Agenda item

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members and drew attention to the update report that had been circulated.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Jack Hinson, on behalf of the applicant. Mr Hinson stated that he is at committee on behalf of his grandfather who is the applicant and resident at 66 Wimblington Road, it being a family project with them all living in the area. He feels there are two elements to the proposal, proximity and a low roof height, and made the point that the original application was at the height of the host property but comments were received regarding overbearing so naturally as an applicant they thought they would reduce this to alleviate concerns, however, this application has now had the feedback of being too reduced so there must be a balance to be had between the two proposals.

Mr Hinson expressed the view that they have tried to be proactive by providing the solution and the committee was given a last minute update yesterday but they did offer to adjust the roof height two months ago on the 15 June, which is not new information and they were surprised when it was never accepted. He stated that they believe this fundamentally addresses the refusal by giving a balanced roof height entirely consistent with the neighbour at No.68 and asked that this be given consideration as a balanced and positive outcome, with the refusal saying it is contrived and significantly lower but this roof height is level with No.68 so he feels this resolves these comments.

Mr Hinson expressed the opinion that in terms of proximity it is a subjective concept but there are ways to measurably show that a site is suitable for a dwelling, typically garden space and parking are unachievable when buildings are too close but both have been demonstrated in this instance and as can be seen by highway and planning officer comments there are large garden spaces provided, with it being an ideal opportunity to facilitate effective use of land. He expressed the view that there is mixed development along Wimblington Road, bungalows, chalets and two-storey properties in a varied pattern and it is not a new estate where you have got house types repeated and he believes the proposal positively reflects the character and street plan as per LP16d.

Mr Hinson stated to be proactive they have made many reductions since the original application to specifically promote separation and accommodate previous concerns, the dwelling is now single-storey with no chalet element, the roof height and building bulk have been reduced, the roof is hipped sympathetically away from neighbouring properties, the internal footprint has been reduced, separation between dwellings has been increased and there are also features such as flush eves and staggered elevations to enhance that feeling of separation. He showed on a slide on the presentation screen the reductions that had been made on this proposal as opposed to the original application.

Mr Hinson showed images of the proposed street scene including the proposal and that directly opposite the site, which has a similar pattern, and, in his view, it could be considered there are negative elements to those dwellings opposite in that there is a two-storey roof section, there is a side facing bay window on the ground floor directly adjacent to a neighbouring property, and their proposal has none of these negative elements, is a considerate solution to the site, a positive contribution to the street scene and a perfect opportunity to offer a new home which complements the area and is sustainable in a growth area of March. He hoped that members can see the merits of their revisions and reductions and a positive way forward can be achieved, with there being no resident or consultee objections and 8 supportive comments.

Members asked questions of Mr Hinson as follows:

·       Councillor Marks asked if the proposed property would be for the family’s use or would it be sold? Mr Hinson responded that they are not sure yet but his parents who also live in Wimblington Road have shown a desire to may be move into this property but there are lots of benefits to his family in doing this project. His grandfather is now 80 years old, this process has taken over 12 months and they have tried to be very proactive and it will help to keep his grandfather’s mind active and give him a project to undertake.

·       Councillor Marks asked if the properties either side were owned by them? Mr Hinson responded that his grandfather is the owner of No.66.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that she knows Wimblington Road exceptionally well, it is a tatty old garage at this time, it would improve the area, with Wimblington Road being a mixture of dwellings but asked if the area behind the property is part of the BCP and when were there green Great Crested Newts in this part of March? David Rowen responded that the land to the rear would be part of the BCP and it is an area that is identified as having potential for Great Crested Newts which is a traffic light system of green, amber or red and it is a green zone which indicates that there is lower potential than in a red zone.

·       Councillor Booth referred to the March Town Council comments and wondered whether clarification was sought on this as it says approval subject to concerns that the new design is detrimental to the street scene compared to the previous design, which indicates to him that it is worse than the previous design but they are still recommending approval. David Rowen responded that he would interpret those comments in the same way. Councillor Mrs French stated that it needs to be taken into consideration that the comments from March Town Council probably came in before new members received training.

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

·       Councillor Mrs French made the point that the only main reason that it is recommended for refusal is the design and the applicant is prepared to look at it and he should be given the opportunity to discuss with officers what will be a suitable design. She made the point that what is there at present is a horrible wooden garage, which does not enhance the street scene so she would want this proposal deferred for the applicant to come up with an acceptable design that will satisfy officers.

·       Councillor Booth expressed the view that the applicant is really trying but whatever he is putting forward is not meeting the officer’s approval and to him this type of issue is more of a subjective one and about whether the actual design that members have in front of them is adverse or not. He feels having seen the photos of what is there, what is opposite and the different nature of buildings in this part of town that this is not an adverse design, with the applicant attempting to reach a compromise and he would be happy to support the application.

·       Councillor Imafidon expressed the view that the original design submitted was more in keeping with other properties on the street than the new design. He feels it is not good if applicants are being told to alter their designs and then if a different officer or someone has a different point of view keep being told to amend the design so he is happy to support the application as it is.

·       Councillor Gerstner referred to the application being refused previously on the design but going back to that initial design would be going back to square one again and he feels the applicants have made significant changes and to go back to a chalet would be a retrospective move.

·       Councillor Imafidon made the point that the applicant has been told to change the design to suit what the officers want and it is still being refused, he is not a planning expert but he would have thought a two-storey design would have been safer in an area that is prone to flooding as people could go upstairs for safety. He is not saying go back to the original design but tell the applicants what is required and stick to it, do not let them change it and recommend it for refusal again.

·       Councillor Benney made the point that irrespective of what the previous design is, committee is not looking at that, it is looking at this proposal and applicants put their application in and committee looks at what is proposed, with members having to decide whether they like this application or not.

·       Councillor Booth referred to a slide referring to a new application but that is not the amended version that committee has got as the ridge line is in keeping with the neighbouring property. David Rowen stated that the lower image is the one in front of members and is for consideration today, a further iteration of the plan has been submitted, however, that has not been accepted as part of the application given the minor changes and it does not really address the fundamental concerns officers have. He feels sometimes there are sites that whatever you propose on them will not be acceptable, with the original application which officers had concerns about and committee agreed with in terms of the design, the constrained nature of the site and the fact that it would appear as a cramped development combined with the impact on the neighbouring properties and to the best of his knowledge there was no subsequent discussion with the applicant, they have sought to address those issues by coming in with the further iteration which he feels compounds the slightly contrived design to effectively squeeze something onto the site.

·       Councillor Marks asked to see the slides where the roof line was at the same level, which states amended proposal and asked is this not what is in front of members today? David Rowen responded that this slide is part of the applicant’s presentation.

·       Councillor Booth asked why this amended plan has not been accepted? David Rowen responded that it is not considered to address the fundamental issues that officers have with the application, which is that there are two properties either side of it which have a width of around about 10 metres between them and this is a far narrower property sandwiched in the middle, which is going to create a different aspect and appear out of character.

·       Councillor Booth stated that in the planning process if an applicant submits a revised application it has to be looked at and asked why this plan is not in front of members? David Rowen responded that if an application is submitted there is no requirement to accept amended plans. Councillor Booth asked if this is an officer decision? David Rowen responded in the affirmative.

·       Councillor Benney stated that this is not an amended plan this is a new application so what is in the previous application is totally irrelevant and agreed that some sites do not lend themselves to development.

·       Councillor Marks expressed the view that the confusion is having just seen the drawing shown by the applicant’s representative which he believes was submitted some time ago as looking at the current proposal the dwelling looks squat whereas looking at the amended plan it does look better. David Rowen stated that the explanation is provided in the update report and read out the wording to members.

·       Councillor Mrs French made the point that Wimblington Road is hotch potch of dwelling types and a mixture of detached, semi-detached and bungalows. She feels the applicant has tried to address issues, the proposal looks better than the tatty wooden garage currently on site and would enhance the street scene.

·       Councillor Booth expressed concern that the applicant is trying to address the issues, submitted a revised plan and it has not been accepted so what sort of message does this send out that the Council is willing to work with applicants to get designs that are appropriate. He feels it is probably an improvement from what is there and it is not going to be out of character, with it being a subjective assessment as opposed to policies as to what fits in from members viewpoint.

·       Councillor Imafidon queried that there are sites that whatever alterations are made are just not acceptable? David Rowen responded in the affirmative and unfortunately sometimes there are sites that are so narrow or how the houses either side are orientated that whatever is done solves one problem but creates another. Councillor Imafidon asked if this applies to this site and if it does why was this not communicated to the applicant? David Rowen stated that this is his view with this site and at no point to his knowledge has any amendments been sought to the application by the case officer and any amendments that have been submitted is because this is what the applicant has decided to build. Councillor Imafidon asked if the applicant knew this was officer’s view? David Rowen responded that he is not sure this is relevant but he is not aware there has been any discussion with the case officer to discuss what may or may not be acceptable on the site and there is an application in front of committee and it is a case of making a decision as to whether committee feels it is acceptable or not.

·       Councillor Benney stated that slides have been shown indicating what else is in Wimblington Road but when you see the three on this site it is very much narrower than the other sites where there are three properties in a row and what does it do to the house on the left it blocks the light out. He feels that whilst there is a rickety shed there it could be taken down and a garage put in its place which would enhance No.66 and the area. Councillor Benney questioned whether this proposal fits as there are all nice houses in this area and this proposal is being shoehorned into a very tight space and in terms of street scene what does this do to all the houses along here.

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

Members do not support officer’s recommendation of refusal of this proposal as they do not feel that it would be to the detriment of the character or the appearance of the area, it is a suitable development for this plot of land and it will not cause any residential loss of amenity to neighbouring properties.

(Councillor Benney abstained from voting on this application)

(Councillors Mrs French and Purser 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)