Agenda item

To determine the application.

Alison Hoffman presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Shanna Jackson, the Agent.

Mrs Jackson stated that the application seeks full planning permission for the construction of a 2-storey 3-bed dwelling, involving the demolition of the existing outbuilding, at land north of 39 MarchRoad, RingsEnd. She added that members will be familiar with this site as an application for a new dwelling on the land wasconsidered bythe PlanningCommittee lastSeptember and at that time it wasresolved to refusethe applicationas it was considered that the design of the development was not appropriate to the adjoining terraceor to the street scene with particular reference to the prominent location of the site and due to there being insufficient garden space.

Mrs Jackson made the point that the message taken from the Committeedebate was that members considered that the site was capable of accommodating a dwelling andadvised the agent toliaise directlywith officers tocome upwith asolution. She added that having taken note of the advice, she has worked very closely with officers prior to the submission to devise a scheme which is acceptable in visual design terms and added that this is acknowledged in thecommittee report.

Mrs Jackson stated that there are now concerns that the private amenity spaceserving both the existing dwelling at number 39 and the proposed dwelling falls below the standardset out in the Local Plan and the space is further compromised by the railway arches which will alsoovershadow the new dwelling. She expressed the view that the submitted drawings demonstrate that there is a reasonable and practical amount of privategarden space around each property to facilitate the outside domestic needs of a dwelling house and theprivate fencedoff garden areafor each plotfalls slightly belowthe onethird requirementas set  out in Policy LP16, however, if the front garden areas were to be taken into account, the garden area  for each plot would exceed the policy requirements.

Mrs Jackson expressed the view that, as with all planning proposals,  there is a balancing act to be had between the issues concerned and the benefits ofproviding a new dwelling which meets the design aspirations of the Council on an unsightly andvacant site, which, in her view, far outweighs the slight under provision of rear private garden space. She stated that the scheme is ofparticular benefitgiven that the siteis in aprominent location and the concern with the potential for overshadowing from the railway arches is disproportionate to the  asserted harm given that the arches are located due east of the proposal.

Mrs Jackson added that only themorning sun within the garden area will be affected and there is sufficient space around the dwellingthat it will not be over dominated by the arches and the new dwelling is located no closer  tothe arches thanthe existingdwelling tothe northof thearches at number 37CMarch Road. She added that theprinciple ofthe proposalis acceptableand thereare no objectionsto the schemefrom technical consultees including the Local Highway Authority, Highways England, the Environment Agency, andEnvironmental Health.

Mrs Jackson made the point that she has taken on board the advice given by the Planning Committee and hasworked closelywith officersto achievea schemewhich isthe best solutionfor thesite andis agreeable in design terms. She stated that the fenced off garden areas for both existing and proposed propertiesare slightly under the Local Plan requirements, however, the outdoor space afforded to each dwelling   does comply with policy.

Mrs Jackson expressed the opinion that the benefits gained in terms of developing theprominent butunsightly parcelof landfar outweigh the slightpolicy conflict and she asked members to appreciate the benefits of the scheme and grant planning permissionaccordingly.

Members asked Mrs Jackson the following questions:

·         Councillor Benney asked Mrs Jackson to clarify the point that she had made that if the size of the front garden is included, the proposal is policy compliant. Mrs Jackson confirmed that is correct. Councillor Benney asked officers if they can add anything further? David Rowen stated that the relevant policy of the Fenland Local Plan is LP16 Part H where it states to provide sufficient private amenity space, suitable to the type and amount of development proposed, for dwellings other than flats, as a guide, depending on the local character of the area, this means a minimum of a third of the plot curtilage should be set aside as private amenity space. David Rowen added that the issue is private amenity space, and if there is amenity space at the front that is not private it does not comply with the Policy LP16. Councillor Benney stated that it does comply with the policy if you include the front garden. Mrs Jackson stated that if the front garden was private it would meet the threshold and the although the policy states private amenity space it does state that it is a guide.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Mrs Bligh asked officers to confirm where the letters of objection were from? Alison Hoffman confirmed that letters of objection were received from residents in the immediate vicinity of the site.

·         Councillor Sutton expressed the opinion that the site is one which is undevelopable and there is an Inspectors decision which is material and needs to be taken into consideration. He referred members to the presentation scheme and added that, in his opinion, the proposal does not fit in with the three dwellings and, in his view, the only way to develop on the site is for a dwelling to be adjacent to the three and mimic the existing dwellings. He added that it is a box and could look so much better. Councillor Sutton agrees with the officers with regard to the amenity space, in his view it is not visually acceptable, and the design is way out of keeping with that row of dwellings.

·         Councillor Sutton asked officers to explain how they feel the proposal fits with the three existing dwellings? Alison Hoffman stated that the earlier scheme had all the design characteristics taken from the existing terrace and from that the evaluation took place in seeking to replicate those design features it created a pastiche that did not add to the character of the area. She added that the existing terrace was considered to be an attractive feature in the street scene and sometimes it is nicer to see a plainer element that does not compete and gives that existing feature the precedent. Alison Hoffman added that the key elements were discussed with architects for a simple design and, in her opinion, it is a site that can accommodate a plainer design and materials could enhance its plain design.

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

·         Councillor Mrs Bligh stated that she agrees with the comments made in the officer’s report by Elm Parish Council and she feels that the officer’s recommendation is correct.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated the Inspector did say that there is the possibility of having something built on the site. She added that the site is in a dreadful state and Highways England are currently investing £10.5 million pound at the Guyhirn roundabout including road improvements. Councillor Mrs French expressed the view that it would be nice to see the concrete garage replaced and, in her view, the proposal will enhance the area.

·         Councillor Benney stated that the Inspectors report has stated that there is the opportunity for something to be built on the site. He added the proposal is being recommended for refusal on Policy LP16 and stated that if the garden amenity space is included that reason for refusal is overcome. Councillor Benney stated that with regard to LP2, Facilitating the Health and Wellbeing of Fenland Residents, there maybe residents who would welcome the opportunity to live in a dwelling regardless of its design and location. He made the point with the Inspectors report stating that the location is suitable for infill development he will be happy to support the application.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that he is not aware of any policy that considers what something looks like. He added that, in his opinion, the design could look so much better and he will support the officer’s recommendation.

·         Councillor Murphy stated that, in his opinion, there could be a development on the site but this proposal is not the correct one for the site.

·         Councillor Mrs French asked whether the application could be deferred for a better design to be submitted by the Agent. David Rowen stated that it is a course of action open to members if they wish to defer it. He added that it has happened before in a couple of instances where the advice from officers is not to defer an application and to determine the application as it gives the applicant the opportunity to appeal the decision and also firms up the committees view point of what is and what is not acceptable.

·         Councillor Murphy stated that if the application is deferred, it would then become a new application and would have to be brought before the committee again.

·         David Rowen reiterated the point that the unkept state of the site is not a material planning consideration. He added that if weight is given to the condition of a site then it may encourage applicants to disincentivise their site to gain planning permission. David Rowen stated that with reference to the appeal decision and the comments made by the Inspector concerning the site being an infill site, it is his interpretation that those comments were made in terms of whether the site in terms of policy complies with LP3, where Rings End is a small village within a settlement hierarchy where only infill plots will be considered. He added that in his view the Inspector was saying that the broad principle of developing the site complies with LP3, rather than saying it is a building plot where something should be built.

Proposed by Councillor Sutton, seconded by Councillor Mrs Bligh to refuse the application as per the officer’s recommendation. This proposal was not supported on a vote by the majority of members.

Proposed by Councillor Mrs French, seconded by Councillor Topgood and decided that the application be APPROVED against the officer’s recommendation.

Members did not support the refusal of planning permission as they felt that the application meets the requirements of Policies LP2, LP3 and LP16 and will improve the appearance of the area.