Agenda item

To determine the application.

Nikki Carter presented the report to members and drew their attention to the update report that had been circulated.

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

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Shanna Jackson, the agent. Mrs Jackson stated that the scheme is for a single dwelling and submitted in outline with only matters of access committed, with the application site lying within the built-up area of March, a primary market town. She made the point that the Local Plan states that such locations are the focus for new development and she expressed the view that this is one of the most sustainable places in the whole of the District and there should be a presumption in favour of developing this site.

Mrs Jackson referred to the two recommended reasons for refusal, which include character and biodiversity issues and with regard to character she acknowledges that the immediate surrounding area includes semi-detached and terraced housing and this proposal is for a detached dwelling, however, in her view, just because it is detached does not mean that it is harmful and she feels it is more harmful to leave a vacant site unkempt within an existing residential area where there are strong sustainability arguments which support housing on this site. She expressed the opinion that there are examples of detached properties to the north and south of this site, which can be seen on the Fenland location plan as per page 183 of the agenda pack.

Mrs Jackson expressed the view that there is scope within the site to build a high-quality dwelling which provides sufficient garden land and parking in accordance with adopted standards and the proposal would enhance the site which currently has a negative appearance within the street scene. She referred to biodiversity and is aware that the ecology report provided as part of the application is a preliminary report only and that a full report is recommended, the preliminary report was intended to scope out the site’s potential and to ascertain whether it is physically capable of accommodating the proposed development and they have always been aware that a full report will be necessary before the development takes place but it would have been unreasonable to put the applicant to the great expense of commissioning a full report when they did not yet have the comfort that the Council would support the scheme in principle.

Mrs Jackson stated that the preliminary report does not preclude development on this site instead it recommends that further bat surveys are carried out and it is important to note that the Wildlife Officer has not categorially dismissed the principle of development for ecological reasons. She expressed the opinion that there are no features on the site which would accommodate bats, it is the trees on the neighbouring land that would have the potential to accommodate the bats.

Mrs Jackson stated that if members are minded to support the application they would happily instruct for the full report to be carried out and she feels it is only reasonable that they have the comfort that the application will be granted before commissioning a further report which will costs thousands of pounds. She is aware that officers have placed conditions to secure bat surveys on other applications and see no reason why this would be any different.

Mrs Jackson expressed the view that the benefit of this being an outline application means there is still the opportunity to include detailing within the scheme to accommodate bats if required by the ecological report. She feels there are strong reasons to support this application which include it providing housing within a wholly sustainable location which is supported by Policy LP3, the form and character issues are subjective given that there are other detached dwellings within the area and she would argue that there would be no harm caused to the character and visual amenities of the street scene and as such no conflict with Policy LP16.

Mrs Jackson stated that having been given the comfort that the application will be supported the additional information will gladly be supplied to build upon what has already been provided and to enable the biodiversity objection to be overcome. She hoped members would see the merits of this case and grant planning permission.

Members asked questions of Mrs Jackson as follows:

·       Councillor Sutton referred to Mrs Jackson mentioning on Page 183 there are clear examples of other dwellings like this but he is struggling to find anything remotely like this proposal, with very few detached and much bigger detached. Mrs Jackson responded that it is the principle of having something detached and in that area there are detached dwellings, it is not strictly semi-detached and terraced housing, but she does acknowledge that the other detached dwellings are not as small as this site.

Nick Harding highlighted that planning permission cannot be granted subject to a further ecological assessment being provided in relation to the bats because having granted planning permission and then something significant is found it cannot stymie the fact that planning permission has been given for the development. He stated that if as suggested by the Wildlife Officer a bat survey needs to be undertaken that informs whether or not to grant planning permission in the first place as if you leave it too late it does not matter what is found you cannot prevent the implementation of the development.

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

·       Councillor Skoulding expressed the opinion that officers have got the recommendation correct as he feels the site is too tight.

·       Councillor Purser agreed that the officers have got the recommendation correct, it is too tight but he is also concerned that West End itself and the narrow road going down to it at the back would be too tight for getting construction traffic in.

·       Councillor Sutton stated that postage stamp springs to mind and on the site visit members did have some discussion about the width of the site and even David Rowen was uncertain as to exactly where it was being sited but did scale it off at 6 metres. He stated that he returned to the site this morning with his tape measure and it is 6 metres and if the owners entered into a deal with the land next door and brought something back more in keeping with the area, like a semi-detached, he would not have any problem with it and feels that officers would not either. Councillor Sutton made the point that there are some places that it is just not right to develop and he feels this is one of them.

·       David Rowen stated that in terms of the site and the site visit in 20 years of Planning he has never come across a proposed building plot as narrow as this hence his uncertainty regarding the site layout.

·       Councillor Connor stated that he got the site wrong when he looked at it.

·       Councillor Sutton stated that this shows how important site visits are as had he not been there he may have come away with a different view of what this site was about.

Proposed by Councillor Skoulding, seconded by Councillor Mrs Mayor and agreed that the application be REFUSED as per the officer’s recommendation.

(Councillor Mrs French declared, in accordance with Paragraph 2 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that she had been lobbied on this application and would not take part in the discussion and voting thereon)

(Councillor Connor, Purser and Skoulding 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 matters)