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 Councillor John Clark, the Ward Councillor for the application site. Councillor Clark stated that 18 years ago he became a Fenland District Councillor to represent and speak up on behalf of residents and especially those of March, making the point that he cannot think of anything more deserving than to support this planning application after receiving a request from the applicant who is a resident of his ward. He explained that the applicant, Mr Haydon, is a former partner of Whiting Accountants who retired after working for them for 40 years and he is also one of his neighbours whose property is located at the bottom of his garden where he has lived for 40 years.

Councillor Clark stated that ten months ago Mr Haydon’s wife passed away and he is looking to support his family along with his own wellbeing, explaining that Mr Haydon has a severely dyslexic son who needs help and guidance with simple tasks such as reminding him to eat and not miss meals. He added that his daughter has a son who is autistic and has also been diagnosed with ADHD who also needs frequent support, and Mr Haydon would like to see his daughter and family move into the main dwelling, with his son already living in Stonecross Way, which abuts his garden so if approved Mr Haydon would move into the proposed annexe to create an intergenerational family welfare support unit.

Councillor Clark stated that Mr Haydon has applied to convert his garage into an annexe to the main property and the first application was refused, with the officers’ reasons for refusal being considered prior to submitting the current application and addressed by reducing the size of the application by 50% with only a modest single storey side addition. He stated that the application includes a large community space and garden, and the parking area remains unchanged.

Councillor Clark explained that officers have concerns that this could be sold as a separate dwelling and in order to address the concerns Mr Haydon is content to enter into a legally binding agreement to tie the proposed annexe to the main dwelling in order to stop the unlikely event of it ever being sold as a separate dwelling. He referred to LP16 of the Local Plan and expressed the view that the proposal meets all the fourteen A to N criteria with the only area for discussion being part D but, in his view, it does not adversely impact either in design or scale of the street scene, settlement pattern or landscape character of the surrounding area.

Councillor Clark stated that the application has 11 letters of support including many from neighbours and is, therefore, very unlikely to be legally challenged and he asked the committee to support the proposal.

Members asked the following questions:

·       Councillor Mrs French asked whether the personal circumstances of the applicant had been highlighted when the application was submitted? Councillor Clark consulted the agent who stated that they were not included as part of the application.

·       Councillor Mrs French asked whether the Listed Building referred to is Councillor Clark’s home? Councillor Clark stated that the Listed Building extends for the whole of his garden and the properties either side do not, and he clarified that that the application site abuts his land.

·       Councillor Imafidon asked what visual impact the extension will have on his property? Councillor Clark stated that he was content with the first application, and he did not consider it to be overpowering, and he knows all the residents in the neighbouring properties, and he has not had any negative feedback and, in his view, it will not make any difference at all to the area.

·       Councillor Imafidon asked whether Councillor Clark considers the proposal to be out of character with other buildings in the area? Councillor Clark explained that he does not consider it to be out of character and the type of brick in the building will compliment all of the other buildings in the vicinity. 

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Matthew Hall, the agent and Mark Haydon, the applicant. Mr Hall read out a statement on behalf of Mr Haydon, ‘My family’s life dramatically changed suddenly and unexpectedly late last year when COVID struck down my wife after 47 years of happy marriage and now I need to ask for your help by allowing me to support my family and for them to be able to support me over the coming years’.

Mr Hall stated that Councillor Clark has outlined the personal circumstances of the applicant very well and made the point that the officer said there is a material planning change, with the first-floor windows being removed following concerns with them and the modest extension has been scaled back to single storey. He added that there are no objections to the application and as highlighted on the plan the garden and all the parking has been kept open, together with the existing dwelling and the annexe remaining open with no fencing separating them, making the point that the officer’s report confirms that there is no impact on neighbouring properties and the building can barely be seen from the street scene and 80% of it is there already.

Mr Hall explained that there is no overlooking from the proposal and there is no overshadowing from a single storey extension. He referred to the map displayed on the presentation screen, and he indicated the application site outlined in red which is one of the largest plots in Elwyndene Road, explaining that the white outlined area is the actual annexe and, in his opinion, the site is substantial and not overdeveloped.

Mr Hall indicated on the map to the east there is another white rectangle which is a single storey annexe and that property is currently listed for sale, marketed as an annexe and the plot is far smaller than the application site and on the same side of the road is a single storey annexe which is located two doors further up on a much smaller plot. He expressed the view that the committee have in the past been sympathetic in the past to annexe proposals and a larger annexe was approved at Honeysome Road in Chatteris which is far larger than the current application and in a rural location as well as a two bedroomed annexe at Lynwood Farm in March.

Mr Hall stated that the current application is within the built-up form of March for a modest one-bedroom annexe and if approved it will free up the space in the applicant’s existing five-bedroom house for his family to move into. He made the point that he has just received notification of a delegated approval in Norwood Road for a former double garage to be converted into a one and half storey annexe which is very similar to the application being determined.

Mr Hall stated that the proposal has always been submitted for an annexe, and a separate residential property has never been considered even though the site is large. He stated that the applicant would be happy to accept a condition if the proposal was approved to ensure the annexe is not sold off separately and is not subservient to the main residence.

Members asked the following questions:

·       Councillor Benney asked whether the annexe will be on the same supply as the house for its utility services or will it be a separate supply? Mr Hall explained that all the drainage would be connected to the existing drainage for the main house as well as the utilities. Mr Haydon explained that there is already a toilet in place and the sewerage and water as well as the electricity are all connected to the main house.

Members asked questions made comments and received responses as follows:

·       Councillor Benney expressed the view that families who choose to support other members of their family should be supported by the committee as looking after a family member is a very time-consuming activity but a very worthwhile thing to do to look after elderly or younger people. He expressed the opinion that he does not believe that there are enough families who support and look after each other and there is too much abandonment of older people. Councillor Benney made the point that when an application comes before the committee such as this, in his opinion, is why as councillors they should view the application with a human heart. He stated that the application is worthy of support, and the family have their own issues to deal with and manage and, in his view, as councillors they should be doing everything they can to support the proposal. Councillor Benney made the point that if it was looking to be sold to develop you would not put a bungalow on the site as something far larger could be built. He added that it has been confirmed that the utilities are going to be fed from the same supply as the house and it is only going to be an annexe, feeling that this is a very genuine and worthwhile case and he asked members of the committee to support him by approving the application. Councillor Benney made the point that it is a shame that the previous application had not been approved as it has probably caused the applicant some distress and he urged members to support the application.

·       Councillor Marks stated that he concurs with the views of Councillor Benney and he added that the family are looking to the future, with the annexe freeing up the larger house for the family to live in and he will fully support the proposal.

·       Councillor Gerstner stated that he will also support the proposal and added that this application is significantly different to the previous one which was refused as it is 50% smaller. He made the point that the applicant has gone away and has considered the required criteria for the application, and he will support it.

·       Councillor Imafidon stated that he undertook a visit to the site and from a street view perspective he could not see the site, and he had to go right to the front of the property to see where the application site was located. He stated that, from a human perspective, by allowing the application to proceed it is likely to take a large burden away from Social Services and whilst that might not be planning consideration from a human perspective, he will fully support the proposal.

·       Councillor Purser stated that he concurs with the views of Councillor Benney and added that it appears that the detail concerning the applicant’s family had not been included in the initial application. He stated that had it been included then, in his view, there would not have been an issue with the proposal, and he will fully support the application.

·       David Rowen stated it appears that a lot of the personal information which has been presented to the committee today is the first time that it has been raised as part of the application. He added that it is becoming a regular occurrence from several agents where the application is being presented at committee meetings rather than at the submission stage. David Rowen stated that if the committee decide to grant the application then a reference had been made earlier with regards to entering in a legal agreement to secure the accommodation as related to the dwelling. He added that if members make a proposal to grant the application then they do need to consider whether that needs to be included within the proposal.

·       Councillor Marks suggested that the issue of information being presented at committee rather than within the application at submission stage could be raised at the Fenland Developer Forum. David Rowen stated that it should be obvious to experienced agents that if an application is being refused because of a lack of connectivity to a main dwelling in terms of assessing an annexe accommodation then that should be one of the obvious aspects to potentially address with the subsequent application.

·       Matthew Leigh stated that, when information is presented to members, they take that information as being factually accurate. He added that part of the process for a planning application is that the information should be given to officers to process it and consider it in order that it can be included within the officer’s report to give members a fair and balanced understanding of the situation and that is not what is happening. Matthew Leigh made the point that this is becoming a regular monthly occurrence and is very frustrating for officers and it has already been raised with Agents and Developers at the forum, however, it is within the gift of members to say that they cannot give any weight to something being presented to them for the first time at committee.

·       Councillor Marks stated that he does take some comfort today with the information which has been presented to the committee as it has been provided by the Ward Councillor for the application site.

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that she is sure that the committee support the proposal, but she would like to see a condition put in place to ensure that full information is received prior to committee. Councillor Marks asked whether Councillor Mrs French means a condition for future applications? Councillor Mrs French stated that she would like something put in place to clarify the personal circumstances for applications going forward to give officers comfort when considering applications.

·       Councillor Benney stated that he takes on board the point made by officers but there is also the issue to be considered where applicants need to come and explain their difficult circumstances to the committee for an application which should have been looked at favourably, making the point that it is an annexe and not a separate dwelling.

·       Councillor Marks stated that agents should be providing the information to officers during the application process and not at committee which would mean that applicants do not have to address the committee.

·       David Rowen stated that such personal information could be included as part of a confidential submission with the application.

Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Imafidon and agreed that the application be GRANTED against the officer’s recommendation with delegated authority to officers to add appropriate conditions and a legal agreement to tie the annexe to the existing property. 

Members did not support the officer’s recommendation of refusal as they do not consider that the application is contrary to LP16 as they believe that the size and scale is for an annexe and will be used for its intended purpose and they believe it is a worthy application.

(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)

(Councillors Imafidon and Purser declared that the agent has undertaken work for them both personally, but they are not pre-determined and will consider the application with an open mind)

(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)

(All members present declared that Councillor John Clark is a fellow councillor, but they do not socialise with him and will consider the application with an open mind)