Agenda item

                        The Planning Officer reported there were no updates.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 35(b) a member of the public in spoke in support of the application.

                        Batchworth Community Councillor Stephen Mander advised that BCC had reviewed the application and had raised no objection or comments although are aware of the nature of the Conservation Area and took this into their discussions.  They felt this would be acceptable to all parties and were somewhat surprised that it had been recommended for refusal.  From reading the officer’s report it seemed the key objection came from the Conservation Officer.  None of the neighbours (7 in total) had raised any objections.  From their own research no-one seemed to be worried about it having impact an impact on streetscene. Whilst they understood the Conservation Officer comments they believed each case in a Conservation Area should be looked at individually and considered on its merits.  We all need to support the High Street and the retail generally in Rickmansworth.  As part of the lease negotiations the shutter was an important topic but no direction was given either way.  As to the respective landlord and the property being within the boundaries of TRDC would it not be expected that at the negotiations stage the prospective tenant would have been directed to the planning department on this issue if it was likely to arise.  For the tenant the need of the shutter is an insurance issue.  We are advised structurally it would be very difficult to mount a similar shutter internally.  The roller shutter casing had been installed in such a way that it disappears into the background of the surrounding culls and paintwork and the roller shutter actually protrudes less than the adjoining units either side.  The roller shutter is not over prominent or intrusive in the street scene and is doing no harm to the Conservation Area.  BCC asked the Committee to accept the application and grant permission as the tenant had done everything they can to mitigate potential problems and meet the requirements of the insurance company to enable them to trade.

                        Councillor Sara Bedford asked the officer whether under the reason for refusal where it stated no public benefits are considered to exist which would outweigh the harm whether the officer had considered the vitality and vibrancy of the High Street.  Would the High Street be detrimentally effected should the premises close and other premises were similarly to close.

                        The Planning Officer advised that the nature of the application was a private commercial premises and the less than substantial harm had to be weighed up against the public benefits. The Officer appreciated there may be public benefit in terms of shopping at the jewellers but that was not considered sufficient to outweigh the less than substantial harm to the Conservation Area or the Heritage asset.

                        Councillor Sara Bedford thought that was a matter of opinion.  We are encouraging more people to use the High Streets.  We are encouraging those people to use these High Streets after dark, we are encouraging a café culture in our High Streets and we need to have a good mix of different businesses running in our High Streets.  Otherwise we run the risk of losing the important part of our High Streets which was to have a range of businesses which may not attract people on a daily basis, weekly, monthly or annual basis but provide such a mix of businesses that draw people to them and keep them going otherwise we are going to lose our High Street.  There is a least one High Street in the District where permission for shutters had been given in Abbots Langley and they did not find this shuttering had created a hostile form of development.  It did not make you feel scared or under attack and felt the risk of losing the business was far greater than the risk that someone might feel in a hostile environment because they see that shutter as walk or drive past it.   The Councillor was having problems with the recommendation to refuse the application.  If it was a full blackout roller blind they would objecting but it was not and it was a matter of opinion whether you put the vitality of the High Street ahead of the need to prevent a small shutter being put down which looks like a venetian blind.

                        Councillor Alex Hayward had concern about the Conservation Officer report which was a very generic report and it seemed they had not come and seen the site.  To say it was generally considered unacceptable in Conservation Areas did not feel a strong enough refusal.  The Councillor had walked up and down the road several times and never noticed the roller shutter box above.  They agreed that the bits left and right were more prominent and the roof of the adjoining shutter with its light is more prominent than this box but we need to protect our High Streets.  Fundamentally for the Member it was the Conservation Officers report which they felt was very generic and did not fit this application.

                        Councillor Chris Lloyd said having listened to the speakers and read the report they wished to move approval of the application due to the grounds on the balance of evidence. The Councillor had seen far worse shutters.  We want to keep businesses in the High Street.  We are looking at this application on its own merits and would look at an application next door on its own merits.  This was seconded by Councillor Sara Bedford.

                        The Planning Officer appreciated what Members were saying but Planning Enforcement had served an enforcement notice on 88 High Street with regard to the external shutters (hardware premises) and officers were of the opinion that both sites are comparable. The roller shutters at 88 The High Street had recently been removed (as of today) and officers felt that the sites are comparable. 

                        The Team Leader advised that the photographs were very similar of both sites but understood Members were talking about the specific circumstances of this site and the particular benefit of approving this application but just felt that for the benefit of the minutes and the nature of the enforcement notices it was relevant to note. 

                        Councillor Lisa Hudson was puzzled by the report and its comments on shutters.  In the High Street you have a lot of shutters and a precedent had been set and some shutters looked a lot worse than this one.  They appreciated they did not know how long the shutters had been there. 

It was confirmed that the Member had no interest in the site and no declaration was required.

                        Councillor Raj Khiroya had sympathy with the applicant as no shutter no insurance and no business.  It is a jewellery shop so without the shutter they would not be insured.  Each application had to be judged on its own merits.  It is difficult to compare a hardware store with a jewellery shop they are very different and could not support the refusal. We should be supporting the shop.

                        Councillor Sara Bedford understood what the officer had advised regarding the enforcement action being taken against the hardware shop which they believed was a discount store and a slightly different premises but also believed that once we start enforcement action we should invite the applicant to submit a planning application had we not done so on this occasion.

                        The Planning Officer advised that a letter was sent out to the owners of the premises inviting an application to be submitted but also advised that in the best interests they should apply for an internal shutter.

                        Councillor Sara Bedford noted that they had received the same treatment that everyone else receives with regard to enforcement to be told that what they have done is against current planning and they need to apply for permission as it is not under permitted development and that is what we do for everyone.  This applicant was trying to regularise the situation they were in.  The fact we had put in enforcement against another business who had a shutter does not mean we should refuse this application and if the hardware store were to put forward an application we would consider that application on its own merits. 

                        Councillor David Raw considered what Councillor Bedford said about the hardware store and the all metal shutter but this was not that bad and should be considered on its merits.

                        Councillor Chris Lloyd thought that some conditions may need to be added but as it is already in situ this may be different.

                        The Planning Officer advised because it was retrospective application there were no conditions.

                        On being put to the Committee the motion to go against the officer recommendation and grant permission was declared CARRIED by the Chair the voting being unanimous.

                        RESOLVED:

                        That Retrospective Planning Permission be GRANTED with no conditions or informatives.