Agenda item

To determine the application.

Gavin Taylor presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from James Burton, the agent. Mr Burton stated that this is a reserved matters application for Mr and Mrs Pitman, with Mrs Pitman having lived in Parson Drove her whole life and being joined by her husband 16 years ago. He added that they are a young growing family that wish to continue living in their home village.

Mr Burton referred to photos on the screen which show Parson Drove is a village with a varied character and mix of dwellings, with two and half storey dwellings forming part of the character with both older and newer properties adopting this form. He notes the comments regarding the scheme being incongruous and consider this is subjective given there is no consistency with regards to the architectural style or sizes of properties within the area.

Mr Burton expressed the opinion that the scheme is a high-quality bespoke dwelling providing quality variation and character within the street scene whilst meeting the needs of a local family and their associated business. He referred to another photo on the presentation screen which is located in the neighbouring village of Murrow, being approved in August 2023, although he appreciates that each site is to be considered on its own merits it is felt this is a significant precedent and this proposal is significantly larger than this proposal and set within a street scene of bungalows and modest two-storey dwellings.

Mr Burton expressed the view that this demonstrates how an aspirational high-quality executive home can be successfully integrated into an existing varied street scene, something that he believes this proposal will also achieve whilst having a better relationship with neighbouring properties due to the reduced scale, retained landscaping and existing street scene. He expressed the opinion that this proposal is an aspirational dwelling that represents the applicants dream forever home that will allow them to continue to reside and operate the business from the yard adjacent and their other site in the village.

Mr Burton made the point that there are no technical consultee objections, no neighbour objections including from the next-door neighbour, 15 letters of support and support from the Parish Council, who the applicants stated commented at the meeting it would be a lovely addition to the village in a lovely looking house. He stated that comments were received late in the application process in relation to the height of the proposal which the applicant has sought to address, with the applicant having been keen to work with officers and to compromise as far as they are able to secure a positive decision and have proposed a significant reduction in footprint and overall height, which is the scheme before committee.

Mr Burton showed on a plan how the original depth and width have been significantly reduced, moving the side elevation further from the neighbouring boundary and the height has been reduced by 1.4 metres. He stated that the principal part of the dwelling has a depth of 9.4 metres and a width of 16.4 excluding the front projection, with the remainder of the proposal being single storey.

Mr Burton stated that as referenced in the officer’s report the outline application indicated a dwelling that had a principal dimension of 9.1 by 16.1 and indicated dormer windows and roof lights, which although slightly smaller is broadly similar to the proposal. He added that the proposal dwelling is around 4.2 metres from the neighbouring fence at its closest, is separated by an existing hedge which is approximately 6 metres high and will be retained and the proposal will have a hip roof and as such the eaves are around 6.1 metres, marginally higher than the existing hedge located 4.2 metres plus from the boundary and the maximum roof height of the ridge is 8.9 metres from the boundary which, in his view, limits the impact on the neighbouring property.

Mr Burton showed photos of the existing hedge which demonstrates it existing height at 6 metres and also photos from the road taken last week to demonstrate how the proposal will be screened even during the Winter months. He noted the comments with regard to overlooking and as confirmed by the officers overlooking is not an issue, however, if members are minded to approve and consider the top floor window to the bedroom presents an opportunity for overlooking they are happy to accept a condition for obscure glazing as it benefits from windows to the rear.

Mr Burton showed 3D visuals which provide an artist’s impression of the proposal from a number of views including from the rear of the neighbouring property, which, in his view, demonstrates the proposal is significantly softened and screened by the existing landscaping whilst also delivering a high-quality scheme that, in his opinion, will positively contribute to the appearance of Parson Drove. He reiterated that the proposal is for a local family which will allow them and their business to remain in the village, it has no technical consultee objections, support of the Parish Council and no local objections including from the neighbour, and, in his view, the scheme will retain the existing landscaping, deliver a high quality aspirational home that will provide quality and variation to the street scene whilst enhancing the area.

Mr Burton requested that the application be supported with conditions deemed appropriate.

Members asked questions of Mr Burton as follows:

·         Councillor Marks asked how far from the road does the proposal stand because the properties beside it stand forward of it? Mr Burton confirmed the properties adjacent do stand forward and this proposal has had to be set back due to the TPOs and the root protection area, with the garage starting at the front of the existing agricultural building but he does not have the dimensions to hand.

·         Councillor Marks asked if the garage has a lower roof than the roof pitch on the main house? Mr Burton confirmed this to be correct.

·         Councillor Imafidon asked what the associated business is? Mr Burton responded that the applicant runs a motor vehicle spares and repair business and they also have the agricultural buildings on the site.

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

·         Councillor Marks expressed the view that consistency is key as 4/5 years ago committee discussed another roof height with a property that stands back on the March to Chatteris bypass and members were told it was too tall and it would be totally out of congress but he drives past this property most days and you cannot tell the difference in roof height as it stands back from the other properties. He feels this proposal is screened, it is set back, there are agricultural buildings to one side and whilst there are properties to the other side he thinks it is set back far enough on the site and he can support the application.

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough agreed with the comments of Councillor Marks and stated that another point to consider is that there are no windows overlooking neighbouring properties and there are trees, although she acknowledges that it says that they are not all year round foliage trees, which do provide significant screening and she feels she could support the application for a very elegant, tastefully designed house.

·         Councillor Imafidon stated that he knows this area well and he will be supporting the application as it encourages a family to stay in that village, which stops small villages from dying out and the family have a business locally as well.

·         Councillor Mrs French agrees with the views of the other councillors, under Policy LP16(e) she does not believe it will impact on the surrounding area and looking at the design she feels it is lovely and would be worthy of a design award if they still existed.

·         David Rowen clarified that the example that Councillor Marks references was actually the result of a later second application which was lower than the original design put in front of committee. He made the point that personal circumstances of the applicant and the fact that they have lived in the village all of their lives and have a business is not material to the determination of the application.

Proposed by Councillor Imafidon, seconded by Councillor Mrs French 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 the proposal does comply with LP2 and LP16 as the development achieves a high-quality living environment, will not impact on the character of the area and there is a mixture of dwelling types in the vicinity.