Agenda item

To determine the application.

The Committee had regards to its inspection of the site as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection Policy and Procedure (minute P19/04 refers) during its deliberations.

David Rowen presented the report and update to members.

Members received a presentation in objection to the application, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, by Colin Richards.

Colin Richards said he is speaking as a concerned resident who will be negatively affected by the proposed development. He highlighted that both March Town Council and this Committee had previously rejected an application for development on this site. He showed members photographs of his garden which regularly floods during rainfall and believes this is caused by a pond that was once on the proposed site. As a result of this, he does not believe that even installing soakaways on the proposed site will prevent this from happening in the future. He explained that the suggested site entrance will be narrow and hazardous to vehicles entering and exiting the site. He highlighted that Elliott Road already suffers from congestion due to parked vehicles and believes this will only worsen if approval is granted. Due to his property’s proximity to the site, his privacy will be lost and he will suffer from noise pollution as the suggested parking areas for the dwellings are adjacent to his garden. He said Elliott Road currently has several sites with planning permission granted however the infrastructure has not been updated to cope with the impact of these developments and their residents.

Members asked Colin Richards the following questions;

1.    Councillor Mrs Laws asked Colin Richards if the flooding in his garden had worsened over recent years. Colin Richards explained that he had lived in his property for thirty-seven years and the flooding had worsened during this time. He clarified that the photos he had shown members were of his garden after only a normal level of rainfall.

Members received a presentation in objection to the application, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, by Councillor Mrs Jan French.

Councillor Mrs French explained that she had been a Ward Councillor for over twenty years therefore was well aware of the flooding issues in Elliott Road. She clarified that the photos of Colin Richard’s garden were taken during a period of normal rainfall and not during the flooding the area suffered in 2014. She highlighted that March Town Council are against the application due to the flooding issues and said the Environment Agency have not managed to resolve the problem either. She views the proposed site as ‘backland’ development and said the Council had promised to stop this type of development as part of the National Planning Policy amendments in 2010/11. Councillor Mrs French reminded members of the previous planning application on the site and asked them to reject this application on the same basis.

Members had no questions for Councillor Mrs French.

Members received a presentation in support of the application, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, by Chris Walford (The Agent).

Chris Walford clarified that the previous outline planning application had been submitted by another agent and was refused on the grounds that not enough information was given to members. He has now submitted a detailed scheme that, in his opinion, proves the site can be successfully developed. He highlighted that the private amenity space has been increased and said his client acknowledges the drainage issues on site and is happy to accept to a drainage condition if planning permission is granted. Regarding the concerns of ‘backland’ development, he said the policies mentioned do not stop this but suggest sites are assessed on an individual basis. He highlighted that locally, there are many developments in similar cul-de-sac locations and asked members to support the application.  

Members had no questions for Chris Walford.

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

1.    Councillor Mrs Hay said she saw very little difference between the previously rejected application and the application being considered today. She confirmed the decision notice for the previous application had stated that; ‘the development proposed by virtue of its ‘backland’ location would be at odds with the prevailing pattern of development in its vicinity of the site and would therefore fail to make a positive contribution to the local distinctiveness and character to the area, contrary to Policy LP16 (d) of the FLP’ and ‘the development of this site for two dwellings would represent an over intensive form of development which has failed to demonstrate that the amenity of neighbouring residents would not be adversely impacted in terms of loss of privacy and outlook’. As the current application does not address these issues, she proposed members reject the application.

2.    Councillor Mrs Laws asked for further information on the pond mentioned by Colin Richards. David Rowen confirmed that he was unaware if a pond had been on the site historically and added that detailed drainage schemes would be submitted to try and alleviate the issue.

3.    Councillor Mrs Laws believes the site would have a detrimental visual impact and brings little merit to the area. She agreed that members should reject this application too.

4.    Councillor Murphy agreed and said it is ‘backland’ development with a very narrow site entrance,

5.    Councillor Sutton said whilst he had voted to approve the previous planning application on the site, the new application proposes a worse layout than before with much larger dwellings.

Proposed by Councillor Mrs Hay, seconded by Councillor Mrs Laws and decided that the application be REFUSED against officer’s recommendation.

The Chairman proposed that the reasons for refusal of this application, be approved by himself and the Vice-Chairman prior to the refusal notice being issued. Councillor Mrs Laws asked that the size of the proposed dwellings is included in the refusal notice. Members agreed. The reasons for refusal being:

1) The development proposed by virtue of its 'backland' location would be at odds with the prevailing pattern of development in the vicinity of the site and would therefore fail to make a positive contribution to the local distinctiveness and character of the area, contrary to Policy LP16 (d) of the Fenland Local Plan.

2) The development of the site for two dwellings would represent an over intensive form of development which has failed to demonstrate that the amenity of neighbouring residents would not be adversely impacted in terms of loss of privacy and outlook. This would be contrary to Policy LP16(e) of the Fenland Local Plan.

3) The proposed dwellings by virtue of their length, orientation and layout within the application site, would be at odds with the distinctive character of the development in the immediate vicinity of the application site, and would therefore be contrary to the requirements of policy LP16 (d) of the Fenland Local Plan (2014).