Agenda item

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

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

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Matthew Hall, on behalf of the agent Craig Brand. Mr Hall expressed the view that the only issue with this application highlighted in Paragraph 1.3 and 10.7 of the report is the proposed dwelling does not comply with Part D of Policy LP16, all other relevant sections of Policy LP16 are met. He stated that Part D relates to assessing the proposal’s impact on the character and appearance of the area’s street scene.

Mr Hall stated that Silver Street is a private residential cul-de-sac of mainly two-storey housing with no passing traffic, the existing late 1960s bungalow has a shallow pitched roof, which exaggerated the difference in height between the original submitted proposal and the bungalow and after being told that the proposal was cramped and incongruous the depth of the dwelling and roof pitch was reduced. He made the point that no objections were received to the original proposal from residents on Silver Street, Bronze Street, Norwood Road or March Town Council.

Mr Hall referred to photos on the presentation screen, with the first slide showing a view from Norwood Road down Silver Street with only the front of the host bungalow visible on the left and stepped back two metres behind the bungalow front wall only a small part of the new dwellings gable and roof will be seen above the existing hedge. He referred to the second slide which shows a similar development 200 metres from this application site in Norwood Road near the railway level crossing, this application was refused in June 2018 as not being compliant with Policy LP16 Parts D, E and H in the refusal notice and is in a highly visible location to traffic to and from Hostmoor Industrial Estate and the Recycling Centre, the Planning Inspectorate in June 2019 overturned the refusal as the Inspector considered the main issues were the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area and whether it would provide satisfactory living conditions in respect of outlook and private amenity, the Inspector found the dwelling design and layout with the private amenity space set adjacent to the public highway and to the side of the dwelling to be acceptable and not detrimental to the character and appearance of the area.

Mr Hall expressed the opinion that this application proposes a modest dwelling with a traditional site layout of private rear amenity space and front garden set 1.1 metres from the side boundary and 2.2 metres from the host bungalow and will not detrimentally harm the street’s character. He hoped that members would support the application so that the applicant’s son and partner can get on the property ladder.

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

·       Councillor Cornwell stated that the agent’s representation said there is no passing traffic, which he agrees there is not but the day it was visited the site inspection bus could not get anywhere near the site anyway because of people who are parked in Silver Street that go to the shop and this is a regular occurrence. He made the point that the road is unmade, dusty and awful and the site for the new build is more or less in the back garden of the shop with a very exciting outlook into the sheds. Councillor Cornwell expressed the view that Silver Street has a history of sporadic development of various shapes, sizes and conditions, it also has a history of flooding which he does not know has been rectified. He feels it not a fantastic site and it is going to be a small construction as the plot itself is small.

·       Councillor Sutton stated that it is unfortunate where the current dwelling is as the site does lend itself to further development but the current situation is the only way of developing that site would be, in his view, the demolition of the bungalow. He stated that in 2014 himself and Councillor Cornwell stood in the Fenland Hall and watched the rain and he knows that in Century Way, which is only across the road from this site, one of the factory units was 500 ml under water so there is and he believes remains a flooding issue in this area. Councillor Sutton expressed the view that the proposal is too cozy and the officers have got the recommendation correct.

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

(Councillors Connor, Mrs French, 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)