External shop shutters at 39 Broad Street, March

What was proposed

Retrospective permission was sought for solid black external roller shutters covering the shop windows and entrance, with the shutter box projecting from the frontage.

“PROPOSAL 3.1 Planning permission is applied for the installation of solid external shutters to the existing shop front. The roller shutters would be black and would cover the windows and entrance door, the whole of the shop frontage. The shutter box would project from the shopfront.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The shop is on Broad Street in March Conservation Area, near listed buildings and within the town centre’s primary shopping frontage.

“The proposed external shutters present a visually unattractive barrier, creating an unwelcoming and fortified appearance to the character of the Conservation Area and the wider town centre. Therefore, the proposal would be contrary with policy LP16 and LP18 of the Fenland District Council Local Plan (2014), and the March Neighbourhood Plan 2017. The application is therefore recommended for refusal.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

Earlier applications concerned a rear shop extension and a change from retail to financial and professional services, which was refused before an appeal was allowed.

“Reference Description Decision Date F/YR07/0222/F 07/00031/REF Change of use from A1 (retail) to A2 (financial and professional services) REFUSE APPEAL ALLOWED 19.04.2007 21.09.2007 F/YR04/3105/F Erection of part single/part 2- storey rear extension to existing shop GRANT 05.05.2004”

Officer report

Why officers recommended refusal

Officers considered the solid shutters visually unattractive and harmful to the conservation area, with no public benefit outweighing that harm.

“The Council’s Conservation Officer objects to the proposal and has stated that the proposal is considered to result in less than substantial harm (medium of the spectrum) and Local Authorities are bound by the Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act (1990) and the provisions of the NPPF which considers that any impact on heritage assets (in this case the March Conservation Area) should be met with a strong presumption for refusal.”

“CO NCLUSIONS 10.1 External shutters are not supported in conservation areas owing to the deleterious impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area. Shutters create a perception of crime, create dead street scenes and set a dangerous precedent, exacerbated where they are of a solid construction.”

Officer report

Residents’ views

Four letters and a 19-signature petition supported the proposal, while another representation recognised the security need but preferred internal shutters.

“Having talked to other shop keepers who have asked for this type of shutters and been refused, I think it would also set an open door policy for any further similar applications. Local Residents/Interested Parties: Four l etters of support received; 3 from March, 1 from Elm, raising the following (summarised): 4x Supporting Comments Officer Response Security shutter is the logical option.”

“Other shops and jewellers have shutters close to the site. See ‘Existing roller shutters within the Conservation Area’ section of this report. March should be encouraging new businesses. Opportunity for the applicant to amend the proposal to include an internal shutter rather than an external one had been made, which would have assisted in developing the new business, whilst respecting the Conservation Area.”

Officer report

The public presentation

The agent described a previous break-in, security concerns and other nearby shutters, and agreed to work towards a different external shutter design.

The committee’s decision

The committee deferred the application so officers could work with the applicant and agent to bring forward a perforated, differently coloured roller shutter.

“Councillor Benney asked if officers would work with the agent if deferred to seek a change of the shutter and come back to the committee? David Rowen responded that whether it is a refusal and a resubmission or a deferral to secure something acceptable then officers would work with the applicant/agent to deliver that. • Councillor Connor stated that he is in favour of a deferment because if they have to submit another application they will have to pay again.”

“Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Purser and agreed that the application be DEFERRED to enable officers to work with the applicant and agent to bring forward a perforated different coloured roller shutter.”

Minutes