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 Matthew Hall, the agent. Mr Hall explained that the applicant moved into the property in 2020 with her parents who have lived in the property since 2011 and the applicant has now purchased the property from her parents and resides with them to provide support. He stated that there have been changes made since the previous application was refused by reducing the first-floor element and, in his opinion, he considers that to be a material planning change.

Mr Hall referred to the presentation screen and the proposed elevations and explained that the proposed left hand corner elevation has no first-floor windows, with the two windows downstairs already being there and there are no windows on that side meaning that there is no overlooking. He stated that the proposal is 12.5 metres away from the two-storey element of the neighbouring property and the proposed extension will be the same height as the existing building and will have the same ridge line and materials.

Mr Hall referred to the presentation screen and a photo of the property and indicated that the proposal is to build over the existing garage and there have been no statutory consultee objections to the proposal. He stated that in the officer’s report at 10.8 it states that the front extension from the street scene is of an appropriate size and scale to the host dwelling and it also states that the extension would not have an adverse impact on the character of the area.

Members asked the following questions:

·       Councillor Imafidon stated that within the officers report it appears to refer to 2 The Hollies a great deal and he asked whether any objection had been received to the proposal that he is aware of? Mr Hall stated that the residents of that property did object to the application, however, the applicant has advised him that her father had discussed the proposal with the residents prior to the submission of the application and they stated that they did not object. He explained that the residents have objected during the application process, and it is only that property who have raised an objection.

·       Councillor Marks referred to the presentation screen and questioned whether the elevation depicts extractor fans? Mr Hall stated that he believes that they are air conditioning units.

·       Councillor Marks referred to the photos taken by officers from the applicant’s garden. Mr Hall stated that he agrees that the neighbouring property does look to be in proximity.

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

·       Councillor Benney stated that he does not see any issues or concerns with the application and whilst the brickwork will be coming forward slightly further, on the plan as the sun sets in the west it would be at the end of the day if it were to cast any shadow. He added that there is already brickwork there with the garden and everything you build can be detrimental to somebody whilst having a positive effect for somebody else.

·       Councillor Mrs French started that there is only one reason for refusal, and it comes down to interpretation.

·       Councillor Imafidon expressed the view the proposal is in keeping with the street scene and other properties in the area. He added that it is an extension over the garage, and it is the same height as the existing building and will not increase the footprint of the original property.

·       Councillor Gerstner stated that he does not see any issue with the proposal but has slight reservations with regards to the air conditioning units due to the noise impact.

·       Councillor Marks stated that they will be located on the other side of the building so will not have an impact.

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

Members did not support the officer’s recommendation of refusal as they feel that the proposal will have very little impact to the neighbouring building, will be in keeping with what is already there and is not contrary to LP16 of the Local Plan.

(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 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 Mrs French declared, in accordance with 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)

(Councillor Purser declared that due to personal reasons he would take no part in this item in its entirety and took no part in the discussion and voting thereon)