Agenda item

To determine the application

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation in support of the application, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure from Councillor Chris Boden.

Councillor Boden stated that he is one of the local members for Bassenhally Ward where this application is situated. He added that this is the third attempt to gain planning permission for a dwelling on this small plot and stated that the Council refused both previous applications and the  applicant appealed both times to the Planning Inspectorate in 2016 and in 2019. Councillor Boden made reference to the ruling from the Planning Inspector and quoted the findings from the decisions in 2016 and 2019 where both the appeals were refused.

Councillor Boden highlighted the main reasons for the refusal at appeal which included the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.  Councillor Boden stated that he believes the Planning Inspectors were right in 2016 and in 2019 and, for the very reasons given in the Officers’ Report today, and asked members to refuse this current application.

Members received a presentation in support of the application, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Mr Tim Slater the Agent.

Mr Slater stated that by resubmitting this proposal, the applicant and Peter Humphrey Associates have been mindful of the planning history on this site and the previous appeal decisions. He stated that this application is a direct and considered response to the recent appeal decision- addressing the inspectors’ objections to the previous scheme. The findings of the appeal were that the previous scheme which was a substantially larger chalet home would have adversely impacted on residential and visual amenity.

Mr Slater added that the scale of the dwelling has been significantly reduced to a modest 2 bed bungalow reducing the impact on the character of the area and the scale and form and appearance of the bungalow is similar to the bungalows opposite. He stated that the new proposal will not adversely impact on the amenities of adjoining properties and this is reflected in the officer’s report. There is only one objection from a neighbouring property indicating that the issues with the previous scheme have been resolved.

Mr Slater stated that officers are only concerned with a single aspect of the development:,  tandem development and its perceived impact on visual character. He stated that whist tandem development is often difficult to accommodate it is usually due to its adverse impact on amenity of the surrounding dwellings- be that overlooking, overshadowing or noise and disturbance  and in this instance this is frontage development and it is not the application property that would be non-frontage. He added that the officer report acknowledges that there are no amenity or technical constraints to the development and the refusal rests on a judgement as to whether the proposed bungalow causes significant harm to the character and appearance of the immediate locality as set out in the policy.

Mr Slater stated that he respectfully disagrees with the officer’s assessment and conclusion and added that this is a matter of judgement and members are requested to use their independent judgement. He added that whist it is accepted that the proposal would have an impact; this is in part beneficial- bringing this unused and untidy plot back into use, and secondly it is considered that the proposal will not cause significant harm; it is a modest small bungalow in keeping with surrounding properties .and will not cause significant harm to the character of the surrounding area.

Members asked Mr Slater the following questions:

·         Councillor Sutton expressed the view that there is considerable history relating to this plot. He asked for clarification with regard to the site plan as to why the bungalow had been switched around 180 degrees and had that been discussed with the case officer or for other reasons? He also asked about the location of the dwelling that had been there previously which had been demolished? Mr Slater stated that the revisions to the current application had been in discussions with the case officer at the time. Mr Slater added that the dwelling that had been on the site previously which had been demolished was in his recollection somewhere which is central on the site.

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

·         Councillor Sutton asked officers for clarification with regard to the location of the dwelling that had been demolished and also over amendments to the application. Nick Harding stated that by looking at Google Earth images and Google Street View the new build properties sit parallel to a longstanding bungalow next door and by looking at street view the bungalow that was demolished to make room for the 2 new dwellings was cited in the same position as the new houses.

·         David Rowen stated that it is also his understanding of the site. He added that the intention of tweaking the scheme was to make it more suitable and to try to overcome reasons for highways refusal and also to overcome reasons for amenity reasons for refusal.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that in the officer’s report, there is a great deal of emphasis made on tandem development. He added that he is looking on Google Earth and next door to the proposal; there is already tandem development in situ.

·         Councillor Hay stated that she understands Councillor Suttons point with regard to the property next door. She added that in her opinion, this application is the reverse of tandem development and tandem development  is something that is discouraged and in her opinion, this is a badly thought out plan.

·         Councillor Benney stated that in his opinion, officers have made the correct recommendation. He added that looking at the planning inspectors view on this site and the impact it will have on the neighbourhood he cannot support the application and he will refuse it.

·         Councillor Hay stated that there must be consideration given to the rest of the residents of the area.

Proposed by Councillor Hay, seconded by Councillor Benney and decided that the application be REFUSED, as per Officer’s recommendation.

(Councillor Mrs Mayor declared that she is a member of Whittlesey Town Council and has previously raised an objection to this item and therefore will take no part in determination of this application and left the meeting at this point.)