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 support of the application, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Ian Gowler, the Applicants Agent.

Mr Gowler explained that he wished to clarify a few points which were contained within the officer’s report. He stated that under the NPPF, for developments in flood zone 3, the exception test is not required because the current site is 100% paved or roofed so there is no impermeable area currently in situ and the new site proposal is only for a 40% impermeable area, which is a 60% reduction of permeable area which would be beneficial.

Mr Gowler added that the current site is unsightly and is a commercial unit on the entrance to Manea and, in his opinion a development of housing would be better suited for that site. He made the point that the proposed area is currently used by a garage and a photography studio, which is offered on a short term let, and although the buildings have been improved in some areas, other parts of the buildings are not in a state of good repair.

Mr Gowler referred to the car parking that has been provided it is 2.5 metres wide, which falls in line with highways requirements, and although the site plan may be slightly misleading as it shows an overhang to the roof, the site does comply with the requisite specification of 2.5 metre wide spaces for all properties. He stated that the garden areas are mentioned in the officer’s report as to being below the required one third of the property size and, in his view, this statement is incorrect as the areas per property are plot 1 - 42% private space, plot 2 - 43% private space and plot 3 is 34% of private space, which is all over the one third policy requirement.

Mr Gowler commented that the officer’s report mentions that the development is unbalanced and is of a cramped appearance and stated that the reason for the housing type proposed rather than a 1.5 storey property is because it links visually between the two properties that have recently been built in the vicinity of the proposal.

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

·         Councillor Hay stated that the proposal for three properties on the development is too many and is cramped and, with regard to the width of the parking spaces, she feels that they are inadequate and will lead to on street parking. For those reasons she cannot approve the application.

·         Councillor Connor expressed the view that in principle he does not disagree with the development even though it is in flood zone three, but he agrees with Councillor Hay’s comment that the proposal for three dwellings is too many for the site and he would encourage the applicant to submit another application for two dwellings, so that there is a better provision of amenity space and car parking.

·         Councillor Mrs Laws agreed with Councillor Connor and added that the design of the proposal is over intensive and expressed the view that to have your front door coming out into a parking area is not ideal. If there were two dwellings then it may be acceptable and this would alleviate any parking on the road.

·         Councillor Mrs Davis agreed with the comments raised by both Councillor Connor and Councillor Mrs Laws and added that with regard to the statement concerning the exception test not being required and, excepting that it is part of flood zone 3, if the proposal had been for two properties then, in her opinion, she feels it should be seriously considered, however, she cannot approve the application before the committee today.

·         Councillor Sutton expressed the view that he is concerned that members are indicating to the agent that the committee would support a proposal for two properties and asked officers whether the officer recommendation would have been different if that was what was being determined today. David Rowen stated that without seeing a detailed scheme it is difficult to comment as to whether two homes on the site would be acceptable. He added that if a future application for a small number of houses was submitted there would still be the concern surrounding the flood risk aspect and the concern over the principle of housing on the site.

·         Councillor Sutton added that it would be wrong of the committee to indicate that they would support two properties. The committee can advise officers that they are happy for two dwellings to be built on this brownfield site and the agent has already stated that permeability is going to be improved, which deals with the sequential test issue.

·         Nick Harding advised members that it is the application before them today which they are considering. The agent has heard the discussions by members and he can advise his client accordingly.

·         Councillor Hay stated that each planning application is considered on its own merits and the committee cannot dictate today that they would approve a two dwelling application. The committee are stating today to the applicant that they would be inclined to ‘consider’ an application for 2 dwellings, which does not mean it would be approved.

·         Councillor Mrs Laws added that it is the agent’s decision to decide whether they wish to submit another application; however, the decision is on the application before members today.

·         Councillor Mrs Bligh stated each application is looked at on its own merits and, in her opinion, the proposal before the committee today is over development.

Proposed by Councillor Hay, seconded by Councillor Mrs Davis and decided that the application be REFUSED, as per the officer’s recommendation.

(Councillors Benney, Hay, Murphy and Mrs Newell stated that they are members of Chatteris Town Council, but take no part in planning matters)