Agenda item

To determine the application.

Zoe Blake presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Shanna Penney, the agent and Andrew Eastol, the applicant. Mr Eastol stated that he has a fond connection with the area in question and has made memories both happy and sad after losing his wife whilst living at 91 Dartford Road. He explained that he has now moved to 93 Dartford Road, and it has always been his wish to have a small retirement bungalow built on the large garden which is the land to the north east of 93.

Mr Eastol added that the reason that he has applied again for planning permission is because his existing property is far too big now for his needs as it is a four bedroomed house and he has no children. He explained that, as he is semi-retired, he now has more free time available to self-build a small single bedroomed home and he intends to compete much of the work himself as well as employing local tradesmen to undertake other aspects of the work.

Mr Eastol added that the proposal will also help with the Council’s supply of self-build properties and made the point that he feels that the proposed design is very well thought out internally with plenty of light coming into the property and rear and front external gardens and space around the perimeter for maintenance purposes. He explained that parking is located away from surrounding properties and it will have good vehicle turning space and existing site access, which is already used for number 93, with the large garage being demolished.

Mr Eastol stated that he has secured the land to make it safe from anti-social behaviour and unwanted wildlife by erecting three sturdy fences to neighbours’ properties which they were unable to do. He explained that this is his last opportunity to build a home for himself due to an arthritic condition, adding that he does not have a great deal of money as his business collapsed whilst he was caring for his late wife, but he explained if he is granted planning permission by selling 93 Dartford Road it will enable him to cover all of the building costs and enable him to spend the rest of his life in a home which he has built himself and can be proud of.

Ms Penney explained that the proposal is for a bespoke dwelling for Mr Eastol and it is located within the built-up settlement of March, adding that it is different from the previous schemes as it is now for a self-build plot and the application has been recommended for refusal due to the alleged cramped nature of the scheme. She stated that she acknowledges that the dwelling is small, however, it is designed for a single person and is directly comparable to the footprint of other properties in Dartford Road.

Ms Penney stated that the nationally prescribed space standards require a dwelling for a single person to be 39 square metres, and the size of the proposed unit is 49.6 square metres which exceeds those required standards, with parking being provided in accordance with the Local Plan and a garden space which is more than one third of the plot. She explained that from a technical perspective the proposal provides all of the necessary amenities required by local and national standards and she fails to see how it can be defined as cramped, making the point that the proposal will barely be seen from a public view, and she questioned how it can be deemed as being out of keeping with the character of the area when it will be barely visible.

Ms Penney expressed the opinion that the second reason for refusal is not reasonable, and she added that there is case law within the district which states that the RECAP guidance of wheeling a bin for more than 30 metres is not a reason enough for refusal and, therefore, that reason should be disregarded. She expressed the view that the third reason for refusal relates to the failure to provide a Section 106 to secure the self-build nature of the project but made the point that this is a last-minute reason which has been added due to the changes to the Council’s guidance, and should the application be granted then they would be happy to provide a Section 106 within an agreed timeframe.

Ms Penney stated that the proposal complies with all the adopted size standards, will barely be visible from a public perspective, the issues regarding RECAP are a misnomer and explained that the self-build status can be secured by a Section 106 agreement which can be provided. She added that the scheme is acceptable in principle, and it will provide self–build housing within a primary market town on Flood Zone 1 land and asked for the application to be approved.

Members asked the following questions:

·       Councillor Gerstner asked Mr Eastol how he proposes to move his waste bins backwards and forwards to the collection point due to his dexterity problems? Mr Eastol stated that he is not disabled, and he can build the house and move bins, but he is forward planning for the future as in a few years he may not have the same strength as he does now.

·       Councillor Meekins asked for clarification as to why the fencing was 2.4 metres whereas he was of the understanding that most smaller height fences were 2 metres? Mr Eastol explained that the fences are already erected, and they all have a concrete lintel at the bottom and then the fence is 6ft. He added that is the height of all the fences in the locality and he just matched the fencing that was already there.

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

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that there appears to be several self-build applications coming forward to the committee and as a result they appear to be missing information relating to Section 106. She stated that this application appears to be like the last application, and she stated that maybe consideration should be given to deferring the application for the legal agreement to be prepared and brought back to the committee.

·       Councillor Benney asked officers to confirm the numbers of self-build dwellings which are held on the Council’s register at the current time. David Rowen stated that he is aware that there is an excess supply of self-build properties relative to the people that are registered on the list.

·       Councillor Mrs French asked for the exact figure to be provided to members of the committee at the next meeting as it could prove useful for future applications. Matthew Leigh stated that the figure will be provided to the committee, but he is aware that the Council does have above the minimum necessary requirement of self-build dwellings.

·       Councillor Purser stated that he knows the area well and the proposal cannot be seen from the road. He added that by Mr Eastol choosing to build a small one bedroomed property, he is freeing up his existing home for a larger family, which, in his opinion, is positive.

·       Councillor Benney stated that he would like to see the application refused as it is a small site and it is ruining the garden of a nice four bedroomed dwelling. He added that it is about land use, and he feels that officers have made the correct recommendation.

Councillor Benney stated that he would like to propose to go with the officer’s recommendation and refuse the application. This proposal was not supported by members and, therefore, the proposal failed.

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that she would like to see the application deferred to give the applicant the opportunity which has been afforded to the last application.

·       Matthew Leigh stated that best practice is when there is a Section 106 required for an application, should the application be refused a reason for refusal is imposed that ties into the need for that. He added that should members choose to approve this application or any other applications in future for self builds, against officers’ recommendation, then rather than delegating conditions to officers there would be a request that the delegation would be to give authority to officers to enter into Section 106/Unilateral Undertaking for self-build. Matthew Leigh explained that the difference between this application and the previous application on the agenda which was deferred is that the applicant has not brought into question the fact that it is a self-build. He added that members do not need to defer the application they could delegate the authority to officers to complete that agreement.

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that after considering the point made by Matthew Leigh, then she will recommend approval of planning permission on the site subject to the delegated authority being given to officers for the Section 106.

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that the committee have previously approved a bungalow on a site in Chatteris which was far smaller that the application being determined.

Proposed by Councillor Mrs French, seconded by Councillor Purser and agreed that the application be GRANTED against the officer’s recommendation, subject to the legal agreement, Section 106 and appropriate conditions to be delegated to officers.

Members do not support the officer’s recommendation of refusal as the committee have passed other applications previously with smaller areas and they believe that the proposed dwelling has more than the minimum required space standards both internally and externally and, therefore, do not believe the proposal can be classed as cramped. Members feel that should the applicant require assistance in the future with regards to bin collection then the Council operate an assisted collection service and the amount of refuse and recycling generated for one person will be minimal.

(Councillors Mrs French and Purser declared, in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that they are members of March Town Council, but take no part in Planning)