Agenda item

To determine the application.

Danielle Brooke presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from John Musson, an objector. Mr Musson stated that he is a resident of Hawthorne Gardens and is representing all of the residents to express their concerns about this proposal. He made the point that Hawthorne Gardens is an unadopted private road, maintenance of the road and the landscaped area is the responsibility of the Hawthorne Gardens Management Company Ltd, which is administered by the residents.

Mr Musson stated that access to the construction site as stated on the application is via Hawthorne Gardens, with the presumption by the applicant that the residents will accept this and they do not. He brings to the committee’s attention three discrepancies on the application, the document location plan and existing site plan drawing number 6574EX01 is, in his view, incorrect as it shows the existing boundary as extending into the rear garden of 120 Leverington Common but it does not, the existing boundary is in Hawthorne Gardens.

Mr Musson stated that the application form under foul sewers asks is the applicant proposing to connect to the existing drainage system and the answer given is unknown and queried whether this has been decided and will it connect to existing services of 120 Leverington Common or into the services of Hawthorne Gardens. He referred to the application form under trees and hedges, the applicant has indicated there are not any adjacent buildings, this is incorrect and Fenland Local Plan LP16 states under Paragraph 10.15 that the proposal would not adversely impact the street scene of Hawthorne Gardens or the landscape character of it but, in his opinion, it will.

Mr Musson expressed the view that the amenity area in Hawthorne Gardens is a landscaped border adjacent to the north boundary of 120 Leverington Common that was included in the Hawthorne Gardens planning approval in 2018 and has been looked after for the past 4 years by the residents and is maturing into an aesthetically pleasing year round shrub border that attracts birds, pollinators, provides flowers, berries and foliage cover, with this border and the 6ft close boarded fence behind it being paid for by residents in the original purchase price of their property and would have to be destroyed to gain access to this site. He stated that the Land Registry Title Deed states that the residents of Hawthorne Gardens shall not do anything that may damage the management company area or allow another person to do likewise.

Mr Musson expressed the opinion that Hawthorne Gardens was not constructed to take heavy commercial vehicles as confirmed by the site developer and residents were advised to allow such large vehicles to use the road would cause damage, not only to the road surface, but also to drains, particularly the surface water drain running the length of the access road from Leverington Common and residents are concerned about who would pay for such damage. He feels that precedent for rear garden development along Leverington Common has been approved in the past, with the entrance to the site directly off Leverington Common and the frontage and east side of 120 Leverington Common has sufficient area to allow the same.

Mr Musson stated that the residents of Hawthorne Gardens request the committee to take into account the adverse impact this development will have on Hawthorne Gardens street scene by ruination of the landscaped area and the significant damage that the road will suffer.

Members asked questions of Mr Musson as follows:

·       Councillor Marks asked if he had been approached by the builder/contractor/owner? Mr Musson responded no, he did write a letter of concerns to the applicant at 120 Leverington Common advising him that it was may be advisable to speak to the residents of Hawthorne Gardens but received no reply.

·       Councillor Benney asked if he had written to Planning highlighting the issues raised? Mr Musson responded that he spoke to the Planning Officer raising the concerns that he has just discussed and his reply was that he would look at this application purely from a planning perspective and he has no interest in access and if planning is approved, how the applicant then goes about building that property is down to the applicant, and the Planning Officer suggested that he addressed this issue with the architect/applicant. He advised members that he called into the office of the architect and put the same point to them and he received the same reply that as the architect they receive a request from a client, they do what they are asked to do, they present it to Planning, if it is approved they are finished.

·       Councillor Hicks referred to the boundary issues and asked what has Mr Musson got to substantiate that he is right and they are wrong? Mr Musson responded that they had the original plans to the site and it is shown on their title deeds. He expressed the view that the area outlined in red will be the new boundary which passes along Hawthorne Gardens into the rear garden of 120 Leverington Common and out back again into Hawthorne Gardens, which will be the new boundary if this application is approved as the boundary is clearly shown as running adjacent the northern boundary of 120 Leverington Common which is Hawthorne Gardens.

·       Councillor Marks referred to the limited liability company and asked was this set up by the residents after they moved in or was it part and parcel of the purchase of the property? Mr Musson responded that it was part and parcel of the purchase and when the last property was sold and occupied the developer passed the management of the site to the management company.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Mr Humphrey, the agent. Mr Humphrey stated that he was instructed by Mr Gibson to obtain planning permission on his back garden and it is fully appreciated that the access and the legalities have not been resolved but the applicant does not want to go out and negotiate an alternative access until he knows he has permission to build so by submitting this application that complies with the Planners it is known that there is a site where development can be built albeit that the access may have to be changed and his client would have to come back with an amended access if he is unable to get an agreement with the residents of Hawthorne Gardens. He made the point that they are looking to get an agreement in principle on the plot even if they have to come back with an alternative access.

Members asked questions of Mr Humphrey as follows:

·       Councillor Mrs French asked where the alternative access is? Mr Humphrey responded that it could go through the garden of 120 Leverington Common, which would involve knocking his garage down and running alongside his existing property. He stated that if the applicant gets the approval he has got to meet with the residents to see what their demands are, the costs and whether he needs to submit an alternative application. Councillor Connor made the point that this is a civil issue and not a planning one.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·       Councillor Benney stated that he has heard what the resident has said but asked for clarification that members are here to determine land usage and is the proposal policy compliant and if this is passed today and residents do not agree to the access it will not be built unless an alternative access is provided. He feels by granting this today there is no assurance that it will be built because of the access and issues such as damage are civil issues and nothing to do with planning so all that is being looked at is this land suitable. Nick Harding confirmed this was correct.

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

·       Councillor Benney made the point that this is before committee with a recommendation of approval and whilst he recognises the concerns of residents they hold the key to the application and if they cannot agree the access in its present form that is not for the committee to discuss as it is only land usage that is being looked at and is it policy compliant.

·       Councillor Gerstner agrees with this as the issues are mostly civil issues and not related to planning, although there is the prospect of a small site being over-developed in a back garden but does not feel this is relevant today.

·       Councillor Benney stated that he visited the site and was impressed with the nice development that is there but he does understand the worries of the residents regarding change but the development comes down to land use and it is policy compliant.

Proposed by Councillor Mrs French, seconded by Councillor Benney and agreed that the application be APPROVED as per the officer’s recommendation.