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 Simon Hamilton-Bing, an objector. Mr Hamilton-Bing expressed the opinion that this small compact development squeezed into the end of the back garden lacks the volume and grandeur of its near neighbours and lacks any aspect that could be tied in to the general Victorian feel of the local area making it look out of place. He stated that the one slight nod to the Victorian features is that the bay windows would not be completely ineffective but only highlight the differences between the old and the new by different construction materials and proportions, which is sadly very evident in the newer but much larger property of a similar style that lies opposite the site.

Mr Hamilton-Bing stated that he has read the public comments in favour of the application and from those quite close to the proposal and those further afield and he does have some sympathy for those neighbours that look directly onto the wall and old brick building but he feels the lack of maintenance in recent years should not be a reason to demolish or remodel these period features which sit wholly within the Bowthorpe Conservation Area and he would hope that any future owner is given encouragement and support to restore these features to their former glory, with the wall having been built in 1878. He expressed the view that if the proposal was supported it would be contrary to the intent of the Bowthorpe Conservation Area and consideration should be given in future to include the 3 Victorian properties that lay along the south side of Tavistock Road.

Mr Hamilton-Bing stated that granting this application would give little incentive to those that strive to maintain their properties. He finds it gratifying to read that his initial objections were in tune with those of the Conservation Officer’s recent report and that this proposal is out of keeping with the local area.

Members asked questions of Mr Hamilton-Bing as follows:

·         Councillor Mrs French asked if the wall is listed? Mr Hamilton-Bing responded that it is in a Conservation Area but not listed.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Shanna Jackson, the agent. Mrs Jackson stated that the proposal is for the construction of a new dwelling within Wisbech and is before committee with support from Wisbech Town Council and 8 members of the community. She expressed the opinion that the application site is in arguably one of most sustainable locations within the District given that it is within the built up area of a primary market town, which is something that is supported by Policy LP3 of the Local Plan.

Mrs Jackson made the point that the site is on land within Flood Zone 1 and windfall sites such as this are a rare occurrence now within Fenland. She stated that she is aware the site lies within Bowthorpe Conservation Area and as such they have paid particular care to the appearance of the scheme, carefully designing the proposal to include design details and proportions which reflect the surrounding buildings taking cues from the neighbouring dwellings to the north-east.

Mrs Jackson expressed the view that the indicative street scene shows how the proposal will fit in well with the surrounding environment and even if the proposal appears new, like the objector highlighted, change and evolution is not a bad thing. She stated that the application has been recommended for refusal on the grounds of the development causing harm to the Conservation Area with particular reference to the loss of garden land serving the donor dwelling and the proximity of the new dwelling to the back edge of the footpath.

Mrs Jackson referred to the location plan which shows the application site in the context of its surroundings and there is a dwelling immediately opposite the site which she would argue is highly reflective of what they are proposing and she, therefore, fails to see how the development would appear incongruous. She expressed the view that there are similarities between this scheme and the one that has just been approved in Manea and with regards to the loss of garden what is left with the donor dwelling is entirely commensurate with the gardens of the properties to the north and what remains will still exceed the Local Plan requirements.

Mrs Jackson stated that she appreciates that any new development within a Conservation Area will have an impact but in this instance given the character of the surroundings she fails to see how this impact is harmful. She feels that the benefits in terms of providing a new dwelling within a sustainable location within a primary market town and on Flood Zone 1 land outweighs any perceived harm to the character and appearance of the area and she asked members to grant planning permission.

Members asked questions of Mrs Jackson as follows:

·         Councillor Connor referred to the wall in Tavistock Road and asked what alterations would be made to this wall if this application is successful? Mrs Jackson responded that the wall would be made good where it is needed, there will be openings for new access points but that is something that they would be happy to accept via condition.

·         Councillor Connor made the point that it states in the report that the wall is going to be lowered. Mrs Jackson responded that it will be partly lowered and made good. Councillor Connor asked that, even though the wall is going to be lowered and made good, it is not going to be destroyed altogether? Mrs Jackson responded that amendments will be made where it is necessary to gain access but these details can be secured via condition or the details provided by condition.

·         Councillor Mrs French referred to a building at the back and asked if this is going to be demolished? Mrs Jackson indicated this is correct.

·         Councillor Imafidon asked if the current access that exists is going to be made bigger and then the wall reduced requesting clarification on what alterations are going to be made as the description states reduction but is this over the entire development or is it just the gate that is being altered? Mrs Jackson responded that the reduction in the height of the wall across the frontage is her understanding for part of the vehicular access. Councillor Imafidon expressed the view that the access currently there appears big enough for vehicular access now so is this going to be made bigger? Mrs Jackson responded that the vehicular access for the property would be further to south and that would serve the pedestrian access to the dwelling.

·         Councillor Connor asked how high would the wall be if approved? Mrs Jackson stated that she understands that it would go down to 1.2.  Officers clarified that it would be 0.9.

·         Councillor Imafidon asked if there are any protected trees on the property? Mrs Jackson responded that everything is protected by virtue of the site being in a Conservation Area.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·         Councillor Mrs French asked if the wall is listed? Kimberley Crow responded it was not. David Rowen added that as the wall is within a Conservation Area it cannot be demolished without planning permission so it is protected by virtue of being in a Conservation Area.

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

·         Councillor Benney stated he is in two minds on this application, he understands what the objector said in terms of the character of the area but he also remembers a similar application where there was a house built on the side to make a detached house into a semi-detached house and they built a house in the back garden similar to this, there was a lot of debate about this and how it would impact the area and it blended in lovely and was surprised how sympathetically it had been built within the area. He made the point that it is a nice Victorian house but that does not mean that you should stand in the way of progress and not put another house there that is sympathetic to the area.

·         Matthew Leigh stated that an applicant has a right to consistency in decision making, although each application must be dealt with on its own merits and he does not disagree that Conservation Areas cannot be extended, altered or changed but case law is clear in that it must preserve or enhance the area for it to be acceptable. He feels that when the location plan is looked at it can be seen how this site, irrespective of the design, does impact on the garden of the host dwelling and there is impact to a local heritage asset of the wall and there are a lot of balancing exercises in this that were probably not the same in the other example given. Matthew Leigh referred to views and that the back elevation of this proposal has not been discussed, which is a material consideration, and for the quality of a property in a Conservation Area you would expect to see reflect the character of the area and the details in the design and questioned whether you would expect to see a rear elevation like the one proposed on this property in a Conservation Area and if members would not the property does not preserve the character or appearance of the Conservation Area it detracts from it.  

·         Councillor Marks queried who would be overlooking the back elevation, in his view, there are no properties as such and the only people who are going to see that visually will be the people who live in the property. Matthew Leigh stated occupants standing the back gardens of the joining properties would be able to see this elevation that, in his opinion, does not reference the area. Councillor Marks asked if there is not a tree line down the rear? Matthew Leigh stated that the lifetime of the development needs to be looked at, does that rear elevation preserve, enhance and be what you would expect to see in a Conservation Area. He made the point that this is different to a normal application where it is questioned whether the benefits outweigh the harm and you can have impact on character of the area.

·         Councillor Mrs French agreed with Matthew Leigh, the site is in a Conservation Area, it is not listed but listed in theory, the rear view is not good but her main concern is reducing the wall to under a metre.

·         Councillor Benney expressed the view that looking at the rear elevation there is a lot of wall space to stop overlooking but it could look bland. He questioned whether an extra house is needed here, feeling it is a nice part of Wisbech and it should be left alone.

·         Councillor Connor made the point that host dwelling is not in the best condition and he is concerned about the wall but if it could be negotiated upwards he feels he could support it. He stated that sometimes old and new do go together referring to a property in Doddington and feels that this proposal would fit in. Councillor Mrs French made the point that the host dwelling not being in the best condition is not a material consideration.

·         Councillor Marks expressed concern regarding the wall and reducing it in height and he would be more minded to support the application if the height was not reduced at all. He made the point that members main concern seems to be with the wall, with answers not being very clear from the agent, and he would suggest a deferral so the agent can come back with a proper proposal regarding the wall

·         David Rowen stated that the application that is in front of members is for the wall to be 0.9 metres and there are comments from the Highway Authority that to achieve safe visibility the wall has to be 0.9 metres.

·         Councillor Mrs French expressed the opinion that there is not just concern about the wall but whilst the front of the dwelling might be acceptable the rear is not.

·         Councillor Benney made the point that a decision is required by the 19 February so if it was deferred it would take it after the date for determination. He stated that the part of the charm of a Victorian House is the Victorian garden that went with it and this is a nice Victorian house with a nice Victorian garden.

Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Mrs French and agreed that the application be REFUSED as per officer’s recommendation.

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