Agenda item

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.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Mrs Theobald in objection to the application

Mrs Theobald explained that she has resided at the property next door to the application site for the past 34 years and the proposal if approved will have a huge detrimental effect on her life and outlook.  She stated that, in her opinion, the proposal is gross overdevelopment, is far too close to her property extending to almost the complete length of the garden reducing the amount of sunlight, be overbearing, have an impact on privacy and will also be an issue with regard to noise disturbance.

Mrs Theobald added that any construction work, especially piling could damage her property and foundations.  She added that the frontage of Langley Lodge will be impaired following the demolition of the annexe and the proposed extension will not be in keeping with the existing house and neighbouring properties.

Mrs Theobald stated that parts of the lawn are due to be removed to provide parking spaces, which will mean that the area will become a car park resulting in a business property in a residential area which, in her view, will be totally out of character.  She added that cars are regularly parked on the highway in front of her property and with the increase of visitors to Langley Lodge it will increase the congestion on the road.

Mrs Theobald stated that when the change of use from private house to a rest home was originally granted conditions were added to ensure the interest of other users of land in the vicinity be safeguarded, to ensure that visually the development accords with the general character of the neighbouring area and to park clear of the public highway.  She expressed the view that all of the conditions are being ignored and that there are at least 12 other neighbours who are very worried having also voiced their objections against the proposed development, which will only provide an additional 6 bedrooms.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the Public Participation procedure, by Councillor Steve Tierney in objection to the application.

Councillor Tierney explained that the residents of Kingsley Avenue and Queens Road are not unreasonable people and do understand the need for a rest home for elderly people, however, the problem with the proposal is that it is overdevelopment and the walls will be far too close to the residents properties. He asked Members to consider the objection from Wisbech Town Council on the grounds of overdevelopment. 

Councillor Tierney referred to the Officer’s report, where it mentions that additional vehicles will be able to park in Somers Road Car Park, making the point that parking in this car park often proves to be very difficult and, therefore, there will be an increase in on street parking adding to the parking problems that already exist in Queens Road, which is already a dangerous road.  He stated that the Planning Committee had previous refused this application and the solutions that are contained in the proposal before Members today have not overcome the issues raised.

Councillor Tierney expressed the opinion that the site is a large plot and it would be easy to develop the plot in a different way, which would not be objected to by the residents.

Members asked Councillor Tierney the following questions:

·         Councillor Mrs Laws asked whether the developer engaged with the residents regarding the plans?  Councillor Tierney stated that not that he was aware of.

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

·         Councillor Mrs Hay commented that the report states that the existing building to be demolished is currently used as a living room and kitchen area on the ground floor and 2 bedrooms on the first floor and asked for clarification as to whether the replacement will have a first floor?  David Rowen confirmed that it will be a single storey extension. Councillor Mrs Hay commented that this will reduce the blockage of light as there will no longer be a first floor. David Rowen highlighted on the overhead presentation that the current height is greater than the proposed extension.

·         Councillor Mrs Laws asked for clarification on the distance between the boundaries?  The closest point of the building is approximately 2 metres from the boundary and the dimension of eaves is 2.6 metres and to the highest point is approximately 4.9 metres at its optimum height.

·         Councillor Connor expressed concern, in relation to the piling, about the proximity of neighbouring properties. David Rowen stated that at this stage of the process, the applicant maybe unsure as to whether piling would be needed and should planning permission be decided it would be the builder’s decision as to the most appropriate solution to comply with building regulations. How something is to be constructed is not a material planning consideration.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that whilst it is not a material planning consideration, there are methods of piling which would have no impact on the adjacent properties, adding that there is a need for this type of property and whilst he appreciates that comments of Mrs Theobald with regard to the loss of sunlight; he made the point that on the site visit the hedge between the two properties was actually higher than the proposed dwelling.

·         Councillor Mrs Bligh stated that she cannot see how visually the adjacent property will be affected. She notes the need for extra facilities for the aging population and will be supporting the application.

·         Councillor Benney asked what the distance is between the adjacent house to the boundary?  David Rowen stated that he did not have the exact measurement, however, would suggest it would be a similar distance to that of the extension to the boundary. Councillor Mrs Hay stated that it mentions in the report that the proposed extension will be 2.5 metres from the joint boundary and 5.65 metres from the side wall of 24 Queens Road.

·         Councillor Mrs Davis expressed concern in relation to the whole length of the adjoining property at number 24 being bordered by a building and although the hedge is there now it could be removed.  She added that whilst she appreciates the demand for accommodation for the elderly, she does not necessarily agree with confining another property and the road outside Langley Lodge will also have a solid line of cars due to parking issues.

·         Councillor Mrs Laws expressed the opinion that the distance between the garden of the existing building and the fact that the proposal will stretch along the complete length does not fit with the building and the design could be looked at, although Langley Lodge is a lovely building and additional accommodation is needed.

·         Councillor Mrs Hay expressed the view, with regard to parking, it will be an issue when visitors come to visit and it was to be noted that the entrance to Langley Lodge is only 130 metres from the first available parking space in Somers Road car park, which has 280 car parking spaces.

·         Councillor Murphy commented that the extension that goes down the side is not against the neighbouring property and he cannot see how it can be classed as a detriment to the garden space.

Proposed by Councillor Mrs Hay and seconded by Councillor Mrs Bligh, and with the use of the Chairman’s casting vote, that the application be APPROVED as per the officer’s recommendation.