Agenda item

To determine the application.

Nikki Carter 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 made comments, asked questions and received responses as follows:

·       Councillor Cornwell expressed the view that officers have carefully considered this, they have taken into account strict planning rules just as would occur with any private applicant and have reached a recommendation, which he believes is the right one.

·       Councillor Sutton agreed with the comments of Councillor Cornwell. He feels that there are some sites that are just not developable because if you go single-storey at this location it would be out of keeping with the street scene, if it is two-storey then there is overlooking issues to the rear and he feels the best use for this is the same usage as it has had in the past and that is for a car park.

·       Councillor Skoulding stated that on looking at the site he thought it was a little bit tight but went again the next day looking at No.58 and that plot is smaller and so is every plot along that road and, in his view, it is a lot larger plot than the houses in the surrounding area so is of the view that something could be built on here.

·       Councillor Cornwell stated that the point is that it is a single-storey and everything around it is not single-storey so he does not feel it is all about the plot size, it is the proposal’s relationship to the surrounding area, which is important to consider as well as the committee would do for any other application.

·       Councillor Skoulding stated that his comments are not in relation to it being a Fenland District Council application but on its own merits he feels the car park where it stands is a big space and something can be built here.

·       Councillor Sutton agreed with Councillor Skoulding that the site is big enough for development but the question is the street scene and a bungalow does not fit in and with a two-storey there are other issues so it is one of those plots that is almost impossible to develop and it should not be any different due to its being a Fenland District Council application.

·       Councillor Marks expressed confusion about street scene as 80A is a bungalow that was built in the back recently and he has sat in the dentist chair looking out across and he cannot see that it would be detrimental to the street scene.

·       Councillor Sutton reiterated that it is clearly a single-storey between a built up two-storey aera so it is clearly out of keeping with the rest and to compare it with the one to the rear of 80, which is nowhere near it. He feels to suggest that a bungalow would be placed here and not affect the street scene is perverse and ridiculous.

·       Councillor Murphy stated that on site visit he did say there was plenty of room to put a dwelling on this site but after further reflection he feels it should be left as a car park as it is now, there were six cars parked there and putting in a bungalow will be out of kilter with everything else and the six cars will be parked on the road creating more chaos.

·       Nikki Carter stated that this would be seen in the context of the two-storey dwellings on Smiths Drive and the two-storey property of 84 Upwell Road and also the site opposite has got planning permission for a two-storey dwelling showing this area on the presentation screen.

·       Councillor Marks stated that this puts a different perspective on the application as if the site opposite is being developed which also contains a car park and members should have been informed of this.

·       Councillor Murphy stated that on site visits the other car park is not used as a car park, it is just a piece of land that is vacant so it would not remove any more car parking from the streets as it is a separate piece of land which is cordoned off that is going to be developed in its totality.

·       David Rowen stated that the application in front of members is not being recommended for refusal on the basis of a loss of car parking. He stated that in relation to the two-storey development on the site to the west of the application site that is a two-storey dwelling and, therefore, if anything reinforces the two-storey character of Smiths Drive in this location and would have the effect of obscuring the bungalow at 80A further from the street scene of Smiths Drive, which reinforces the reason for refusal in front of committee.

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

(Councillor Benney declared that he is a member of Cabinet and as this is a Fenland District Council application he would take no part in the discussion or voting thereon)

(Councillor Mrs French declared that whilst she is a Cabinet member of Fenland District Council she was not aware of the application and is not pre-determined and would approach the application with an open mind)

(Councillor Murphy declared that whilst he is a Cabinet member of Fenland District Council he is not pre-determined and would approach the application with an open mind)

(Councillors Connor, Mrs French, Purser and Skoulding registered, in accordance with the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that they are members of March Town Council but take no part in planning)