Agenda item

To determine the application.

Kimberley Crow presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Sally Church, the applicant, and Rebecca White, the agent. Mrs White stated that she acknowledges the officer’s comments regarding the constrained nature of the site and the proximity of the bungalow to the back edge of the footway, however, she highlighted that the proposed development aims to make efficient use of the available space while ensuring it fits in with its surroundings. She made the point that the site currently features a 6-foot close boarded fence along the back edge of the highway and this application will remove this unattractive feature and that in itself she feels must be considered as having a positive impact on the street scene along Orchard Way.

Mrs White stated that the application has received 8 letters of support from local residents including the direct neighbours and has had no objections from statutory consultees. She acknowledges that the bungalow is closer to the highway than that of 6 Orchard Way but not as close as 2 High Street and, in her view, if the bungalow was able to be set back at the same distance as 6 Orchard Way it would look at odds against 2 High Street.

Mrs White stated that 6 Orchard Way is set 1 metre closer to the highway than that of 8 Orchard Way which is creating a staggered look along the street elevation and if a building line is pulled along the front of 6 Orchard Way the position of the new bungalow actually meets this line, therefore, in her opinion, they have developed a solution that strikes a balance between the two adjacent buildings whilst ensuring its compliance with all relevant planning policies including the private amenity space, parking and quality of living for future occupiers. She referred to the bungalow creating an incongruous and unattractive feature, which she challenges as the architectural design incorporates elements that reflect the character and style of the existing neighbourhood, with the use of sympathetic materials and a complimentary colour palette ensuring that the bungalow will blend in and also enhance the visual appeal of the area.

Mrs White expressed the view that the bungalow design includes landscape features within the small front garden which softens the building’s appearance contributing positively to the overall street scene elevation. She referred to Policy LP16 of the Local Plan and believes the proposal does make a positive contribution to local distinctiveness and character, the bungalows design respects the scale and form of nearby properties and introduces a modern yet sympathetic addition to the neighbourhood.

Mrs White stated that she hoped the committee will consider the broader benefits of this proposal and the potential for the positive impact it holds.

Mrs Church stated that she is the owner of 2 High Street and the main purpose of this application is to build a bungalow within the grounds of the property so they can provide a home close to her for her mum. She advised that her mum is in ailing health and in the last few years alone she has had several falls and a stroke, with her living in South Essex at the time and her being an only child this meant emergency time off work for herself and frequent long drives to take her to appointments, food shopping etc and they took the decision to move her closer to them.

Mrs Church informed members that her mum is currently in rented accommodation, which is very costly and is not really suitable for her needs and as she is no longer able to drive with limited mobility she still has to make frequent trips to visit and look after her. She expressed the opinion that with approval of this application she will be able to continue caring for her mum in her own property which will enable her to maintain her current level of independence for as long as possible with the added peace of mind that she is only next door.

Mrs Church stated that it will also mean that her husband and herself when older will have somewhere for when they are ready to downsize from their current home whilst remaining in Manea, which is a community they have grown very fond of.

Members asked questions of Mrs White and Mrs Church as follows:

·         Councillor Marks stated that Manea is his ward and he knows Orchard Way fairly well and asked if they were looking to split the deeds or will it just be purely for her mum to live in? Mrs Church responded that it is for her mum currently but her husband and herself would like to move there once they are ready to downsize from their current home.

·         Councillor Connor asked for confirmation that neighbours both sides support the application? Mrs Church responded that the neighbour who lives in 5 Station Road backs onto the site and is completely in favour and the neighbour that lives at 6 Orchard Way is also happy for the development to take place.

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

·         Councillor Marks reiterated that this is his area and he knows Orchard Way and he does not believe it will have any particular visual impact with a bungalow as opposed to a 6-foot fence, with the fence looking awful when you drive down here. He made the point that there is a pavement and whilst the property is being built closer to the kerb than the rest of the properties they do not sit in a straight line and do sit at an angle. Councillor Marks stated that the occupant will be an elderly lady and not everyone wants large amenity spaces, with the benefits outweighing the negatives and it is a bonus having an elderly relative live near you. He stated that he fully supports the application.

·         Councillor Benney stated that he wished he had had the opportunity to have his parents as close to him as this as he looked after them for 6 years and he knows the trials and tribulations and the time he spent on silly little things that were important to his parents that makes that closeness vital. He added that due to the need that there is he will be supporting this application.

·         Councillor Marks referred to the street scene, making the point that if you go to the T junction across the road there are a number of properties that butt onto the road, having to step off the pavement straight into those properties and the bungalows on the whole of that estate do not run in a particular line so he does not believe it will be out of keeping as long as it is the same height and within the curtilage.

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough agreed with Councillor Marks, the reality is there are lots of houses that do have space for a front garden but they pave them over so she feel this is a moot point.

·         Matthew Leigh made the point that the committee is here as decision makers determining planning applications in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise and case law is clear that the ability to apply weight to various considerations is generally within the gift of the decision maker, however, the right to a view or a monetary value is not included. He added that there is also case law that states that personal circumstances unless they are very special circumstances should not be given weight in the decision-making process and ageing alone is not a material consideration and the ease and benefit for an offspring of somebody that is ageing would be something that would not normally fall within material consideration. Matthew Leigh stated that whilst he understands the heartfelt compassion from members and he understands the frustration being an only child and recognising that he may be in a similar position but it should not be given weight in decision-making and members should be looking to the development plan. He added that this proposal is just for a dwelling that will not be tied to this property, will not be tied to future occupiers, will be very constrained and will have a very limited amenity space.

·         The Legal Officer stated there was a refusal only 20 months ago so if members want to propose approval they need to explain what has changed in planning terms since the refusal in May 2023 and that is what the Code of Conduct requires.

·         Councillor Marks asked what the refusal reasons were on the previous application? Kimberley Crow responded that Policy LP16 (d) of the Fenland Local Plan (2014) requires that development demonstrates that it makes a positive contribution to the local distinctiveness and character of the area, enhancing its local setting, responding to and improving the character of the local built environment and does not adversely impact on the street scene or landscape character of the surrounding area. The proposal is for the construction of a single-storey 2-bed dwelling. Due to the constrained nature of the site, the proposal results in a development at odds with the prevailing form of development. The proposal would consequently create an incongruous and unattractive feature which fails to demonstrate that it makes a positive contribution to the local distinctiveness and character of the area and will ultimately have an adverse impact on the street scene and is therefore contrary to the requirements of policy LP16 of the Fenland Local Plan (2014). It was also refused on Policies LP2 and LP16(h) of the Fenland Local Plan in that there was insufficient amenity space for future occupiers.

·         Councillor Marks asked if that was determined by committee? It was confirmed that this was an officer decision. Councillor Marks made the point that this was an officer opinion then and not a committee opinion.

·         Councillor Mrs French asked what the differences are between the previously refused application and this one? David Rowen responded that the siting of the dwelling has been slightly shifted to the south so there is more amenity space to address the second reason for refusal for the previous application. He added that the elevations have been amended showing on the presentation screen the differences.

·         Councillor Marks made the point that it is subjective and he feels that if the previous application had been determined by committee it may have been a different decision. He feels there has been change and that whole street consists of more elderly people who have smaller gardens and he believes it will blend into the street scene, taking away an awful looking 6-foot fence which will deteriorate over the years replacing it with a nice looking home and the likelihood is that it is going to be occupied by elderly people who do not need such larger gardens because they find it difficult to maintain.

·         Matthew Leigh stated that this is application is not a restricted property and it should not be determined on a potential and although it was an officer’s decision previously the Council determined the application and the Code of Conduct does not distinguish officers or committee decisions, the Council legally determined the application.

·         Councillor Marks made the point it would be unlikely that 6 or 7 children would live in a two-bedroom bungalow in this area and had this application come to committee previously it may have been a different decision. He stated that members are told to look at what they have in front of them today and his view is this is a good application.

·         Councillor Connor stated that his understanding is the proposal has been changed, there is more amenity space so that objection falls away, both neighbours seem to be in favour of the proposal from what the applicant said, in his view it will improve and make a positive contribution to the street scene and it is in keeping with the rest of the street.

Proposed by Councillor Marks, seconded by Councillor Imafidon and agreed that the application be GRANTED against the officer’s recommendation, subject to authority being delegated to officers to apply conditions in consultation with Councillor Marks.

Members did not support officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning permission as they feel that LP16 is subjective and it will make a positive contribution to the character of the area, it will enhance the street scene rather than the fence that is currently in situ and it is a better use of land.

(Councillor Marks declared, in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that he is a member of Manea Parish Council but takes no part in planning)

(Councillor Sennitt Clough left the meeting following determination of this application and was not present for the remainder of the meeting)