Demolition and fencing at 2 Broad Street, March

What was proposed

The application sought permission to demolish the former bank and surround the site with solid timber fencing up to 2.4 metres high.

“The application seeks full planning permission and relevant demolition of an unlisted building in a conservation area, to demolish the existing former Barclays Bank building and erect 2.4m high fencing surrounding the site following demolition.”

“SITE DESCRIPTION 2.1 The application site consists of the former Barclays Bank, a ‘Brutalist’ style building part 2-storey, part single-storey, located on a prominent corner plot between Broad Street and Grays Lane, immediately abutting the recently regenerated public realm on Broad Street. To the rear of the building is a former car park, partially surrounded by a brick wall where the temporary public toilets have been sited.”

Officer report

Earlier site history

The council bought the building for demolition using Future High Street Fund money, and the latest recorded application removed signage and an ATM.

“The building has been purchased by Fenland District Council with the express intention of demolition and Government funding has been secured for this under the Future High Street Fund, however there are currently no proposals for future redevelopment of the site.”

“F/YR21/0753/F Removal of signage and ATM from existing building Granted 27/8/21”

Officer report

Why officers recommended refusal

Officers found no redevelopment, remediation or meanwhile-use proposal, no marketing evidence, and a risk of indefinite vacancy causing town-centre and heritage harm.

“It is acknowledged that there is an opportunity for redevelopment of this site to make a positive contribution to the heritage assets and the town centre as a whole, hence the demolition of the building could be accepted if it is demonstrated that its replacement would provide a high quality development, which enhances its local setting and the historic and local built environment and would provide a public benefit which would outweigh the less than substantial harm…”

“However, in this case there is no proposal for redevelopment of the site, the application merely seeks permission to demolish the existing building and erect a 2.4m high fence around it; there are no proposals for remediation of the site or a meanwhile use which may mitigate impact of the loss of the existing structure.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The Ward Councillor supported demolition, describing the building as a negative frontage and the final piece of the town-centre regeneration.

The vote

Councillor Marks proposed, Councillor Gerstner seconded, and members agreed to grant permission against the officer recommendation with delegated conditions.

“Proposed by Councillor Marks, seconded by Councillor Gerstner and agreed that the application be GRANTED against the officer’s recommendation with delegated authority given to officers to apply reasonable conditions in consultation with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee granted permission because members considered the building out of keeping with the regeneration and believed demolition would reduce security, anti-social behaviour and asbestos risks.

“Members did not support the officer’s recommendation of refusal as they consider that the building is out of keeping with the Town Centre regeneration, will cause a security risk soon once it becomes vacant and will lead to anti-social behaviour and they feel that that by demolishing the building they are safeguarding the interests of the public due to the building containing asbestos materials which in the event of a fire could cause significant issues.”

Minutes