Shopfront alterations at 63A - 65 Wisbech Road, March

What was proposed

Retrospective permission was sought for a replacement shopfront, anthracite cladding, external security shutters, a retractable canopy and altered windows.

“PROPOSAL 3.1 Retrospective planning permission is applied for the replacement of the existing shop front and installation of cladding, external security shutters and a retractable canopy.”

“The proposal consists of anthracite grey wood effect cladding and anthracite grey aluminium window/ door frame construction materials.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The commercial building occupies a prominent corner plot beside another commercial premises, with parking and predominantly residential surroundings.

“The application site comprises Nos. 63A – 65, a commercial building located on a prominent corner plot at the junction/ roundabout of Wisbech Road and Norwood Road within the settlement of March.”

“The building adjoins another commercial premises which has a black frontage, signage and shutters. The site benefits from customer parking to the front and side of the building.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

Earlier applications concerned changes from retail to financial services and a proposed change from financial services to a takeaway.

“Reference Description Decision Date F/YR10/0430/F Change of use from financial services to takeaway (A5) WDN 15.07.2010 F/YR05/0025/F Change of use from Class A1 (Retail) to Class A2 (Financial & Professional Services)”

“Wisbech Road March GRANT 11.02.2005 F/YR00/0393/F Change of use from Class A1 (retail) to Class A2 (Financial & Professional Services) Granted 14.06.2000 F/YR00/0393/F Change of use from Class A1 (retail) to Class A2 (Financial & Professional Services)”

Officer report

Why officers recommended refusal

Officers considered the dark materials, extensive cladding, shutters and canopy visually dominant and harmful to the predominantly residential streetscene.

“Given the site’s prominent corner location and visibility from the surrounding highway network, the proposal would be readily perceived within the wider streetscene. Whilst the immediate area contains a small number of commercial properties, the prevailing character remains predominantly residential, with surrounding development generally comprising traditional brick-built dwellings and softer material palettes.”

“Additionally, the proposal includes a front retractable canopy structure. Whilst examples of canopy structures are seen in the streetscene, including a wooden canopy on the Men of March pub, this is smaller in scale and is more of an infill addition to the side of the flank neighbour side elevation wall. Whereas, the canopy is situated in a more prominent position on the front elevation of the shopfront, making it highly visible.”

Officer report

What consultees said

The town council supported approval, highways raised no objection subject to conditions, environmental health raised no objection, and no resident response was received.

“Parish/Town Council: Supporting. Recommendation; Approval, although disappointed to receive another retrospective application.”

“Cambridgeshire County Council Highways Authority: No Objection – conditions suggested. Recommendation: Following a careful review of the documents provided to the Local Highway Authority as part of the above planning application, no significant adverse effect upon the public highway should result from this proposal, should it gain benefit of planning permission.”

Officer report

The applicant’s proposed changes

The applicant’s representative offered to remove the front shutter and canopy, retain the anthracite frontage and add artificial foliage to soften its appearance.

“[name withheld] stated that the external work is not yet complete, with photographs of the site showing a building under renovation, not the finished Savore frontage and the completed design will include professionally arranged artificial foliage across substantial sections of the elevation, with the greenery introducing colour, breaking up the anthracite finish and creating a softer, warmer and more welcoming appearance.”

“[name withheld] stated that the applicant has listened, responded and offered meaningful changes and refusing the application would be disproportionate when the identified concern can be resolved through amended details. She asked members to approve the application subject to details confirming removal of the front shutter and canopy, retention of the anthracite frontage and installation of the artificial foliage.”

Minutes

Who spoke

A representative of the applicant addressed the committee and requested approval or, if revised drawings were needed, deferral.

What members debated

Members discussed the commercial context, the colour, shutters, canopy, changing streetscene and the importance of supporting the business.

“Members made comments, asked questions and received responses as follows: • Councillor Benney stated that he has read the update where it is asking for a deferral but, in his view, he thinks the proposal is good as it is, with it being a commercial site and who knows better than the applicant who owns the business as to what he needs to maintain that business.”

“He feels the issue with the roller shutters is subjective, it is a commercial property and broken windows can lead to a business going bust or not being able to get insurance or having too great an excess and, in his view, wherever there is glass it is better to protect it and again the shutter will be up during the day when the business is open.”

Minutes

The committee vote

The committee agreed a motion to grant permission against the officer recommendation.

“Proposed by Councillor Mrs French, seconded by Councillor Imafidon and agreed that the application be GRANTED against officer’s recommendation.”

Minutes

What the committee decided

Permission was granted because members considered it would support a local business and bring greater economic and social prosperity to the town.

“Members did not support the officer’s recommendation of deferral of planning permission as they feel it would be supporting a local business and bring more economic and social prosperity to the town.”

Minutes