Agenda item

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Lee Bevens, the agent. Mr Bevens hoped members would have seen the PDF presentation that he had e-mailed to them and was being shown on the presentation screen. He stated that the application was submitted in January having spent over 4 months evaluating the site and working with consultants to overcome the numerous constraints with the trees, existing house and the access.

Mr Bevens advised that they have tried throughout the process to actively engage with officers, the first of which left a few months ago without any feedback. He stated that the PowerPoint presentation focuses on the access, which is one of the grounds for refusal, he has tried to engage with the Highway Engineer and Planning Officer on this, with their currently being 9 dwellings served by this driveway from Creek Road, which is not deemed a classified road, and the proposal would see a further 2 dwellings served given that Nene House would be demolished, which is an 18% increase in dwellings and not 33% as suggested on Page 10 of the officer’s report.

Mr Bevens made the point that there is an existing passing place down the driveway and they are proposing a turning head at the end of driveway to not only improve the situation for the proposed 3 dwellings but to make it easier for all existing dwellings with refuse collection, deliveries, emergency vehicles and visitors. He referred to planning approval granted by the Council in November 1999 which granted permission for a new dwelling to the south of 161 Creek Road and condition 7 stated that the access road must be maintained at 4.5 metres wide, this is not the case and subsequent approvals down this driveway have not made any mention of access width.

Mr Bevens expressed the view that there are numerous examples of developments in March where there are more than 5 dwellings served from a reduced access width and this scheme would see a very limited intensification of the access whilst offering mitigation with the turning head. He expressed the opinion that he has worked hard with the tree consultant to ensure all dwellings respect the root protection areas of the protected trees and have good levels of private amenity and he has tried on numerous occasions to engage with the officer but to no avail and he has only seen the issues raised when the officer’s report was published.

Mr Bevens expressed the view that Plot 1 does have suitable private amenity space and its garden is larger than the two adjacent dwellings recently built, having a rear garden area of 312 square metres, Plot 2 does have a good level of outlook with the nearest bedroom, bedroom 3, being a minimum of 4 metres away from the current tree canopy and the other two bedrooms facing the rear having an average 8 metres and as part of tree works the Lime tree canopies on that boundary will be raised by 4 metres from the existing ground level as 50% of the garden is outside the tree canopy it has a rear garden area of 406 square metres and Plot 3 has the fourth bedroom approximately 4 metres away from the TPO tree, the other bedroom has a clear view past the tree and has a rear garden area of 370 square metres, with a typical 4-bedroomed house having 120 square metres. He referred members to other schemes where trees are close to proposed housing, with there being one in Chatteris at Juniper Drive/Elder Place built by Cannon Kirk where two large 4/5-bedroomed houses are less than 2 metres from a TPO Oak tree and were approved by the Council.

Mr Bevens stated that materials for the driveway and surfacing would form part of a reserved matters application and can mitigate any noise concerns from cars, which is typical of numerous approved schemes in Fenland. He referred to Item 7 earlier today where members gave great weight to the Town/Parish Council support, which this scheme has and stated that the scheme has been carefully considered against the constraints and is an outline application with only the access and layout committed, the application, in his view, supports Policies LP1, LP15 and LP16 of the Local Plan and accords with the latest NPPF with the presumption in favour of sustainable development on brownfield land and he asked members to go against officer’s recommendation and approve the scheme.

Members asked questions of Mr Bevens as follows:

·       Councillor Mrs French queried the address being 105 Nene Parade as she feels it is the rear of 161 Creek Road and asked, as she know that the roads and banks collapsed at 99 and 109 Nene Parade, why it is 105? Mr Bevens responded that when the scheme was validated that was the address given to it.

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

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that she does know this site and it has had very large houses built surrounding it but until the presentation was sent she had forgotten about all these applications that had been approved, with many of them approved under delegated powers. She expressed the view that the distance from Creek Road to where the proposed site is not as long as some of the other sites already seen and with a passing place she feels once the old house is demolished there will be enough room.

Proposed by Councillor Mrs French, seconded by Councillor Benney and agreed that the application be GRANTED against officer’s recommendation, with authority delegated to officers to apply reasonable conditions.

Members did not support officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning permission as they feel highway safety would not be prejudiced as the access is sustainable and consists of a passing place, and adequate private amenity space can be provided taking into account both forward and rearward outlook.

(Councillor Mrs French declared, under Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that she is a member of March Town Council but takes no part in planning)

(Councillors Benney, Mrs French, Hicks and Marks declared, under Paragraph 2 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that they had been lobbied on this application)