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 Rebecca White, the agent. Mrs White stated that this is a brownfield site and would provide a much needed dwelling within the settlement of March offering excellent access to local amenities. She expressed the view that the development will help prevent anti-social behaviour on the site and unauthorised use by others, with the site previously being used as a car park for the dental practice, however, this arrangement ended in 2019 and the applicant has not received any indication from the dental practice that they require further parking thus leaving the site as a maintenance liability on the Council.

Mrs White expressed the opinion that the proposal will improve the area along the public footpath thereby ensuring a safer and more comfortable connection route through to Upwell Road for local residents. She stated the vision for this development is carefully aligned with the unique characteristics of the surrounding area, with the new dwelling being one-storey in height a design choice that they firmly believe is appropriate and beneficial for the community.

Mrs White stated that after appraising the area it is evident that a single-storey dwelling would be more reflective of the scale of nearby properties and this choice ensures that the development remains sympathetic with the existing neighbourhood fabric. She referred to the Planning Officer expressing concerns suggesting the proposal results in a development that is at odds with the prevailing form of two-storey dwellings but in the Design and Access Statement they have included a detailed diagram that demonstrates that approximately 70% of the properties within close proximity to the application site are single-storey, which supports the decision for a bungalow.

Mrs White emphasised that the integration of a bungalow will reduce the impact on neighbouring properties ensuring minimal overshadowing and overlooking and preserving the privacy and amenity of adjacent residents in contrast to the effect of a two-storey dwelling. She feels it will also reflect the single-storey element of 84 Upwell Road and this careful design choice is not only considerate of the existing streetscape but also ensures minimal disruption to the adjacent properties and demonstrates their commitment to making a positive contribution to the character of the area.

Mrs White made the point that the construction has begun on the site opposite for a new three-bedroom bungalow after recently being granted planning approval and whilst she appreciates the ridge height is much higher than this proposal this precedent further validates their findings and reinforces that a single-storey dwelling is a suitable and accepted form of development within this area. She expressed the opinion that the proposal aligns with the predominant single-storey development pattern in the area and respects the character of the surrounding properties, they are confident that this bungalow will make a positive contribution to the community by providing a sympathetic and attractive feature that aligns with Policy LP16 of the Local Plan, the development which has the support of March Town Council and other consultees will replace a site that is currently a maintenance liability for the Council, attracts anti-social behaviour and is intimidating to walk by at night for local residents.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·         Councillor Mrs French referred to the planning site history and heard that an application was refused and asked where this was on the history? Councillor Connor responded that this is the second time as Chairman he has called this into committee because he thinks it has some potential for committee to decide what they want to do with it and it did get refused previously at committee but he was not present. David Rowen added that the committee did resolve to refuse the application but it was withdrawn before the decision notice was issued so no formal decision was ever made by the Council.

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

·         Councillor Mrs French stated she does know the site well as it is in her County Council Division, it is a small piece of land used partly as a car park, a fly tipping area and does have anti-social behaviour and she thinks it should be approved as it would stop the problems occurring there.

·         Councillor Marks stated that 84 Upwell Road is the dentist and you can see across this redundant piece of land from this property. He feels it will tidy this piece of land and a bungalow will be better than a two-storey property as it will not create overlooking.

·         Councillor Imafidon stated that he supports the proposal, although questioned where the clients of the dentist who use it now are going to park when it is no longer available.

·         Councillor Marks made the point that clients of the dentist predominately park out the front and there is roadside parking. He believes the area is used more as an overspill for the residents in the area.

·         Councillor Connor made the point that it is a brownfield site and there is encouragement to build on these sites. He feels the proposal will fit in nicely, remove the problems that exist there and whilst it may be a little constrained not everyone needs a large garden.

·         Councillor Mrs French made the point that the area consists predominantly of older people.

Proposed by Councillor Mrs French, seconded by Councillor Imafidon and agreed that the application be GRANTED against officer’s recommendation, with authority delegated to officers to apply conditions.

Members do not support officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning permission as they feel that LP16 can be interpreted differently, the proposal would not be at odds with the area and it would make a positive contribution to the character of the area.

(Councillor Benney declared that he is Portfolio Holder for Assets and took no part in the discussion and voting thereon)

(Councillor Mrs French declared, in accordance with the Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that she is a member of March Town Council but takes no part in planning. She further declared that although she is a member of Cabinet she has had no involvement with this application)