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 Shanna Jackson, the agent. Mrs Jackson expressed the view that Guyhirn over the years has evolved to become what can be considered as a commuter settlement, particularly along Gull Road where there are very big £500,000 houses which are occupied by London commuters. She feels this has sadly resulted in local people being brought out of the village with limited opportunities for lower cost family homes and this scheme presents an excellent opportunity to provide lower cost family homes within the heart of the village which can be delivered straight away.

Mrs Jackson made the point that the scheme has been recommended for refusal for various reasons, which include the principle, form and character, residential amenity, highway and flood risk issues. She stated that with regards to the principle, form and character, paragraphs 10.3 and 10.8 of the committee report state that the four plots to the front are acceptable in principle and officers also acknowledge that there is development in-depth elsewhere within the village, the issue, therefore, lies with the three in-depth dwellings but, in her view, there are many examples of development in-depth within the area, such as Nene Close, Glebe Gardens, Spencer Drove and Hillcrest Drive, with the proposal extending no further into the countryside than these developments and will extend no further than the curtilage of other dwellings within the vicinity of the site and despite the development not strictly being infill development there would be no character harm only benefits to be gained by providing lower cost housing within a sustainable location.

Mrs Jackson referred to residential amenity comments which are noted, however, the views from the rear bedroom windows towards garden areas would be obscured by the single-storey rear projections on the dwellings, which, in her view, is no different to any other estate situation anywhere else within the District. She expressed the opinion that the scheme is not cluttered, there are patios around the dwellings which may give a deceptively cluttered impression of more buildings but is actually quite spacious and there is opportunity to provide landscaping to soften the appearance of the buildings and parking areas and they would be happy to accept a condition to this effect.

Mrs Jackson referred to an objection on parking due to the garage spaces falling slightly smaller than the prescribed standard, however, in her view, the Local Plan also states that lesser parking provision may be accepted in central locations with good transport links. She stated that, given this site is within the built up settlement of Guyhirn, it is in a sustainable location where future residents can walk or cycle to amenities as well as catch public transport to go further afield, therefore, in her opinion, this could be an instance where lesser parking provision is acceptable but there are also no objections from the Highway Authority and they have no concerns about the potential for parking on the public highway as a result of the perceived shortfall of parking spaces.

Mrs Jackson stated that they have submitted a sequential test which demonstrates that there are no alternative sites available in Guyhirn which could have accommodated the proposal, however, these results have been dismissed because of the in-depth nature of the development, which, in her view, is unfair. She expressed the opinion that the submitted documents prove that the sequential test is passed and, therefore, the exceptions test applies, with regard to the exceptions test she feels the proposal meets both of the criteria because the Flood Risk Assessment demonstrates that the scheme is technically acceptable and the development comprises the delivery of housing within a sustainable location which can be provided in the very short term, which is a distinct community benefit.

Mrs Jackson hoped members could see the benefits of the scheme and are able to grant planning permission.

Members asked questions of Mrs Jackson as follows:

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough asked if she heard rightly that there would be on-street parking? Mrs Jackson responded that the development would generate the need for 14 parking spaces, four of those are proposed garages but because the garages fall slightly lower than the standards in the Local Plan they cannot be counted so it could be perceived that the shortfall would go on the street but Highways have not commented on this and have no concerns so, in her view, there is no fear of on-street parking. Councillor Sennitt Clough referred to the huge number of HGVs that pass down that road to the anaerobic digester plant, she has lived on that road and knows it and she does not think on-street parking would be ideal.

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough referred to mention that residents could walk or cycle to amenities and asked what amenities could they walk or cycle to? Mrs Jackson responded that there are the playing fields, the local school, a pub with a restaurant and bus stops. Councillor Sennitt Clough stated that when amenities was mentioned she was thinking shops and larger amenities.

·         Councillor Imafidon stated that he knows the road well and the property does need to be taken down it is an eyesore and there is a telescopic frog lift in the rear garden. He asked if the developer would consider reducing the number of units and what is the response to the fact that under LP3 it does not constitute an infill? Mrs Jackson responded that policy LP3 is a settlement hierarchy, it directs development and categorises Guyhirn as a small village where infill only is appropriate, with the spirit of the policy being to ensure there is no encroachment into the open countryside so it is pushing new development into sustainable areas and, in her view, whilst the houses to the rear would not necessarily meet the definition of infill they are still complying with the spirit of the policy as they are not encroaching any further into the countryside than other development in the area plus they are still all within the curtilage of the existing dwelling. She added that if members felt that 7 dwellings were too much they could have a look at it but she is conscious this would be a different application.

·         Councillor Murphy referred to 5.8 of the officer’s report regarding refuse vehicles and made the point that 7 properties is 14 x 240 litre bins and also food waste when it comes into being in a year that is another 7 more food caddies and a 26 tonne lorry takes a lot of turning, it would have to turn round in a development such as it, it cannot reverse out and needs a lot of space. He asked if this had been taken into consideration? Mrs Jackson responded that there is tracking on the drawings which shows turning for vehicles and she understands what is being said about the size of the refuse vehicle but would be happy to accept a condition for a Refuse Strategy whether it be a private collection or arrangement. Councillor Murphy stated that it needs to come back to the Council to see whether it can be undertaken as he does not think it is realised how much room is needed.

·         Councillor Marks expressed concern about the size of the plot compared to what is being proposed to be placed on it and that the garage sizes are being reduced which results in a property where you are unable to get car doors open. He stated that if people are unable to park in the garage they are going to park roadside and then there would be a highway issue and asked how much the garages are going to be reduced by? Mrs Jackson responded that the Local Plan requires garage spaces to be 3 x 7 to be counted as a space and the drawings show the garage spaces to be 5.9 x 2.8 so it is 1.2 metres shorter and 20cm narrower than required by the Local Plan. She expressed the opinion that the only issue she can see with the garage spaces is where there are four-bedrooms proposed because a four-bedroom property would generate the need for an extra parking space so those units, she believes, would still have two parking spaces and it is the third space that is the issue which is the one that is the garage. Mrs Jackson expressed the view that a family home with children, is it likely that the children would have a car maybe or maybe not, but there are still two parking spaces for a couple as normal and it is whether that third space is essential. Councillor Marks stated that he still maintains that they are trying to get too much onto a plot that it almost becomes greed in what is trying to be achieved.

·         Councillor Marks referred to the mention that there are lots of £500,000 homes in the village which locals cannot buy and asked is the developer going to apply a convenant that these are only for local families? Mrs Jackson responded that this is not the intention but, in her view, the nature of the buildings which are smaller family homes would dictate that families could only afford those types of dwelling.

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

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough made the point that the information on bins raises a point that she probably would not have considered. She feels the number of houses on this site is too many, she does not have any issues with site itself but the number is 1-2 too many.

·         Councillor Imafidon agreed with the comments of Councillor Sennitt Clough which is why he raised the question about a reduction in numbers. He expressed the view that it is a prominent site, there are no highway issues with it being a straight road not far from The Oliver Twist pub and far from the bend leading to the A47 and he feels something should be undertaken on the site, the house on it now does not look very good and the site looks untidy and needs developing but 7 is too many.

·         Councillor Clark agreed with everything that has been said and there should be smaller number of dwellings.

·         Councillor Marks agreed and feels that officers have got the recommendation correct as there is too much being pushed in to a small space.

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