Agenda item

To determine the application.

Gavin Taylor presented the report to members and drew attention to the update that had been circulated.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Shanna Jackson, the agent. Mrs Jackson stated that the proposal is for 2 two-storey dwellings and at 10.3 of the officer’s report it states that the principle of development is acceptable, and the concerns lie with the scale of the proposal and the impact on the neighbouring dwellings. She added that the applicant are long standing residents of the local area and Swann Edwards were appointed to design forever homes for them and their son and family.

Mrs Jackson made the point that the designs are bespoke to the needs of the applicants and their son and the dwellings will meet the everchanging needs of the users which is something that is supported by the National Design Guide. She stated that from previous applications she understands that there were concerns with the design and general form of the dwellings and, therefore, steps have been taken to revise them as much as possible whilst still meeting the design and accommodation criteria for the family and whilst the dwellings may appear to be longer than other properties in the area, in her opinion, that is not harmful, and they extend no further into the countryside than the existing development to the west or that approved to the east, and they will not be visible from a public viewpoint.

Mrs Jackson stated that the roofscape of the dwellings has been broken up and there is variation in the width of the buildings which results in giving the dwellings character and they do not appear bulky. She advised the committee that the scheme provides over and above the necessary garden land and provides sufficient parking and it will also secure the long-term care and maintenance of the existing lake to the rear as it will form part of the extended garden area for the dwellings.

Mrs Jackson explained that the scheme provides over and above the amenities required within the Local Plan, there are sufficient gaps between the buildings as well as maintaining an internal roadway to the site and, in her opinion, the scheme does not represent over development and as the scheme proposes two dwellings it promotes a better and more efficient use of land which is promoted in Section 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework. She stated that she understands that there are concerns with regards to the application representing an overbearing impact and resulting in loss of light to the neighbouring properties to the west, however, there is an existing hedge on the boundary which is approximately 7.6 metres high which is significantly higher than the eaves height of plot one which is 5.4 metres.

Mrs Jackson added that since the eaves height of the proposal will be lower than the existing hedge and the side elevation of plot 1 would be no closer to the common boundary of the existing hedge there will be no additional impact on neighbours in her view. She made the point that she would also like to make the point that there have been no objections from any of the neighbouring properties or any technical consultees and she would consider that the scheme is an appropriate form of development which provides high quality homes in a sustainable location and makes efficient use of land.

Mrs Jackson stated that the application is compliant with policies LP3, LP12 and LP16 of the local plan, the National Design Guide and Section 11 of the NPPF and she asked the committee to support the application.

Members asked Mrs Jackson the following questions:

·         Councillor Gerstner stated that there was a 2 storey four bedroomed dwelling approved in 2017 and he asked why that was built? Mrs Jackson stated that was for a single dwelling and the applicants have decided that they wish to build two dwellings on the site.

·         Councillor Gerstner asked whether the pond is owned by the applicant? Mrs Jackson confirmed that it is. Councillor Gerstner stated that in the officer’s report at 5.1 it states that there will be the removal of the public access to the pond, and he questioned how that access is going to be possible. Mrs Jackson stated that she does not know why it states that it is a public pond due to the fact that it is within the applicant’s ownership and to her knowledge it is not a public pond. She explained that if you review the site plan then there is an access roadway which leads all the way down to the pond and she added that everything is within the ownership of the applicant and, therefore, if it was a concern, a gate could be included. Mrs Jackson stated that the applicants wanted to keep the access there so that they could access the area for maintenance purposes.

·         Councillor Gerstner asked whether the public have access at the present time to the pond? Mrs Jackson stated that to her knowledge they do not as it is a private pond. Councillor Gerstner stated that the question needed to be asked as it is a concern as there is a difference between a public highway, a right of way and a public access onto private land as they are all different. He asked whether there is anybody fishing there at the current time? Mrs Jackson stated that there is nobody fishing there as it is private pond.

·         Councillor Marks referred to the presentation screen and asked for clarity with regards to the aerial photo. Mrs Jackson explained that the brown houses shown on the drawing she supplied to officers would be taken from ordnance survey data which is different to what has been carried out on site. Councillor Marks asked for the clarity that the intention is to remove the trees, fence and hedgerow on the top boundary? Mrs Jackson stated that will be the intention and only where it is affected by plot 1.

·         Councillor Imafidon stated that there appears to be a new dwelling which is not shown on the map. Mrs Jackson stated that ordnance survey has not been updated yet. The  committee reviewed the presentation slides and identified that photographs 6 and 7 demonstrate the hedge which is going to be removed is beside that and, therefore, there is going to be an element of overlooking.

·         Gavin Taylor drew members attention to the aerial photograph and referred the committee to the first dwelling that you come to after the frontage development with has three Dorma windows in the roof and that dwelling identifies with the photograph shown earlier and is the new dwelling not detailed on the site plan which was provided by the applicant. He stated that it was new dwelling which was considered under the previous planning application and the belt of trees that can be seen are proposed for removal and he added that according to the plan they are 25ft in height.

·         Councillor Marks stated that the trees that are to be removed are against the fence and he asked whether that means that the top of the proposed new build is without the band of trees? Gavin Taylor confirmed that it is the case.

·         Councillor Gerstner asked for clarity with regards to the applicant assuming residency in one of the dwellings? Mrs Jackson stated that plot 2 is going to be lived in by the applicants and plot one is going to be occupied by the applicants’ son and family. 

·         Councillor Gerstner asked whether there is the intention to replace any of the trees that are removed? Mrs Jackson stated that there are no plans within the submission but there is the scope to include that within a landscaping scheme.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Gerstner stated that he would like officers to clarify the issue concerning the access to the pond. Gavin Taylor stated that there is no public access to the pond as it is a private access point as it is a private fishing lake. He added that it appears that it is a misunderstanding by the Highway Authority.

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

·         Councillor Gerstner stated that he has reviewed the previous refusals and when considering the application which came before the committee last year, he can see that nothing has changed, and the committee need to be consistent.

·         Councillor Marks stated that he has concerns with regards to how close it is to the boundary, and it seems very narrow and pushed in and he would feel happier if the bottom property was further along. He added that the trees are being removed which currently provide shielding to the properties behind it and at the top and he questioned whether this is a quality build or is there just the ambition of trying to push something in.

·         Councillor Gerstner asked whether there have been any significant changes between the current proposal and the last application which was refused? Gavin Taylor stated that officers have concluded that the reasons for refusal have not been overcome with this latest planning application in terms of its relationship to existing properties and it inter relationship with one another and its general form and scale and massing. He added that there have been some amendments, but they are not significant enough to overcome officers concerns.

·         Councillor Hicks stated that he is not convinced that enough has changed and on balance he feels that he cannot support the proposal.

·         Councillor Connor stated that something could be put on that site, but he is not content with the removal of 25 trees as it would have an adverse impact on the other houses in the area. He added that on planning balance he will support the officer’s recommendation.

·         Councillor Gerstner stated that he has reviewed the officer’s executive summary, and it is contrary to the Whittlesey Neighbourhood Plan which has just been introduced. He added that he agrees with the view of the Chairman and agreed that something smaller scale would possibly be looked at more sympathetically.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that something could go there but the size of the proposed dwellings is not suited to the site. She expressed the view that having read about the trout in the pond she feels that the pond is a bit of a red herring and, therefore, it should be made clearer about whether it is a public pond and if it is then it should not be included within the application. Councillor Mrs French made the point that officers have made the correct recommendation and added that the applicant could consider something slightly smaller even if that is just one dwelling.

·         Councillor Imafidon stated that he also agrees that something should be on that site and agrees with the point that Councillor Marks made that when the conifers are removed the dwelling would be built right up against the fence and overlook the other property. He made the point that he does agree that something should be there, however, not the current proposal.

·         Gavin Taylor confirmed that the public right of way to the pond is not identified as such.

Proposed by Councillor Gerstner, seconded by Councillor Imafidon and agreed that the application be REFUSED as per the officer’s recommendation.

(Councillor Gerstner declared that he knows the applicant but has had no dealings him for over 5 years and he is not pre-determined and will consider the application with an open mind)

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