Agenda item

To determine the application.

Alan Davies presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Matthew Hall, the agent. Mr Hall stated that this application is for a local family whose immediate family also live in Whittlesey and the adjacent villages of Coates and Eastrea. He made the point that Whittlesey Town Council support the application and there are no objections from any members of the public, with the neighbour whose garden backs onto this development having e-mailed the Council to support the application.

Mr Hall expressed the view that the one key point that has not been raised is that on 7 March they e-mailed the officer after the application had been submitted for 5 weeks asking for an update and they were told it was going to be recommended for refusal, even though everything on the public access was positive, and they were told they would not accepting any more information. He stated that he questioned this because the queries, in his view, seemed minor and he was told again that they were not accepting any more information.

Mr Hall expressed the opinion that they would have been able to provide the information the next day or possibly the same day and for plot 2, they are 0.3 metres short. He feels that for plot 1 the officer’s report is very positive, no issues with the bungalow in terms of design, overlooking or overshadowing but it appears that plot 2 is the concern, the garage is 6 metres wide and 6.7 metres long and the difference between themselves and the officers is 1 foot, which they can easily overcome by moving the utility wall back to achieve this and providing an additional bit of tarmac for the turning head, which they had tried to resolve in March.

Mr Hall expressed the view that plot 2 is largely hidden behind the dwellings on Priors Road so it will not be seen, it does not overlook the school or other properties and plots 1 and 2 do have a third garden area. He referred to a photo on the screen, which shows the site with the large bungalow being demolished, there is a chalet bungalow next door and other bungalows in the vicinity which is the character of the area and it can be seen that most of the site would be hidden from view.

Mr Hall expressed the opinion that from the Google map on screen they are not encroaching into the countryside as it is the same boundary that has been established there since the bungalow was built 60-70 years ago so they are staying within the limits of this site. He made the point that there are no technical objections to this application from any party, no residents have objected, the site is all in Flood Zone 1 and it is within the built-up form of Whittlesey.

Mr Hall stated that if members share the officer’s concerns with regard to the garage and turning head he would ask for a deferral to enable them to resolve these issues.

Members asked questions of Mr Hall as follows:

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough asked what is the land used for to the west of the site? Mr Hall responded that it is in separate ownership and he only knows that it is a field. Councillor Sennitt Clough questioned that there is a drain in between the site and this land.

·         Councillor Marks stated that he quite likes this proposal and asked if the people building these properties are going to be living there with family members? Mr Hall responded that they are living on site at the moment, they are proposing to demolish the bungalow, which is not in the best of condition, and they would be building plot 1. He is not sure if family members will be moving into plot 2 or whether they would move from plot 1 to plot 2. Councillor Marks stated that having had elderly parents looking to move them into the same curtilage, in his view, makes a nice application.

·         Councillor Marks referred to there being a foot or 12 inches difference and it would need a deferral for this to be rectified. Mr Hall responded that looking at the officer’s report plot 1 is fine but plot 2 they are 12 inches short front to back on the garage but they would not have to make the property any bigger and just move the utility wall back a foot so the utility would be smaller and the extra would be gained for the garage.

·         Councillor Gerstner asked when the bungalow currently on site was last lived in? Mr Hall responded that when he first visited the site last year there was an elderly lady living there on her own, she sold the site and the applicant lives there with his family so it is being lived in at the moment, but the heating has been repaired or renewed and there is mould in the current property.

·         Councillor Gerstner questioned there being limited amenity space for the two properties. Mr Hall responded that he disagrees, there is a third garden area for plot 1 which officers confirm and for plot 2 there is also a third garden area and looking at the dimensions they are 10.8 metres and 9.2 metres, which he feels is reasonable.

·         Councillor Gerstner asked whether the orchard that was there about 80 years ago would be replaced? Mr Hall responded that he would not remember this but probably not.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·         Councillor Marks referred to tracking being an issue with a vehicle and asked what size vehicle this is based upon? Alan Davies responded that it would be a standard car for a private drive to serve 2 dwellings.

·         Councillor Gerstner asked if the applicant made the garage more acceptable would that alleviate the issues? Alan Davies responded that if the garage was amended to comply with policy, the garage could be counted as one of the parking spaces which would make the overall number of parking spaces for plot 2 acceptable in policy. Councillor Gerstner asked if there would still be an issue with the turning head? Alan Davies responded that would not overcome the turning head area and this would have to be amended on plan. Councillor Gerstner stated that engineering wise if the garage is put right would that then make the turning head acceptable? Alan Davies responded that the work to the garage on its own would not as the turning head would have to be slightly amended to make that acceptable so if both were undertaken it could comply with policy in terms of the size of the internal space of the garage and the turning head but, in his view, the suggestion was to just increase the depth of the garage to make it policy compliant.

·         Councillor Marks asked if these issues could be conditioned if committee is minded to pass the application today? Alan Davies responded that without prejudice to this, the other reason for refusal is that for the size of dwelling that is being proposed has a rear garden depth of about 10 metres and whilst the overall quantum of amenity space for plot 2 complies with policy that counts for every single strip of grass around the dwelling. He stated that officer’s concern is that it is a very big dwelling, a five-bedroom property, with very little private amenity space for future occupants, which is not the same conclusion with plot 1 as this is a three-bedroom bungalow and there is sufficient amenity space. Alan Davies stated that whilst potentially with a condition it could resolve the issues of manoeuvrability and make the garage available as a policy compliant parking space it does not overcome the fact that there is not a sufficient amount of private usable space for the rear garden for a dwelling of this size. Councillor Connor made the point that whilst it is a big dwelling not everybody wants a big garden, it is a matter of choice and if approved today the person who buys that house will have that choice.

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

·         Councillor Marks made the point that he hates gardening, he uses a stick and he does not want to be pushing a lawn mower around a very big piece of grass. He continued that not everyone wants big gardens, there was a similar debate on an application at Guyhirn and, in his view, if this came on the market this falls to a family, mum and dad possibly elderly parents moving into the second property and it is likely that the elderly may not have 2 vehicles. Councillor Marks stated that with minimal changes and conditions it could be approved instead of deferring it and he supports the application with a couple of conditions.

·         Councillor Connor referred to Mr Hall stating that tomorrow he would get the amendments done which would resolve most of the problems that are outstanding on this proposal. He expressed the opinion that it would not be prudent to bring it back to committee when there are such long agendas for such simple conditions so if it was approved today officers could be asked to deal with the conditions.

·         Councillor Marks made the point that there are no objections and Whittlesey Town Council support the proposal so committee should be led by their steer.

·         Matthew Leigh stated that a permission cannot be conditioned with substantial changes to the basis of the application, although members can delegate determination of the application subject to an amended scheme that would provide a policy compliant application in relation to car parking and access.

·         Councillor Marks asked for clarification on parking as members are being told that it does not meet the requirements currently and is it being said that it needs more car parking spaces or that if the garage is moved by a foot which gets an extra car parking space that this will then cover this? Alan Davies responded that it needs the internal dimensions of the garage to be increased so that can count as one parking space which would then make it policy compliant in terms of the overall provision of parking for plot 2.

·         Councillor Connor referred to the turning head and asked what would need to be undertaken to this to make it compliant? Alan Davies responded that it would need to be tracked and potentially widened but he does not have the measurements to hand, they have consulted Highways and it raised concerns with that manoeuvring area.

·         Matthew Leigh stated that the agent has indicated that they can overcome those two reasons.

·         Councillor Connor stated that he does not want this application coming back to committee and asked Mr Hall to come before members again to say whether he was happy to undertake the amendments to resolve the issues, which can be conditioned. Mr Hall confirmed that they are happy to undertake the amendments, working with officers to address these issues.

·         Councillor Marks questioned why Highways are dictating the turning head on a private road? Alan Davies responded that Highways refer to it in its response and the officer took it into account and as it is presented it does not work but it is not looking to be refused on Highways grounds. Councillor Marks asked for clarification that although Highways made an observation it should not be considered. Matthew Leigh responded that as decision makers there is a need to ensure that development works and that includes internal things such as amenity space and car parking, so if there are concerns about the functionality and the likely quality of a development internally they can be raised. He continued that the reason that Highways have concerns on applications such as this is if it thinks it is not going to work that can have an impact on the highway, such as additional parking on the highway or additional points of conflict on the highway. Councillor Marks questioned the Highway comments being an observation? Alan Davies responded that in effect yes because they have not objected but it is an observation that the manoeuvring area does not work at present as proposed.

·         Councillor Benney stated that if this application is going to be put back into the hands of officers to deal with, what happens if there is not a resolution and if a wall cannot be moved 12 inches, is that just giving authority to officers to refuse it because members do not want it to come back to committee. Matthew Leigh responded that if committee delegate approval subject to x, y and z and then they cannot be undertaken then refusal has not been indirectly delegated and it would have to be referred back to committee for determination.

Proposed by Councillor Marks, seconded by Councillor Mrs French and agreed that the application be GRANTED against the officer’s recommendation, subject to authority being delegated to officers to resolve the issues relating to car parking and the turning head and applying conditions.

Members do not support officer’s recommendation of refusal as they feel that the proposed layout does not constitute overdevelopment and the parking issues can be overcome by negotiation.

(Councillor Benney declared that the agent has undertaken work for Chatteris Town Council and himself personally, but he is not pre-determined and will consider the application with an open mind)

(Councillor Gerstner declared that he knows the family historically as he went to school with them but does not know the applicant himself)

(Councillor Imafidon declared that the agent has undertaken work for him personally, but he is not pre-determined and will consider the application with an open mind)

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