommended reasons for refusal dictate the actual relationship between the proposed development and the properties to the north. He added that in terms of the mass of the building proposed impacting on those properties in terms of overshadowing the rear of them, overshadowing the garden areas and the potential overlooking of the garden areas from the terraced areas. David Rowen explained that it is the impact on the amenity and the enjoyment of those properties to the north by the physical form of the development.

·         Councillor Marks stated that if you were standing in the Oliver Cromwell Hotel you would be looking straight into the gardens anyway to the north as the walkways to the hotel rooms are raised up anyway on the second level and, therefore, he does not see any difference.

Proposed by Councillor Marks, seconded by Councillor Benney and agreed that the application be GRANTED against the officer’s recommendation with delegation to officers to apply suitable conditions.

Members do not support the officer’s recommendation of refusal as they feel that the application will enhance the area and street scene by providing two shops and suitable accommodation above and the development will provide seven much needed homes.

(Councillor Mrs French declared that she will be speaking in support of the application in her position as the Ward Councillor and following her presentation to the committee left the room for the duration of the item and took no part in the discussion or voting thereon)

(Councillor Purser declared a pecuniary interest on this item by virtue of the fact that he owns the adjacent property to the application site, and he left the room for the duration of the discussion and voting thereon)